BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes)

[bible_pay]

Ok new concept, brainstorming here.
Please don't take this as an attack on cancer mining or boinc.  I do love what we have achieved in BOINC, and in our stats, and I think we are doing a great thing.
This is just a potential concept.

This is born in the spirit of solving (mostly - in a way) every problem we have currently (centralized vendor payments, fiat liquidation, trusting 3rd party RAC stat emission in BOINC, etc).

Step 1 - Create an IPFS miner that provably mines blocks of hashes (called range requests) inside files that are shared among bbp (think leased documents, accounting entries, and Christian video uploads)
Step 2 - Remove PODC and replace the reward with Proof-of-orphan-mining rewards
Step 3 - Assign a miner an Orphan Power level based on :  "monthly_orphan_commitment" amount - based on their personal orphan sponsorships at home, and an IPFS quality level (based on their provable hashes hosts by public IP)

In this system, we receive monthly receipts by each miner in the form of governance proposals.  Sanctuaries must vote to approve or deny a miners monthly commitment amount.  The amount of orphans the miner sponsors personally at home then drives their corresponding "monthly_orphan_commitment" using in mining (if they are voted ON for that month).  The proposal only approves-denies the miner an "orphan power" level, it does not reimburse the miner with rewards.  We provide tools to make it less cumbersome to vote on these for sanctuaries as we would have 300 more extra proposals per month in a dedicated place .

We stop spending the charity budget from the governance budget - we decrease the governance budget by 10% and remove the centralized spending for charity - or lower it to 5% and keep it for smaller charitable governance proposals that are less centralized.  IE individuals who submit individual proposals, but not a Compassion or Cameroon or Bloom centralized proposal.

So for example lets run through a scenario:
Miner 1 sponsors 4 children at home.  Her orphan power level is "120" (this is 30$ per month * 4).  She runs the IPFS miner which hosts IPFS files and space.  Her IPFS power level is "100".
Her block reward is:  (let us pretend 90% of the weight is based on orphan power level, and 10% on IPFS):  Orphan Reward:  9000, IPFS reward: 1000.  Over 1 month she solves 4 blocks and receives: 40000 bbp~.

Miner 2 sponsors 0 children at home.  Her orphan power level is "0".  Her IPFS level is "100".
Her block reward is :  1000.  She solves 1 block per month solo.  


In this scenario, our block rewards are primarily given to miners who sponsor children.  We can make it easier to solve blocks for Sponsors, than for plain IPFS miners.  And I feel that it would be important to make it easier to solve blocks for IPs who run miners who sponsor children who have not solved blocks in the last 30 days.  (IE the square of distance rule - this is an integer from 0-100 on % of presence of miner public IPFS IP over last 30 days).


The very big pro in this scenario is the decentralization of our organization back to a DAO.  It solves a couple almost unsolvable problems for us:  It makes us entirely more resilient, in that we would have 200 individual sponsors per month, paying for the Orphan premiums up front (IE there is no fiat conversion risk for biblepay after this).  It removes the uncertainty present with our sponsorship buffer.  And it frankly makes us more respected by the entire cryptocommunity in that we dont trust a 3rd party credit system any longer for a RAC reward algorithm....    This solves the DAO problem - we truly become decentralized - each individual miner is part of biblepay and an equal opportunity orphan sponsor......

It also moves the letter writing back to the responsibility of the individual miner, and therefore they can do their own writing and printing and sending, and also grow a personal relationship with the child.

EDIT:
One very large caveaut to this is of course trusting the receipt- we would need to first come to an agreement with Compassion, that each receipt could be audited randomly so other miners could check on active miners "id" no and commitment amount, and be able to revoke "bad" miners who falsified receipts over to the sancs....

[bible_pay]

Hey all,

As you might know some recent groups have launched anti-BBP campaigns and additional talk threads with groups PMing back and forth causing some forum toxicity, therefore I’m trying to gain some additional info from our user base so I can see what the general perception is from the broad standpoint and ultimately make adjustments if those are desired by the consensus at large.

I’ve created a couple polls to help give me some insight on some current issues.

Could you please take the time to participate?

I really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Rob A.
Founder

Please see and please vote for these two topics:

https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=290.new#new

https://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=289.0[/size]

[/b][/color]

I read the poll, but I can't vote. The choices swing wildly between I trust Rob, and "someone is stealing", with nothing in between. I feel like I'm being led to agree with statements I wouldn't make. My answer to the poll would be, "unable to determine trust level due to lack of information and ability to currently verify much of anything." Asking someone to verify integrity is a difficult thing, at least with as little as I know.

