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

[slovakia]

where is UI/UX guy from DASH? he was at telegram and wanted help is with wallet

[capulo]

hm
i'm trying to associate wallet to rosetta account, but i always got

{
  "Command": "associate",
  "E-Mail": "my email addr",
  "Results": "ALREADY_IN_CHAIN"
}

what this mean? i'm using some old wallet and it is possible that i was already trying something there, but not remember

It means your CPID is in the chain, but if you are sure you want to reassociate it, do the command again with "true" appended to the end (that means force=true).
We warn so people dont kill the cpid so easily.

yeah, i found force parameter already , but thanks anyway

but what is interesting is, that cpid on wcg page was synced with rosetta cpid. after few hours it was not synced, i saw different cpids. after another few hours it was synced again and now it is not synced... i'm not sure what is going on there

[fenton91]

Anyone else are getting a lesser payout from this 2 previous days ?

[vahtis]

Anyone else are getting a lesser payout from this 2 previous days ?

My magnitude dropped and payouts too.

[capulo]

new users...
higher team rac
lower payouts

[shorty34]

new users...
higher team rac
lower payouts

Hmm, that's something good, right? It sounds like a network hash rate increase when mining other coins. Which means the there are more believers in this coin

[bible_pay]

new users...
higher team rac
lower payouts

Hmm, that's something good, right? It sounds like a network hash rate increase when mining other coins. Which means the there are more believers in this coin

TheSnat pointed out that GRCpool joined and affected everyone by 10%.

[bible_pay]

That's fair but from what I understand POG will be highly unpredictable on the rewards (according to Rob on the other forum), which also defeats the purpose of having a pool (for predictability).

Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)

If we removed the stake requirement alone, it would remove 1 piece from the puzzle, but would leave all the rest of the complexity in place.

I will also add that this potential massive increase of coins being liquidated every month (from the foundation tithe) worries me as an investor.

Fair point, and I agree this is a concern,   though it could be spread around the month better I think than the current monthly cycle.

I appreciate the discussion and concerns,   better to work through them now than after a change is made.

Well that's the thing, I'm not sure what POG is solving compared to what is already there and so far I have not seen any convincing argument for it.

I do not see what POG is currently solving that needs to be solved to make us more attractive (as a coin) and/or that can not be solved by either PODC or heat mining in their current state or with very small modifications. On top of that, I think that resources could be directed to more "critical" areas that would make us more attractive to users. UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc.

From what I see currently, this is just mainly a way to provide more coins to the Foundation which I do not think is the way to go or would make us more attractive. Especially since it keeps adding supply (removal of stake and more coins being liquidated by the foundation) without having any convincing positive effects on the demand.

I say let's wait for more inputs on the question and it will hopefully help us move the discussion forward.

This argument against is POG is almost as like you are saying I created it in a delirious state and have no idea what I'm proposing. 

POG is 90% simpler than PODC - let's at least not spread FUD to the masses to make a point.  It only has one variable : tithe_weight for a person to know about (thats how much in total you gave in relation to others over a 24 hour period).  Anyone can grasp that concept. 

In contrast PODC has a dictionary of acronyms - I think we went through this exercise last month with MinersOfMen, he was asking about CPID, Magnitude, Task Weight, UTXO, RAC, supporter sites, sancs, contracts, staking or mining, superblocks, and even after that I don't think (a new user) will actually understand all of it unless they really want to stay with it.

As far as receiving more coins in the foundation that is a good problem to have.   

[Cryptoalt1990]

That's fair but from what I understand POG will be highly unpredictable on the rewards (according to Rob on the other forum), which also defeats the purpose of having a pool (for predictability).

Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)

If we removed the stake requirement alone, it would remove 1 piece from the puzzle, but would leave all the rest of the complexity in place.

I will also add that this potential massive increase of coins being liquidated every month (from the foundation tithe) worries me as an investor.

Fair point, and I agree this is a concern,   though it could be spread around the month better I think than the current monthly cycle.

I appreciate the discussion and concerns,   better to work through them now than after a change is made.

Well that's the thing, I'm not sure what POG is solving compared to what is already there and so far I have not seen any convincing argument for it.

