|
sunk818
|
 |
April 06, 2019, 12:07:50 AM
Last edit: April 06, 2019, 12:28:52 AM by sunk818 |
|
Please stop posting here Sun unless it's constructive.
You obviously don't know how to post a constructive complaint. If you have a constructive complaint, escalate it to The Snat and I promise it will get posted here and assimilated and evaluated.
The problem with your posts is they contain defamation to biblepay and my character, and they are simply lies, and I don't tolerate this Sun. Post your defamation in your biblepay hate thread - that thread contains a lot of similar materials, half truths with mean spirited attacks and no basis behind them.
None of the code that I released with bugs in it was intentional and everyone can see Im trying as hard as I can to fix every bug we ever had in Evolution. You can even see the historical commits in order. It's unfair to attack me based on this type of slander Sun.
I don't want your mean spirited nature in our community sun, and I dont say this in a mean way, you are hurting our orphans Sun, and Im here to protect them.
Please take a break for 60 days and calm down and repent. Then we will accept you back if you apologize for saying things like Im a fraud and a fake Christian, these things are not true.
I don't see how anything I've said is defamation. You don't have a good reputation to tarnish. Seriously, ask anyone. Public opinion is on my side. If you're going to insult me, at least come up with something original instead of stealing my work. It doesn't matter whether you intended to release code with bugs in it or not, you did so harming the BiblePay community and the precious orphans you supposedly are trying to protect. You know how much harm you've done by pushing away people with the constant changes, unreliable code, and switching algorithms? And you blamed PoG_Monkey for your spaghetti code bugs, when it was clearly your cheeky coding practice: https://github.com/biblepay/biblepay/commit/962ffe50f70c459d6a991e2f2bc32786d8624f2f#diff-7ec3c68a81efff79b6ca22ac1f1eabbaR4578But I don't ever expect you to give me a genuine heart felt apology. You're just not capable. why such a small price coin 5 satosh coin died or what?
Coin has dev that writes spaghetti code. People got tired of constant bugs and changes. So, many people that had to stake BBP for PoDC project, started selling all their BBP. This is why you see the price go down. Dev set up fake buy bots (the ones with .777) to create action and volume, but it is not working. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 09, 2019, 06:18:20 AM |
|
That is an experimental feature. While I think Rob likely have over 85 MNs (maybe a lot more), it is not clear how many he owns... and whether link above is accurate, its hard to say. |
|
|
|
|
slovakia
|
|
April 09, 2019, 07:18:05 AM |
|
1 man show..... totally shitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 09, 2019, 03:10:59 PM |
|
1 man show..... totally shitcoin
What do you think of MIP? |
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 12, 2019, 04:40:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
secoccular
Jr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 226
Merit: 2
|
|
April 12, 2019, 04:57:08 PM |
|
If I may ask, why use DOGE for the comparison? I don't see the connection. It's not really anything like BBP (a comparison to Dash would seem more appropriate). Also, the matrix is heavily biased towards BBP, with feature options such as "benefits charities" or "church tithing" that are obviously not going to be found elsewhere. The comparison would come off as far more balanced if there was a few DOGE gimmies like "leverages cute meme", that BBP would fail automatically. Comparisons that are biased to create overwhelming victory for one side always strike me as unfair. |
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 12, 2019, 05:27:16 PM |
|
If I may ask, why use DOGE for the comparison? I don't see the connection. It's not really anything like BBP (a comparison to Dash would seem more appropriate). Also, the matrix is heavily biased towards BBP, with feature options such as "benefits charities" or "church tithing" that are obviously not going to be found elsewhere. The comparison would come off as far more balanced if there was a few DOGE gimmies like "leverages cute meme", that BBP would fail automatically. Comparisons that are biased to create overwhelming victory for one side always strike me as unfair. Here's the original link for comparison: https://wiki.biblepay.org/Nutrition_InformationI think Rob mentioned DogeCoin because DogeCoin is a highly ranked coin. Some of the matrix rows is even more ridiculous. I tried to distill down to the relevant, removed vaporware, etc. I removed the DASH specific features as well since they are not really innovations. They are just updating the BiblePay code to a more recent version (0.13). I think the matrix I made is more realistic. If you think it should appear differently, you can edit the wiki (anyone can anonymously edit it). |
|
|
|
secoccular
