Topic: BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes) - page 371. (Read 243454 times)

I agree that - sadly - sponsoring 300+ children probably just isn't sustainable in our current condition.

Then do the math (nextsuperblock-current block) *7 minutes

im looking for monthly superblock....where i can find a date?

He didn't  disappear, he had a family-emergency (as I already told). I'm still in contact with him and he is still enthusiastic.

Tether is suspected to be not fully backed by dollars and Bitfinex dissolved the relationship with their auditor.  https://medium.com/@bitfinexed/bitfinex-and-tether-is-unauditable-why-they-will-never-do-a-real-audit-3324e002b185
Tether is widely regarded to be something between a scam and shady, but not proven so yet.  

Do you want to force merchants to accept BBP and then have to immediately change it to BTC and then fiat?  What if BTC crashes by $100, $200, $1,000 or more while the merchant is waiting for the transaction?  Instead either the merchant can directly convert the BBP to BBPD or the purchaser can convert the BBP to BBPD to make the purchase.  TrueUSD is just tokenized dollars; a token backed by USD like what Tether is supposed to be.  DAI doesn't do what I am proposing either.

The point you are missing and the reason why developer resources should be used is because this is 1) a way to extinguish more of our overwhelming supply  2) A way for shoppers and merchants to adopt BBP and BBPD for real world adoption and usage  3) A way to increase demand by spreading the knowledge that we will have decreasing supply with increasing adoption and usage of BBPD. That is the real key:  people doing the burn transactions leads to less BBP, the risk asset.  As more people accept and transact with BBPD, the higher the value of the risk asset BBP because it will become in shorter supply UNLIKE Tether, TrueUSD and DAI.  That is what will make BBPD different: it's relationship to a risk asset BBP.

I will be busy for a time tomorrow but will probably be around to chat late.

I do feel awful suggesting dropping 200 sponsored poor children ("orphan"). Although this doesn't remove our commitment as quickly, it provides a gradual (and better) way out from this financial obligation. If we assume, 15 years per child @ $39/mo, for 300 children, it'd be a ~$2M obligation? It'd take ~15 years if we paid ~$11k per month? 1 month vs 15 years, but no child is left behind. Even if BBP dies before 15 years, we leave a legacy where some children were fully sponsored until adulthood. I support this approach.

From a marketing standpoint, it is a lot easier to relate to a single sponsored child's growth than 300 random children.

Stable coins such as Tether, TrueUSD, or DAI already exist that are pegged to fiat (USD, US dollar):
https://www.cryptomorrow.com/2018/05/24/stable-coin-cryptocurrencies/

If you want to preserve your BBP value, trade it for BTC then take it out in fiat or a stable coin.

I don't see the point in BBPD when solutions already exist.

Wasting dev time, reinventing the wheel... for what?

btw whats happnened with HABIB from AFRICA? took bbp and disappeared as a camphor

I very much agree that it isn't worthwhile to chase more miners.  Higher prices attract more miners.  The demand side is our problem.


There doesn't have to be an organization that guarantees the value; the value just has to be set at $1 in the code.  BBPD is worth $1 as long as BBP is tradeable: the fact that BBP is tradeable makes BBPD worth something. If BBP ceases to trade, then BBPD ceases to have value unless BBPD is in a trading pair with the USD. If BBPD is in a USD trading pair, BBPD can trade independently of BBP and have the value of being easily transferrable in less time than is required for a wire or ACH transaction.  BBP should keep and increase in value because BBP should decline in supply as people choose to convert BBP to BBPD, for whatever reason: locking in gains, making purchases, merchants locking in value, etc.

And I don't think it makes it a security because it is not ownership of something other than a currency.  A currency pegged to another currency is about the most pure form of currency I can think of.

The expansion from 100 to 300 orphans so quickly was good to see at the time, but reinvigorates my feeling we should pay the entire child's premium in advance.  This would protect the coin from market variations as the Orphan Fund could be (on the vote of either the Foundation when it arrives, or the Sanctuaries) held on to and waited for a better price, or slowly sold over the period of 30 days to minimize price disruptions.

The idea is this, the maximum age a child is in the sponsorship program is 22 years old (it can be as low as 18 and varies by country).  So instead of expanding in the future, let's pay the remaining term off for each of our orphans.   Then in future months, when times are good, adopt new orphans and pay their entire term in one fell swoop.  Ideally we should select orphans that have recently lost their sponsor's because the disruption to them is tremendous and most will be older and harder to find new sponsors.  Additionally, we can likely afford more sponsorships if we sponsor eight 16 year olds rather than one 5 year old.

As to the current problem, we have few options.  Throwing a hail mary and opening the floodgates to try and get more users by removing the team requirement or adjusting the staking formula will likely not convert enough users to justify the upheaval for the current user base.  There is work in progress for DAHF, which I'm unclear how it will precisely increase the utility of BBP, I'm willing to watch and see.  There are still enough months prepaid at this point to limp forward for a short time when hopefully the markets will regain strength.  But we might have to face the hard facts, support may have been expanded too quickly without enough of a safety net.  Unfortunately, hundreds of kids could be affected.