I do not see what POG is currently solving that needs to be solved to make us more attractive (as a coin) and/or that can not be solved by either PODC or heat mining in their current state or with very small modifications. On top of that, I think that resources could be directed to more "critical" areas that would make us more attractive to users. UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc.

From what I see currently, this is just mainly a way to provide more coins to the Foundation which I do not think is the way to go or would make us more attractive. Especially since it keeps adding supply (removal of stake and more coins being liquidated by the foundation) without having any convincing positive effects on the demand.

I say let's wait for more inputs on the question and it will hopefully help us move the discussion forward.

This argument against is POG is almost as like you are saying I created it in a delirious state and have no idea what I'm proposing.  

POG is 90% simpler than PODC - let's at least not spread FUD to the masses to make a point.  It only has one variable : tithe_weight for a person to know about (thats how much in total you gave in relation to others over a 24 hour period).  Anyone can grasp that concept.  

In contrast PODC has a dictionary of acronyms - I think we went through this exercise last month with MinersOfMen, he was asking about CPID, Magnitude, Task Weight, UTXO, RAC, supporter sites, sancs, contracts, staking or mining, superblocks, and even after that I don't think (a new user) will actually understand all of it unless they really want to stay with it.

As far as receiving more coins in the foundation that is a good problem to have.  

No it is just saying that I am not convinced by it, that I have not see anything that would convince me that what it is achieving can not or is not already achieved by current algorithms and that other things would probably have a greater impact to me. Let me list them again: "UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc."

Also, what are the advantages of POG compared to the current heat mining? If you're talking about the built-in pool, you said yourself that POG will be unpredictable and promote (and I quote you)

"...the act of giving and being rewarded uncertain. What this does is forces the giver to give based on expecting nothing in return..."

which to me seems to be defeating the purpose of even being in a pool (predictable income) and potentially scary as a miner.

Finally on the extra coin for the foundation (and removal of stake), that might be great for you, not so much for someone looking to invest. You have to take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders.

[bible_pay]

That's fair but from what I understand POG will be highly unpredictable on the rewards (according to Rob on the other forum), which also defeats the purpose of having a pool (for predictability).

Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)

If we removed the stake requirement alone, it would remove 1 piece from the puzzle, but would leave all the rest of the complexity in place.

I will also add that this potential massive increase of coins being liquidated every month (from the foundation tithe) worries me as an investor.

Fair point, and I agree this is a concern,   though it could be spread around the month better I think than the current monthly cycle.

I appreciate the discussion and concerns,   better to work through them now than after a change is made.

Well that's the thing, I'm not sure what POG is solving compared to what is already there and so far I have not seen any convincing argument for it.

I do not see what POG is currently solving that needs to be solved to make us more attractive (as a coin) and/or that can not be solved by either PODC or heat mining in their current state or with very small modifications. On top of that, I think that resources could be directed to more "critical" areas that would make us more attractive to users. UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc.

From what I see currently, this is just mainly a way to provide more coins to the Foundation which I do not think is the way to go or would make us more attractive. Especially since it keeps adding supply (removal of stake and more coins being liquidated by the foundation) without having any convincing positive effects on the demand.

I say let's wait for more inputs on the question and it will hopefully help us move the discussion forward.

This argument against is POG is almost as like you are saying I created it in a delirious state and have no idea what I'm proposing.  

POG is 90% simpler than PODC - let's at least not spread FUD to the masses to make a point.  It only has one variable : tithe_weight for a person to know about (thats how much in total you gave in relation to others over a 24 hour period).  Anyone can grasp that concept.  

In contrast PODC has a dictionary of acronyms - I think we went through this exercise last month with MinersOfMen, he was asking about CPID, Magnitude, Task Weight, UTXO, RAC, supporter sites, sancs, contracts, staking or mining, superblocks, and even after that I don't think (a new user) will actually understand all of it unless they really want to stay with it.

As far as receiving more coins in the foundation that is a good problem to have.  