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 226
Merit: 2
|
|
April 12, 2019, 06:00:08 PM |
|
If I may ask, why use DOGE for the comparison? I don't see the connection. It's not really anything like BBP (a comparison to Dash would seem more appropriate). Also, the matrix is heavily biased towards BBP, with feature options such as "benefits charities" or "church tithing" that are obviously not going to be found elsewhere. The comparison would come off as far more balanced if there was a few DOGE gimmies like "leverages cute meme", that BBP would fail automatically. Comparisons that are biased to create overwhelming victory for one side always strike me as unfair. Here's the original link for comparison: https://wiki.biblepay.org/Nutrition_InformationI think Rob mentioned DogeCoin because DogeCoin is a highly ranked coin. Some of the matrix rows is even more ridiculous. I tried to distill down to the relevant, removed vaporware, etc. I removed the DASH specific features as well since they are not really innovations. They are just updating the BiblePay code to a more recent version (0.13). I think the matrix I made is more realistic. If you think it should appear differently, you can edit the wiki (anyone can anonymously edit it). Doge has the advantage of ridiculous being their brand strength. Oh, so the items under Evolution in the chart aren't Dash-specific? ...I'm still trying to figure out how mobile wallet staking will work. As the saying goes, context is everything. I followed that link above, thanks for that. Looking at the old and new matrixes, I think you did good work in whittling down the less relevant comparisons. Nice work on the wiki. I think it's healthy to have official and non-official sources for information. |
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 12, 2019, 08:27:59 PM |
|
If I may ask, why use DOGE for the comparison? I don't see the connection. It's not really anything like BBP (a comparison to Dash would seem more appropriate). Also, the matrix is heavily biased towards BBP, with feature options such as "benefits charities" or "church tithing" that are obviously not going to be found elsewhere. The comparison would come off as far more balanced if there was a few DOGE gimmies like "leverages cute meme", that BBP would fail automatically. Comparisons that are biased to create overwhelming victory for one side always strike me as unfair. Here's the original link for comparison: https://wiki.biblepay.org/Nutrition_InformationI think Rob mentioned DogeCoin because DogeCoin is a highly ranked coin. Some of the matrix rows is even more ridiculous. I tried to distill down to the relevant, removed vaporware, etc. I removed the DASH specific features as well since they are not really innovations. They are just updating the BiblePay code to a more recent version (0.13). I think the matrix I made is more realistic. If you think it should appear differently, you can edit the wiki (anyone can anonymously edit it). Doge has the advantage of ridiculous being their brand strength. Oh, so the items under Evolution in the chart aren't Dash-specific? ...I'm still trying to figure out how mobile wallet staking will work. As the saying goes, context is everything. I followed that link above, thanks for that. Looking at the old and new matrixes, I think you did good work in whittling down the less relevant comparisons. Nice work on the wiki. I think it's healthy to have official and non-official sources for information. These are specific to DASH 0.13 and as a result will be same feature in BiblePay Evo (using DASH 0.13 codebase) 51% Attack Prevention (ChainLocks) Anti-Fork technology (POW + Dash ChainLocks) I think the idea for mobile staking was being able to perform PoG on the mobile wallet. I don't know if it will be automatic or something you have to do manually to earn a reward. There are many things on the matrix for Nutrition_Information that is vaporware, so if it ever becomes a production feature, I'm open to editing the wiki to include those line items in the comparison. Vaporware really belongs on the roadmap if it is really something devs will devote time to. I'm not optimistic about the 501(c)(3) non-profit since Rob has shown a history of wanting to hide real name. It was Rob Halford when he was a dev with GridCoin. And now using a pseudonym as Robert Andrews. He wants to hide and its a bit difficult to register has a non-profit when you want to be a one-man show and also have to reveal your name. I also wouldn't want any other person being a front-person since it becomes a huge risk and liability to put your name on an organization that you're not leading. I don't know, I hope I can be proven wrong. It'll help get the BiblePay app on the Apple Store. |
|
|
|
secoccular
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 226
Merit: 2
|
|
April 12, 2019, 10:49:28 PM |
|
I agree about the non-profit. I've been seeing more and more coins making foundations, non-profits, or even outright companies. I read a couple of days ago the BitTube even just got a license to operate as a financial entity.