I look at successful coins and a majority of their users are NOT miners.  So chasing more miners to me is not the path to success (although as the coin becomes more successful, more miners will also come), the path to success is finding a use-case for it (utility) then allowing BBP to fill the use-case space.  What that is, I'm unsure.

While I really like Aikda3k's thinking of the BBPD, a problem I see is there would have to be an organization guaranteeing the value, and that would make it a borderline security (or pseudo currency like Tether). 

I think we should at the very least wait 30 days after C-cex reopens and see if the volume and price make a rebound.  That has always been our best exchange.

Rob, everyone at Biblepay,

I have an idea that I think would be much better than 'opening the floodgates'.  Instead of changing the requirements for mining, I believe we should instead incorporate a concurrent stable coin feature into Biblepay.  The way it would work is to allow people that hold BBP to burn BBP into a stable coin called BBPD.  The value of 1 BBPD=1 USD, and the way you would get BBPD is by burning the value amount of BBP into the equivalent amount of USD.  To keep things simple, say BBP traded for .01 and I had 100 BBP.  Then I could burn 100 BBP into 1 BBPD.  BBPD should also trade as a pair with the USD.  So 1 BBPD:1 USD.  Holders of BBPD would not be allowed to burn their BBPD and remint BBP.  What would be ideal, to get people to want to purchase BBPD over buying BTC and then BBP would be if BBPD would allow the BBPD holder to buy BBP at a discount, say a 20% discount.  Since there will be a difficult time acquiring BBPD, people will still seek to acquire BBP through BTC by paying the full price, because of the diminishing supply over time.  People will want to burn their BBP into BBPD when BBP pumps because they can lock in value without selling to introduce supply.  You would want to only offer the 20% discount to buyers of BBPD and not the BBP burners so that BBP burners cannot just burn their BBP and turn around and buy more BBP for 20% less, so the discount would only happen with a change in ownership from one pool of BBP addresses to another owner's pool of BBP addresses.  

The benefit of BBPD other than offering the buyer of BBPD a 20% discount would be that it would help merchant adoption of cryptocurrency with the ability to lock in BBP price as a stable coin.  So if you actually wanted to buy something with BBP, the merchant would be able to accept your BBP and then immediately burn the BBP into BBPD.  

If (which is doubtful) the entire supply of BBP ever became fully burned, Rob or the development team could reinstantiate the total supply of BBP and convert all holdings of BBPD back to BBP.  If one wanted to remain in BBPD all they would have to do is reburn their transaction back to BBPD.  

So in summary, a stable coin feature should help with the amount of total supply of BBP by giving people incentive to lock in good BBP prices into BBPD.  It should help with demand of BBP because introducing this feature in this way would be a first in crypto.  There is anther Monero fork that is working on a burn and mint stable coin feature but as of today, they are allowing the stable coin holders to remint back into the primary currency, which doesn't enforce a cap on outstanding supply; the total outstanding supply could become well in excess of the total amount mined.  A BBP stable coin feature would help with adoption among merchants.  

Anyway, I hope we consider this idea as a community instead of voting to open the floodgates on mining.

I think we are trying to sell too many bbp than market wants.

It is a pity that we are trying to sponsor so many children so quickly.

I thinK we should reduce number of children sponsored. The hard truth is all these children can't be sponsored. I want proposal to reflect the actual buy order from last 90 days from all exchanges or CMC data if it is accurate. Then the proposal only requests what the market can handle.

If you sponsor 100 children then slowly add children only if bbp price and volume can Handle it.

Please drop 200 from sponsorship.

This podc change is Bad idea.

Thanks.  I enabled the Requirement of running watchman on the wall.

Technically, within 24 hours, all the masternodes in WATCHDOG_EXPIRED state should fail to be paid (as the sancs vote for each other).

Prices of 100 satoshi and high efficiency wallets sounds good to me...  Rather than dropping prices and a choked stagnant growth cycle.

rac 15k is way too high, you will see, if no staking req will means that wallet could be offline, then it will be one time setup per 1 powerfull pc and once per month you will start wallet, move coins away and viola...

I have a DASH wallet


Github:
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/spork.cpp#L28

Is anyone here a DASH user?

I'm considering that we tighten down requirements for sanctuaries running watchman on the wall.

Could you please run this spork in DASH prod and let us know what the value is for this:

From the rpc type:
spork show:
Paste value of : SPORK_14_REQUIRE_SENTINEL_FLAG

I like your reasoning.  I'll modify the proposal to be for a RAC threshhold instead.  We can make a network spork for 'racthreshhold'.  If the proposal passes we set it to 15000 RAC.  The main reason I like RAC better from an IT perspective is the magnitude assessment algorithm has a better idea about RAC than magnitude in the creation phase so this is a more superior solution.

If RAC < 15000, no UTXO required for our users.

slovakia, ved presne o tom pisem ze to takto dopadne 1 mag je priliz vela, ak bude treba kuskova tmasinu tak sa na to radsej vyprdnem a dam tam ten stake bo sa mi s tym nebude chciet babrat