No it is just saying that I am not convinced by it, that I have not see anything that would convince me that what it is achieving can not or is not already achieved by current algorithms and that other things would probably have a greater impact to me. Let me list them again: "UI/UX improvements, writing letters in the wallet, displaying the children we are supporting there, accountability in the wallet, etc."

Also, what are the advantages of POG compared to the current heat mining? If you're talking about the built-in pool, you said yourself that POG will be unpredictable and promote (and I quote you)

"...the act of giving and being rewarded uncertain. What this does is forces the giver to give based on expecting nothing in return..."

which to me seems to be defeating the purpose of even being in a pool (predictable income) and potentially scary as a miner.

Finally on the extra coin for the foundation (and removal of stake), that might be great for you, not so much for someone looking to invest. You have to take into consideration the interests of all the stakeholders.

Well on the UI improvements, we want to make those anwyay, regardless of the algorithm for heat mining.  Some of that part of the decision has to do with where IPFS fits in.  So discussing a better letter writing interface should not drive the decision to use POG or PODC.  (However if we were voting on POOM, it would be relevant right now, because then we would have home sponsorships).

The POG advantage comes from eliminating PODC (not eliminating heat mining).  POG is bolted on to POBH.  But yes, as one improvement to POBH, we would gain the advantage of an internal pool.

I think you either misunderstood my reason to say "unpredictable" and its now being misconstrued as if I meant this POG algorithm is going to have an unpredictable payment effect or that POG is unpredictable.  That was completely technical, and referring to the individual block solving event, that it cant be predicted *technologically* by a person exploiting it to try to game rewards at the expense of others.  Let me rephrase :  POG would be very predictable, easy to use, and scalable, and impo would have the traits that allow easy adoption.  The summary of the end-user experience is that they tithe daily (when the UI or RPC report says its profitable to tithe) and then payments come back to the user once every 3 days (approximately) - which is much more predictable than solo mining.  If consistently mined, one user would have 10 payments in a given month (with the full average remuneration) smoothing out any ripples or droughts.

(So therefore there is no need to be scared, as a miner, since you are receiving regular payments, no matter how big the miner base is - they are 10 times per month, on average).

On the extra coins for the foundation, its not better for me, its better for the orphans, and that is actually our #1 mission here - to sponsor orphans.  So if we ended up with an algorithm that helped them more at the expense of our price (until our price improved, through easy adoption), wouldn't that be accomplishing our primary goal?   But just to be fair, lets discuss where those coins came from (since we have the same money supply - they arent coming from thin air).  The difference in one month of POG activity vs PODC activity is in POG, the coins were tithed from a miner to the foundation and they received less net rewards in a given month, and then the foundation sold them for orphanage payments.  In PODC, the coins were given to PODC miners who either saved them or liquidated them to pay their electric bill.  Both of these scenarios are the same - except you say that "the ones who saved them didnt crash the price".  Yes but they will when they have to pay their electric bills.  So, lets go 10,000 feet higher than this:  In reality in a year, the real question will be :  Do we have more PODC miners net or more POG miners?  If the analysis is that we will have 351 PODC, or 2351 POG, (which is quite possible at the low PODC growth rate, and quite possible for an algo to be 'copied' by simply downloading and booting a POG algo), what has a longer term positive effect on the price?  More investors.  This is simply an exercise in discovering what algorithm will multiply with word of mouth.

Electric is gone once its spent, but the orphan benefits are lasting.

[sunk818]

Regarding the stake of PODC....wouldn't it be simpler to just remove that stake requirement then if that is an issue? (I personally like that stake requirement)

Of course it will be simpler. If you removed the requirement, what's the impact? What's the Team RAC? Multiply by 20 and that's the amount that can move around. #1 Those will go to masternodes. Longer time for payouts for everyone. Or people will sell on exchange. Neither is good for BBP price.

[Cryptoalt1990]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.

If I tithe x amount, there is no guarantee on:

1) How much I will be paid
(depends on how much others tithed in the block my tithe was put into - not predictable)

2) When I will be paid
(depends on which block my block is put into - not predictable )

3) If I will be paid
(assuming there are a lot of wallets tithing because of the one in 410 chance of receiving a pool reward per block - Also, what happens if a malicious actor floods the pool with small tithes from multiple wallets?)