The more popular that crypto gets, the harder it will be to remain even semi-anonymous as a dev. At some point there will be more laws, and the enforcers of those laws kind of count on people not hiding their real names. It doesn't matter, once it gets out, that will be the end of hiding. I think Rob is trying to have it both ways. If you want to stay anonymous, then have a person at the forefront for communication and stay in the back and code. If you want to be the big leader, then the anonymity has to go (if we want success large scale).
I haven't tried the mobile wallet, and should download it and give it a try. I know from the desktop client, I end up uploading about 1GB/day in chain communication, which is kind of a lot. I was told it was because all nodes in BBP are full nodes. Do you know if the mobile wallet operates this way or differently?
|
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 13, 2019, 04:53:35 AM |
|
I agree about the non-profit. I've been seeing more and more coins making foundations, non-profits, or even outright companies. I read a couple of days ago the BitTube even just got a license to operate as a financial entity.
The more popular that crypto gets, the harder it will be to remain even semi-anonymous as a dev. At some point there will be more laws, and the enforcers of those laws kind of count on people not hiding their real names. It doesn't matter, once it gets out, that will be the end of hiding. I think Rob is trying to have it both ways. If you want to stay anonymous, then have a person at the forefront for communication and stay in the back and code. If you want to be the big leader, then the anonymity has to go (if we want success large scale).
I haven't tried the mobile wallet, and should download it and give it a try. I know from the desktop client, I end up uploading about 1GB/day in chain communication, which is kind of a lot. I was told it was because all nodes in BBP are full nodes. Do you know if the mobile wallet operates this way or differently?
Best person to ask is MIP but I recall the mobile wallet download the headers only. It is a fork of bread wallet. The servers the mobile wallet connects to handles the block chain syncing and ask the heavy lifting. |
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 15, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
Last edit: April 16, 2019, 12:11:39 AM by sunk818 |
|
You can see the Uganda Women vote go from 8 to 155. I'm sure he'll slow roll his votes to make it look like its by the community... but basically, it is Rob holding 25% of the masternodes and voting with them every month. You just need net 10% out of all the masternodes online to pass a proposal. So, if there are 600 masternodes, then you need a net positive 60 to pass a proposal. If Rob was welcoming of the community voting without interference by him, he wouldn't vote... But he is scared to lose control and power. Rob just made took 39M BBP and made 25 more masternodes: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/bbp/tx.dws?924074.htmThis is why he wants to increase the masternode requirements... #1 make it more difficult for new people to buy masternodes and vote, #2 save money on his hosting costs. You don't someone that wants to grow the coin and increase participation wouldn't behave in such a way. How can anyone trust the coin this way? |
|
|
|
|
inblue
|
|
April 16, 2019, 08:40:03 AM |
|
I agree about Rob's masternode power, but still I support increasing the masternode requirements. Dash masternode is worth over $100k and any serious coin is in the few thousand range. We are at $300. That's too low for the average investor. Also, I think we would have a side effect of more buying pressure on the market, because it will be required for someone to be able to buy enough coins for a masternode.
|
|
|
|
|
secoccular
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 226
Merit: 2
|
|
April 16, 2019, 01:14:30 PM |
|
I agree about Rob's masternode power, but still I support increasing the masternode requirements. Dash masternode is worth over $100k and any serious coin is in the few thousand range. We are at $300. That's too low for the average investor. Also, I think we would have a side effect of more buying pressure on the market, because it will be required for someone to be able to buy enough coins for a masternode.
