Topic: BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes) - page 308. (Read 243437 times)

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. 

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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

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

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)?

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....

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.

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....

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 that 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 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.

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.

This is a good concept in general, but I have also discovered 'concetrated capital' risk when we prepay for a child.  The longer the span we agree on, the more of a credit is centralized in one account at compassion for instance.  This is bad in the sense that if we lose the keys to the account, or if compassion disagrees with the credit memo amount (and that could happen if they make a bad accounting entry when a few terminations are processed) then we lose X amount of capital.

I am liking this idea in the sense of replacing compassion with home sponsorships though.  If we had a home miner pay for one year up front, add a proposal, be reimbursed.  Then the question comes into play: what if they get the money then cancel the child ask for a credit and run with the money... back to the drawing board.

Edit: Orphan Mining is the concept where we remove PODC, and ask a miner to sponsor a home child, show the receipt of last months payment once per month, and somehow masternodes approve this relationship to keep the Miner in Good Standing.  As long as they are in Good Standing, they can mine.  Otherwise, the mining reward is very low (1%).

Could we have a committee of votes that review those proposals accurately on a regular basis?  With a personal PDF receipt showing up to date accounting entries submitted monthly?


This approach drastically changes things:  It removes PODC, pays miners the 7.5k~ or so block reward for current orphan sponsorships.

Btw,  One who sponsors 3 children would be approved with 3* the mining power.  I think the number could be represented as "monthly commitment".  One child = a 35, two = 70, while POBH rewards based on the "good standing commitment" value.  We could also add a rule:  More distinct mining IDs pay diminishing rewards at the square of distance.  In laymans terms this means if you find a block once in a month, you get full reward, but if you find more than one you get a diminishing reward.