Additionally, I can tithe the same everyday and will receive very different rewards (depending on how much others tithe and the block my tithe is put into).

Am I guaranteed to receive more than what I am tithing under any circumstances. (For example, only being able to tithe once until I receive my reward from that tithe then I can tithe that reward) or is there a risk that I will lose that money?

Did I misunderstand something? If not, I don't understand how you can tell me that it does not mean that mining using POG will be highly unpredictable based on these factors.

Concerning the extra coins, I can give you this insight as an investor. These extra coins are guaranteed to be liquidated as the foundation cannot pay its bills with it. That means a guaranteed increase of supply on the market (not the coin), without an increase of demand.

I was talking about the other features because you often talk about how our resources are limited (and I agree with that). I was just linking to that fact and saying where I think resources would be better spent. Resources spent on POG means that they can't be spent somewhere else.

I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

[bible_pay]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.



I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

Specifically covering this question, about in-wallet features:  We are an open source project and you and other programmers are welcome to make the commitment (in wallet letter writing).  I agree it would be a good feature, but understand, that if I am writing POG its not stopping you - or others - from committing those nice feature(s) you mention.

I will PM you the info regarding BLOOM.

[cuarc001]

I would also just like to point out that based on my experience with the communities, DC'ers tend to be much more up for "giving" than most crypto enthusiasts. If you are pulling PODC because of slow adoption and thinking there is a larger "giving crowd" within the crypto communities, then I think you will find it an even slower adoption. Especially if you aren't able to show the Proof of Profit side of things. The DC community has been pretty well giving away their resources for decades. I don't see many crypto people walking into a project saying "here take my money". Just some food for thought.

[Cryptoalt1990]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.



I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

Specifically covering this question, about in-wallet features:  We are an open source project and you and other programmers are welcome to make the commitment (in wallet letter writing).  I agree it would be a good feature, but understand, that if I am writing POG its not stopping you - or others - from committing those nice feature(s) you mention.

I will PM you the info regarding BLOOM.

While I do understand that, I am not a Biblepay developer (and do not want to be one). That whole section was about better allocation of resources which you often talk about. I think spending your time on these features would be more valuable than POG. That is just what I think.

[shorty34]

I would also just like to point out that based on my experience with the communities, DC'ers tend to be much more up for "giving" than most crypto enthusiasts. If you are pulling PODC because of slow adoption and thinking there is a larger "giving crowd" within the crypto communities, then I think you will find it an even slower adoption. Especially if you aren't able to show the Proof of Profit side of things. The DC community has been pretty well giving away their resources for decades. I don't see many crypto people walking into a project saying "here take my money". Just some food for thought.

+1 to that.

I converted most of my alts (including GRCs) to BBP when I started PODC staking about 8 months ago, have paid all my electric bills with cash, and have not sold ANY of the BBPs I received as PODC payments.

Talk about giving there?

[bible_pay]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.

If I tithe x amount, there is no guarantee on:

1) How much I will be paid
(depends on how much others tithed in the block my tithe was put into - not predictable)

2) When I will be paid
(depends on which block my block is put into - not predictable )

3) If I will be paid
(assuming there are a lot of wallets tithing because of the one in 410 chance of receiving a pool reward per block - Also, what happens if a malicious actor floods the pool with small tithes from multiple wallets?)

Additionally, I can tithe the same everyday and will receive very different rewards (depending on how much others tithe and the block my tithe is put into).

Am I guaranteed to receive more than what I am tithing under any circumstances. (For example, only being able to tithe once until I receive my reward from that tithe then I can tithe that reward) or is there a risk that I will lose that money?

Did I misunderstand something? If not, I don't understand how you can tell me that it does not mean that mining using POG will be highly unpredictable based on these factors.

Concerning the extra coins, I can give you this insight as an investor. These extra coins are guaranteed to be liquidated as the foundation cannot pay its bills with it. That means a guaranteed increase of supply on the market (not the coin), without an increase of demand.