I agree. The poll multiple choices are limited and somewhat leading.

My position is this: I trust Rob's intentions and integrity, but I don't trust his abrasive style of leadership and his ability to control the outcome of all proposals. From an investment standpoint these attributes severely limit the project's potential.

Thanks for the compliment Tom - It is well taken - I suggest maybe sticking up for the "good" in the forum, when you see for example profanity laced posts, to point those out and help police the problem.

Regarding your statement about control in proposals:  It is entirely inaccurate.  A good example of this is the current Hope for Widows proposal.  I have no control over making it win with Togo's and your masternodes voting it down.  And my payroll this month (which btw, is one half of one half btw:  Its two months of work with one month of proposal - capped at half the IT budget) and its being declined because of Togos votes against it.  

So, please keep that in mind and adjust your thought processes accordingally.

Rob, you know that I've spoken against profanity-laced posts and that I stick up "for the "good" in the forum. Why did you suggest that I do it, when you know that I already do?

Just for the record, I haven't seen your "Hope for Widow's" proposal and I haven't voted against it.

I don't know how many sanctuaries Togo has, maybe he'll join the conversation and tell us.

I have 5. How many do you have?

Thanks, I do remember you doing that. 

Well I dont think we should be asking each other how many sancs we have, and I think you should be respecting the security principles and anonymity of others more closely (in contrast to suggesting people hack to find who voted so closely in outcomes - things like that), but as I said I dont even enough to vote my payroll into positive light or Hope for Widows.

Its good to know you didnt vote against it, thank you.

[macko20]

1. POW - is good
2. POS - is good
3. PODC - is the best
4. POW, POS, PODC - is silly

What next?

Instability that destroys us here...

In simple words....

[sunk818]

Step 1 - Create an IPFS miner that provably mines blocks of hashes (called range requests) inside files that are shared among bbp (think leased documents, accounting entries, and Christian video uploads)
Step 2 - Remove PODC and replace the reward with Proof-of-orphan-mining rewards

Seems like an administrative burden to approve and validate receipts.

Would you contribute your programming skills to build APIs for charities that wanted to join this arrangement? Would those APIs be centralized, or decentralized as IPFS run apps (javascript apps for example)?

[sunk818]

1. POW - is good
2. POS - is good
3. PODC - is the best
4. POW, POS, PODC - is silly

What next?

Instability that destroys us here...

In simple words....

What part of BBP is PoS? The masternodes? The staking requirement for PoDC? You believe the current setup is silly?

[macko20]

1. POW - is good
2. POS - is good
3. PODC - is the best
4. POW, POS, PODC - is silly

What next?

Instability that destroys us here...

In simple words....

What part of BBP is PoS? The masternodes? The staking requirement for PoDC? You believe the current setup is silly?

This is irony, we need stability. We can`t make constants changes.

[dave_bbp]

1. POW - is good
2. POS - is good
3. PODC - is the best
4. POW, POS, PODC - is silly

What next?

Instability that destroys us here...

In simple words....

What part of BBP is PoS? The masternodes? The staking requirement for PoDC? You believe the current setup is silly?

This is irony, we need stability. We can`t make constants changes.

I know what you mean and I have to agree. I follow this coin for almost a year now and to be honest I am more and more confused of everything that's going on here.
We switched from standard "CPU mining" to a "mining for good cause" version, which was a BIG step forward and widely appreciated. But since then things got ever more crazy. There was some idea of a stock market calculation mining, then there was some idea of file hosting, now it's some idea of favouring charitable people. All of these I have no clue how they could ever work or how they even would be realized.
Furthermore it's really strenuous to change the complete system every couple of months. People being new to this coin will read through some documentation and just leave flabbergasted.

How are you ever planning to find investors if it is impossible to explain how this coin works or how this coin will work half a year from now?

To top things of, there seem to be endless arguments between e. g. the dev and the PR guy or the dev and core users etc.


I follow quite a lot of cryptos and I gotta say this is a VERY active coin and community, especially considering the current market cap we're at. But unfortunately there is still quite some difference between "active" and "productive" or "efficient".

[sunk818]

This is irony, we need stability. We can`t make constants changes.

I think stability is increased if we remove having to sell BBP every month for charity. Whatever people accumulate will be sold at their leisure. Isn't that better? Change can be hard, but if it is better for BBP long-term, then I support it. I reserve judgement until the specifics are all discussed.

[macko20]

This is irony, we need stability. We can`t make constants changes.