Which coins are trading at 4sats and have a masternode requirement of a few thousand dollars? I think the masternode issue is just an outgrowth of the pricing problem with BBP. Turning 4 sats into a few thousand dollars is a lot more difficult than turning Dash's $100 price into $100K masternodes. ($100K = 1000 times $100 price for Dash). By my math, it takes 1.4 million times price of $0.000203 for a BBP masternode at $300. BBP is a far more expensive. Expressed as a percentage of daily volume, the two are even farther apart. At a daily volume of around $250M, Dash has a masternode cost of .004 DailiyVolume. BBP has a mastnerode cost around a day's total trading volume. BBP is far less liquid, and is more expensive percentage-wise for a masternode. Raising the masternode requirement does nothing to make the coin more attractive. It just makes it more expensive for prospective investors. What will make a difference is to get some trading volume and buying pressure that is organic to growth, and not just inflating volume by raising masternode requirements. I wish less effort was being made towards new features that are cool but may not help pricing. |
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 16, 2019, 11:29:04 PM |
|
I agree about Rob's masternode power, but still I support increasing the masternode requirements. Dash masternode is worth over $100k and any serious coin is in the few thousand range. We are at $300. That's too low for the average investor. Also, I think we would have a side effect of more buying pressure on the market, because it will be required for someone to be able to buy enough coins for a masternode.
Which coins are trading at 4sats and have a masternode requirement of a few thousand dollars? I think the masternode issue is just an outgrowth of the pricing problem with BBP. Turning 4 sats into a few thousand dollars is a lot more difficult than turning Dash's $100 price into $100K masternodes. ($100K = 1000 times $100 price for Dash). By my math, it takes 1.4 million times price of $0.000203 for a BBP masternode at $300. BBP is a far more expensive. Expressed as a percentage of daily volume, the two are even farther apart. At a daily volume of around $250M, Dash has a masternode cost of .004 DailiyVolume. BBP has a mastnerode cost around a day's total trading volume. BBP is far less liquid, and is more expensive percentage-wise for a masternode. Raising the masternode requirement does nothing to make the coin more attractive. It just makes it more expensive for prospective investors. What will make a difference is to get some trading volume and buying pressure that is organic to growth, and not just inflating volume by raising masternode requirements. I wish less effort was being made towards new features that are cool but may not help pricing. As expected, Rob threw me under the bus at the SouthXchange chat and BTC Talk thread calling me a liar about his 40M creating 25 masternodes on Sunday/Monday and voting with them to move the vote closer to 4.5M BBP required for a masternode. It is all public blockchain data for anyone to analyze: It all starts here: http://explorer.biblepay.org/tx/9179c226c27bf76a525de7bd8f87aeae9966a298bd402253a0de5dad62a28ce0 |
|
|
|
|
inblue
|
|
April 17, 2019, 08:24:16 AM |
|
Which coins are trading at 4sats and have a masternode requirement of a few thousand dollars?
I think the masternode issue is just an outgrowth of the pricing problem with BBP. Turning 4 sats into a few thousand dollars is a lot more difficult than turning Dash's $100 price into $100K masternodes. ($100K = 1000 times $100 price for Dash). By my math, it takes 1.4 million times price of $0.000203 for a BBP masternode at $300. BBP is a far more expensive. You needlessly convert to dollars - you don't need math, it's simply 1.55m coins for a BBP masternode and 1000 coins for a Dash masternode. But you missed something - BiblePay is one of the larger circulation coins out there. In fact, its circulation is 1.5b, while Dash's is 8.7m, which is about 170 times more coins. So to be able to make an analogous comparison between the two, we need to divide the 1.55m masternode cost by 170, which is around 9000 BBP. So a BBP masternode is 9 times more expensive in relative terms than a Dash masternode, but not 1500 times. But in absolute terms, it's extremely cheap. Of course, it's all about the price - if we had a 9 times higher price like we used to (36 sats), that would solve the cheap masternode problem. At a daily volume of around $250M, Dash has a masternode cost of .004 DailiyVolume. BBP has a mastnerode cost around a day's total trading volume. BBP is far less liquid, and is more expensive percentage-wise for a masternode. I agree, liquidity is terrible in BBP. Raising the masternode requirement does nothing to make the coin more attractive. It just makes it more expensive for prospective investors. For wannabe investors, yes, but for any average investor, $300 is not even worth looking at. I mean the monthly income is not worth the hassle and hosting fees. If you are so confident that raising the masternode requirement is bad, then why not lower it? Let's make it cost $50, what do you say? What will make a difference is to get some trading volume and buying pressure that is organic to growth, and not just inflating volume by raising masternode requirements. I wish less effort was being made towards new features that are cool but may not help pricing.