I was talking about the other features because you often talk about how our resources are limited (and I agree with that). I was just linking to that fact and saying where I think resources would be better spent. Resources spent on POG means that they can't be spent somewhere else.

I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

First of all, the pool idea was quite capable of paying exactly the owed and accrued amount - on time - and in a scalable way.  The only reason I added the uncertainty principle is to prevent gaming the system on a particular exact day when the pool is empty - say for instance no one tithed, to allow one small group to tithe for a sure profit (as the predictable payment system would have resulted in a certain profit).  So, we introduced a 1/410 chance of a single tithe being included in a payment block.

However, since we have 205 blocks per day, that does not mean the system is not predictable over a one week or one month span.  In contrast to solo mining, where you do not know that you will solve a block in one month.

So even though you make these pointed questions as a trap, the answer is that if investor A tithed 100 bbp once, they would only have a 50% (205/410) chance of being paid THAT DAY for the tithe.  However, if Investor B tithed 10 times over 10 days, they would have had 4100 chances of being paid and therefore would be paid approx 3 times (yes, this is not guaranteed in such a short example, but statistically after a month of 12,000 blocks, we are reaching a 99% certainty that one persistent tither would be paid).  Meaning that Investor B would receive 3 payments (on average) in only 10 days - each of a higher value (depending on which of the 10 tithes were chosen).  This effect means that the pool system does pay regularly over longer periods.

If a malicious actor floods the pool with smaller tithes, they get more frequent payments, but each tithe has only a 1/410 chance of being included, and as the wiki shows, smaller total payments pay less % than one large payment (since they lose out on the exponential weight).  Its not gaming because the primary question at the beginning of the day is : Will tithing be profitable or not?  The question is answered depending on how many tithes are in the pool.  

So yes, if you want to participate for 30 days, you would know with relative certainty if its worth tithing each time you tithe and over the long run your results would bear that out.  Its the same as our difficulty level.  If the Dash difficulty drops below a certain threshhold, x11 miners jump in to try to solve a block, and pools jump in, but there is no guarantee the block will be solved - but the profitability level was enough to prompt the pool to jump in.  

The only thing I agree with in your summary is the "amount" of coins that would be liquidated monthly.  I am concerned that the number of coins tithed to the orphan foundation for mining should not exceed a certain threshhold.  For example, maybe if we could cap that at 6 mil tithes per month, then this system wouldn't affect our mission (or stray from the fundamental percentages).  I don't like the idea of liquidating more than the allocated charity budget per month in coins that were originally designated for mining.  

[bible_pay]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.



I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

Specifically covering this question, about in-wallet features:  We are an open source project and you and other programmers are welcome to make the commitment (in wallet letter writing).  I agree it would be a good feature, but understand, that if I am writing POG its not stopping you - or others - from committing those nice feature(s) you mention.

I will PM you the info regarding BLOOM.

Let me do some testing.

[macko20]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.



I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

Specifically covering this question, about in-wallet features:  We are an open source project and you and other programmers are welcome to make the commitment (in wallet letter writing).  I agree it would be a good feature, but understand, that if I am writing POG its not stopping you - or others - from committing those nice feature(s) you mention.

I will PM you the info regarding BLOOM.

Let me do some testing.

Rob,
Before you start combining with the new script, show everyone that you can finish the old without bugs

[bible_pay]

This is what I understand and I guess you help me with these points.



I think the features/improvement mentioned in my previous post would be more effective to attract users. Wouldn't being able to see what the project is doing (supporting children, being able to write to them, etc.) directly into the wallet not be more enticing that anything else?

------

Not related to the conversation but can we ask Bloom to provide some sort of invoice/written documentation? I noticed that they are the only charity we are supporting that is not doing it unless I missed it.

Specifically covering this question, about in-wallet features:  We are an open source project and you and other programmers are welcome to make the commitment (in wallet letter writing).  I agree it would be a good feature, but understand, that if I am writing POG its not stopping you - or others - from committing those nice feature(s) you mention.

I will PM you the info regarding BLOOM.

Let me do some testing.

Rob,
Before you start combining with the new script, show everyone that you can finish the old without bugs

Interesting - I am not aware of heinous bugs.