I think stability is increased if we remove having to sell BBP every month for charity. Whatever people accumulate will be sold at their leisure. Isn't that better? Change can be hard, but if it is better for BBP long-term, then I support it. I reserve judgement until the specifics are all discussed.

Yes it's true, for the price 1 million  bbp (10sato) = 100k bbp (100sato). Dumping destroyed us when we entered CoinExchange. It was necessary to wait, and help new peoples.

[bible_pay]

This is irony, we need stability. We can`t make constants changes.

I think stability is increased if we remove having to sell BBP every month for charity. Whatever people accumulate will be sold at their leisure. Isn't that better? Change can be hard, but if it is better for BBP long-term, then I support it. I reserve judgement until the specifics are all discussed.

 
It's hard to design a proof-of-orphan-sponsorship idea without having a 90+ day provable track record for each miner.

[thesnat21]

Interesting proposal (orphan mining)...

I would like to see more details on the economics side..  I know we're not to be driven by profit but there some that will be (and they do help keep us going).

This is a huge change directionally,   I'm curious how it would help the complexity side, and how many sanc owners would have to do extra work to make it flow.

Also, on the sanc side is their reward getting increased as well for the extra work they will have to do?    How do we prevent someone with a lot of sanc's from upvoting their own proposal and abusing the system?

Initial thoughts,  it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Hulk1997]

Am I the only one who thinks there is to many coins???

[sunk818]

Am I the only one who thinks there is to many coins???

You prefer decimals or whole numbers? Maybe you want Bitcoin instead then...?

[zthomasz]

I'm sick of spending a large amount of energy trying to carefully word a post in a hopeless attempt to pander you and sound nice, when you are not nice to others. So here are my raw thoughts, not adjusted to your yes-men taste.

Regarding your statement about control in proposals:  It is entirely inaccurate.  A good example of this is the current Hope for Widows proposal.  I have no control over making it win with Togo's and your masternodes voting it down.  And my payroll this month (which btw, is one half of one half btw:  Its two months of work with one month of proposal - capped at half the IT budget) and its being declined because of Togos votes against it.  

So, please keep that in mind and adjust your thought processes accordingally.

No, it's not being declined because of Togo's votes, it's being declined because you haven't voted with your masternodes. The proposal currently stands at only 2 yes votes.

Or maybe you have voted, but against your own proposal, to make you look like a victim. So in order to prove that you didn't vote against your proposal, you should list your masternode IDs and then vote with them to prove that they're yours. Of course, you won't do that. So how do you know that all those votes are Togo's? You don't, it's not provable. So you just made an allegation against him. You attacked Togo without proof and now I did that to you, so how does it feel?

Let's say you didn't really vote against your proposal and you have all of your masternode votes available. Then it's easy: if you just vote for the proposal with all of your masternodes, it will pass. But you will not do that because you want to hide the amount of masternodes you own. End of story.

Oh, and don't tell us your votes would not cover the 10% absolute yes votes needed, we've been watching past proposals and the sudden jumps in votes, before you realized you need to vote slowly. And don't tell us you didn't increase your masternode count during the low price period now, because you did. I know that you personally have played a big part in keeping the market afloat.

Also, what is really concerning and very centralized of you is that you have the power to simply delete/hide a proposal on a whim if you feel like it, to reset the votes and change the outcome. This is exactly what you did with the Widows proposal now and what you have been doing multiple times before. Proof:

---

1st widows proposal (the removed one):

Code:

gobject get 61a147f3b0eb0f5e349e8044878cdcb83ef3154084815cdca613394dc5acb129

payment_amount: 481540
CreationTime: 1539455510 (October 13, 2018 6:31:50 PM)

Code:

gobject getcurrentvotes 61a147f3b0eb0f5e349e8044878cdcb83ef3154084815cdca613394dc5acb129

68 positive votes, 72 negative votes, 7 abstains

---

2nd widows proposal:

Code:

gobject get 45ab07c518bf3b4e175e42ec3122b1a1089ce1b5681758ac4bae26fae82935da

payment_amount: 381540 (?)
CreationTime: 1540215079 (October 22, 2018 1:31:19 PM)

Code:

gobject getcurrentvotes 45ab07c518bf3b4e175e42ec3122b1a1089ce1b5681758ac4bae26fae82935da

5 negative votes, 4 abstains (0 votes a few hours ago)

---

This means that you removed the votes (reset the proposal) in a centralized manner. You hid the original proposal from your centralized website, in order to deceive and mislead people. But the hidden proposal is actually still visible from the wallet, maybe you forgot that. I'm sure the wallet will be "improved" to also hide the proposals you decide should be reset/removed.