I agree we should have more organic growth, but that's an easy thing to say. I don't agree with your last sentence however, because I know many coins which don't do anything, just have some hype and not any actual features and regular (or any) development. I think that active development is one of the most important factors for a coin's health and attractiveness. Why we don't have more people interested in BiblePay, it's anyone's guess, but I would say it has a lot to do with the name itself and the religious features, and that is the hardest obstacle which we may never overcome. |
|
|
|
|
|
inblue
|
|
April 17, 2019, 09:11:55 AM |
|
The same happened a long time ago when inblue posted something that I was hiding proposals. We all know now that this rule only affected pool.biblepay.org's display characteristics for a replacement poll. It was never for the core wallet (core wallet has never pulled any proposals from an API ever). And it was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. Then I saw some kind of "proof" in the post with txid's showing that I hid the first proposal. Yes, it was proof that two proposals were in the system and both were able to be seen in the core wallet. The latter one was valid for voting.
So as an example, if inblue said "Hey Rob, could you please explain why I see this first instance and this instance"? I would have never deleted the post. It was written like "you bast***, you have now been Proven to be a Liar!". Btw, I have already forgiven him for that as can be seen in the QT thread.
Ah, here we go again... You really shouldn't have used this as an example, now bringing attention to that event again. This sentence of yours is all what is needed to be done with this conflict: It was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. So clearly you didn't use the feature as intended, since we were not going overbudget that month. Even if you argue that we were going overbudget, the proposal was immediately reentered for the same month, instead of waiting for the next one. But even if you argue that it could now fit the budget after a tiny BBP reduction, the proposal was evidently rejected and could not win, so it shouldn't be reentered. You misused that feature because the proposal received a lot of negative votes, but you really wanted it to succeed because you already paid from your pocket. It's very simple. And saying you "forgave" me for my undeniable blockchain proof, what a joke, you are a master of manipulation, because the situation is the other way around - it's only others who can forgive you for your misconduct. You know, you would look like a bigger man if you admitted your mistake and moved on, instead of raging. |
|
|
|
|
|
sunk818
|
|
April 17, 2019, 07:36:34 PM |
|
The same happened a long time ago when inblue posted something that I was hiding proposals. We all know now that this rule only affected pool.biblepay.org's display characteristics for a replacement poll. It was never for the core wallet (core wallet has never pulled any proposals from an API ever). And it was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. Then I saw some kind of "proof" in the post with txid's showing that I hid the first proposal. Yes, it was proof that two proposals were in the system and both were able to be seen in the core wallet. The latter one was valid for voting.
So as an example, if inblue said "Hey Rob, could you please explain why I see this first instance and this instance"? I would have never deleted the post. It was written like "you bast***, you have now been Proven to be a Liar!". Btw, I have already forgiven him for that as can be seen in the QT thread.
Ah, here we go again... You really shouldn't have used this as an example, now bringing attention to that event again. This sentence of yours is all what is needed to be done with this conflict: It was a feature for a replacement proposal so that vendors can ask a proposal be reentered when we see we are going overbudget at the end of the month. So clearly you didn't use the feature as intended, since we were not going overbudget that month. Even if you argue that we were going overbudget, the proposal was immediately reentered for the same month, instead of waiting for the next one. But even if you argue that it could now fit the budget after a tiny BBP reduction, the proposal was evidently rejected and could not win, so it shouldn't be reentered. You misused that feature because the proposal received a lot of negative votes, but you really wanted it to succeed because you already paid from your pocket. It's very simple. And saying you "forgave" me for my undeniable blockchain proof, what a joke, you are a master of manipulation, because the situation is the other way around - it's only others who can forgive you for your misconduct. You know, you would look like a bigger man if you admitted your mistake and moved on, instead of raging. It seems like Rob sees himself as a saint with no evil coming from his sinful human mind. Ultimately, this is the frustration that all will face. If Rob is never wrong, then it automatically means that you are always wrong. That's the definition of a toxic relationship. |
|
|
|
|