Howdy InBlue, it's good to see you.


Rob, here's a quick recap of our conversation:

I said that you can control the outcome of all proposals, you said you can't.

To support your position you gave an example of the Hope for Widows proposal. You said Togo and I could defeat it with our combined number of MNode votes. However I can't verify your claim is true because I don't know how many MNs you or Togo own.

btw, how did you find out how many MNs that Togo and I own?

[bible_pay]

I'm sick of spending a large amount of energy trying to carefully word a post in a hopeless attempt to pander you and sound nice, when you are not nice to others. So here are my raw thoughts, not adjusted to your yes-men taste.


No, it's not being declined because of Togo's votes, it's being declined because you haven't voted with your masternodes. The proposal currently stands at only 2 yes votes.

---


---

payment_amount: 381540 (?)
CreationTime: 1540215079 (October 22, 2018 1:31:19 PM)

Code:

gobject getcurrentvotes 45ab07c518bf3b4e175e42ec3122b1a1089ce1b5681758ac4bae26fae82935da

5 negative votes, 4 abstains (0 votes a few hours ago)

---

This means that you removed the votes (reset the proposal) in a centralized manner. You hid the original proposal from your centralized website, in order to deceive and mislead people. But the hidden proposal is actually still visible from the wallet, maybe you forgot that. I'm sure the wallet will be "improved" to also hide the proposals you decide should be reset/removed.

No, I entered a second proposal because Togo voted down the first one and it was so far below zero it could not be voted by me.

Please don't make assumptions when you don't know what you are talking about - and when I say something on the forum its the truth, not a half truth.

Also, we are decentralized, and all the proposals are available to view in the core wallet.

There is no one who can delete a proposal in a centralized way.   The pool has an option to only display the newest instance of the proposal that has been re-entered.  Its being used right now by BLOOM and others.  Its hiding the first instance gobject, with negative votes < -10% net.  And thats because a new one has been entered to vote on.  Its a feature for the pool that has always been there.  We used it many times for compassion.


Inblue,  please do not post on this forum unless you are helping another person.  Your personal attack is unwarranted.

[bible_pay]

I'm sick of spending a large amount of energy trying to carefully word a post in a hopeless attempt to pander you and sound nice, when you are not nice to others. So here are my raw thoughts, not adjusted to your yes-men taste.

Regarding your statement about control in proposals:  It is entirely inaccurate.  A good example of this is the current Hope for Widows proposal.  I have no control over making it win with Togo's and your masternodes voting it down.  And my payroll this month (which btw, is one half of one half btw:  Its two months of work with one month of proposal - capped at half the IT budget) and its being declined because of Togos votes against it.  

So, please keep that in mind and adjust your thought processes accordingally.

No, it's not being declined because of Togo's votes, it's being declined because you haven't voted with your masternodes. The proposal currently stands at only 2 yes votes.

Or maybe you have voted, but against your own proposal, to make you look like a victim. So in order to prove that you didn't vote against your proposal, you should list your masternode IDs and then vote with them to prove that they're yours. Of course, you won't do that. So how do you know that all those votes are Togo's? You don't, it's not provable. So you just made an allegation against him. You attacked Togo without proof and now I did that to you, so how does it feel?

Let's say you didn't really vote against your proposal and you have all of your masternode votes available. Then it's easy: if you just vote for the proposal with all of your masternodes, it will pass. But you will not do that because you want to hide the amount of masternodes you own. End of story.

Oh, and don't tell us your votes would not cover the 10% absolute yes votes needed, we've been watching past proposals and the sudden jumps in votes, before you realized you need to vote slowly. And don't tell us you didn't increase your masternode count during the low price period now, because you did. I know that you personally have played a big part in keeping the market afloat.

Also, what is really concerning and very centralized of you is that you have the power to simply delete/hide a proposal on a whim if you feel like it, to reset the votes and change the outcome. This is exactly what you did with the Widows proposal now and what you have been doing multiple times before. Proof:

---

1st widows proposal (the removed one):

Code:

gobject get 61a147f3b0eb0f5e349e8044878cdcb83ef3154084815cdca613394dc5acb129

payment_amount: 481540
CreationTime: 1539455510 (October 13, 2018 6:31:50 PM)

Code:

gobject getcurrentvotes 61a147f3b0eb0f5e349e8044878cdcb83ef3154084815cdca613394dc5acb129

68 positive votes, 72 negative votes, 7 abstains

---

2nd widows proposal:

Code:

gobject get 45ab07c518bf3b4e175e42ec3122b1a1089ce1b5681758ac4bae26fae82935da

payment_amount: 381540 (?)
CreationTime: 1540215079 (October 22, 2018 1:31:19 PM)

Code:

gobject getcurrentvotes 45ab07c518bf3b4e175e42ec3122b1a1089ce1b5681758ac4bae26fae82935da

5 negative votes, 4 abstains (0 votes a few hours ago)

---

This means that you removed the votes (reset the proposal) in a centralized manner. You hid the original proposal from your centralized website, in order to deceive and mislead people. But the hidden proposal is actually still visible from the wallet, maybe you forgot that. I'm sure the wallet will be "improved" to also hide the proposals you decide should be reset/removed.

Howdy InBlue, it's good to see you.


Rob, here's a quick recap of our conversation:

I said that you can control the outcome of all proposals, you said you can't.

To support your position you gave an example of the Hope for Widows proposal. You said Togo and I could defeat it with our combined number of MNode votes. However I can't verify your claim is true because I don't know how many MNs you or Togo own.

btw, how did you find out how many MNs that Togo and I own?

I didnt try to find out; Togo updated a post somewhere with some scathing comment about him wanting to double check my Payroll proposal - claiming it might be one line of code per commit or something - and at the same time he voted against me on that payroll (right after I said I would "abstain" on his) another words he was being spiteful - and at that same exact time I saw my votes go down by -38 on the original HFW proposal *and* my payroll proposal (they both went down that second by -38).  So thats how I know it was Togos action, and he didnt deny it when I called him out on it.

As far as your assumption, what you are not taking into account is the effect of someone voting against a proposal - it counts as 2* because the owner of the proposal must not only make up for the negative vote but use another vote to make it positive- so you need double the 38 for example (76) just to get positive, therefore no one could control the outcome of a proposal with someone like Togo for example voting against you. 

[bible_pay]

I said right here on the forum I was going to re-enter the HFW just a page back, read the entire thread inblue before making your slanderous statements.

[bible_pay]

I just mine a bit in the background while I'm doing other things now.  Don't get many coins but it's at no extra cost and hopefully the price will go up.  I think what this coin needs now is to get on a bigger exchange, hopefully, that will happen in the next few months

We have an offer to be on cryptopia, but I think we are 9 months out on that roughly.

[thesnat21]

I didnt try to find out; Togo updated a post somewhere with some scathing comment about him wanting to double check my Payroll proposal - claiming it might be one line of code per commit or something - and at the same time he voted against me on that payroll (right after I said I would "abstain" on his) another words he was being spiteful - and at that same exact time I saw my votes go down by -38 on the original HFW proposal *and* my payroll proposal (they both went down that second by -38).  So thats how I know it was Togos action, and he didnt deny it when I called him out on it.

As far as your assumption, what you are not taking into account is the effect of someone voting against a proposal - it counts as 2* because the owner of the proposal must not only make up for the negative vote but use another vote to make it positive- so you need double the 38 for example (76) just to get positive, therefore no one could control the outcome of a proposal with someone like Togo for example voting against you. 

Please be careful,  yes he said that, but that doesn't mean it was him that voted against you.   It's possible that someone else was voting around the same time.  I know at least one other that had 37 MN's last month, he could easily have 38 this month.

My only concern is there are now 2 active proposals,  this is a bad precedent to set. 

[sunk818]

No, I entered a second proposal because Togo voted down the first one and it was so far below zero it could not be voted by me.

Wait, you're telling us someone voted down your proposal... so you created a second proposal that you can possibly upvote? That seems wrong to me. If MN rejects a proposal, why do you get to create a second one?

Please be careful,  yes he said that, but that doesn't mean it was him that voted against you.   It's possible that someone else was voting around the same time.  I know at least one other that had 37 MN's last month, he could easily have 38 this month.

Are all -38 MNs votes exactly the same IDs? Can we say with certainty it was Togo? Honestly, it could be dozens of people. Rob's alienated more people than my little fingers can count. It was always in theory that someone could oppose Rob's proposal, but at least we know it is a real possibility now.

My only concern is there are now 2 active proposals,  this is a bad precedent to set.  

Duplicate proposals are made by accident or intentionally many times already. I will suggest adding Proposals or how masternodes handle it is not reliable.


Matthew 7:24-27 English Standard Version (ESV)
Build Your House on the Rock
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”