I have checked in the alpha version of stratis-biblepayd last night. This is for developers only (unless you are an extreme power user with visual studio 2017). Please read the bottom of the front page (Biblepay section in the readme.md) for more compile info. The repo is called "biblepay\StratisBitcoinFullNode".
This version syncs biblepayd in stratis in console mode, but remember we dont have the consensus rules checked in yet, and the GUI is in pre-alpha still.
Topic: BiblePay | 10% to Orphan-Charity | RANDOMX MINING | Sanctuaries (Masternodes) - page 408. (Read 243454 times)
July 13, 2018, 03:30:11 PM
July 13, 2018, 03:27:16 PM
** Update on World Community Grid **
Summary: A) We need users to enable export authorization from their respective web accounts, B) We need to test this to see if it works for Biblepay
Hello,
We are pleased to report that access to the data export files has been re-activated and is available again. Volunteers who wish to access the data will not need to sign a Data Processing Agreement or obtain tokens.
The review concluded that if volunteers are given explicit notice of and sufficient control over how their data is used, there was no legal justification for imposing any further restrictions on the data export files. The review also concluded that we will likely need to reinforce and strengthen the consent language in a few places on our website, but that doesn't stop us from opening up access to the data exports in the meantime.
This process took significantly longer than any of us hoped or anticipated, and we understand people's frustrations while we had to disable access pending the legal review. But we felt it was important to push back aggressively on what was initially a process more appropriate to a commercial engagement than a philanthropic initiative and to persevere until we had an outcome that was both GDPR-compliant as well as volunteer-friendly.
Finally, a reminder that while access to the data exports is now unrestricted, the export files only include data of volunteers who have opted to make their information public.
Thank you for your patience, and as always, your support.
Sincerely,
World Community Grid Support Team
---------------------------------------------------------
World Community Grid
***
I'll take a look at testing this today.
Please look for a checkbox in your WCG account to enable publically sharing your RAC data and please enable it.
Summary: A) We need users to enable export authorization from their respective web accounts, B) We need to test this to see if it works for Biblepay
Hello,
We are pleased to report that access to the data export files has been re-activated and is available again. Volunteers who wish to access the data will not need to sign a Data Processing Agreement or obtain tokens.
The review concluded that if volunteers are given explicit notice of and sufficient control over how their data is used, there was no legal justification for imposing any further restrictions on the data export files. The review also concluded that we will likely need to reinforce and strengthen the consent language in a few places on our website, but that doesn't stop us from opening up access to the data exports in the meantime.
This process took significantly longer than any of us hoped or anticipated, and we understand people's frustrations while we had to disable access pending the legal review. But we felt it was important to push back aggressively on what was initially a process more appropriate to a commercial engagement than a philanthropic initiative and to persevere until we had an outcome that was both GDPR-compliant as well as volunteer-friendly.
Finally, a reminder that while access to the data exports is now unrestricted, the export files only include data of volunteers who have opted to make their information public.
Thank you for your patience, and as always, your support.
Sincerely,
World Community Grid Support Team
---------------------------------------------------------
World Community Grid
***
I'll take a look at testing this today.
Please look for a checkbox in your WCG account to enable publically sharing your RAC data and please enable it.
July 13, 2018, 11:59:15 AM
PurePool:
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
Please also refresh the boinc names.
July 13, 2018, 11:15:21 AM
PurePool:
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
PUREPOOL is not working again. I hope @Lichtsucher can take a look soon and try to solve the issue.
Thanks!
July 13, 2018, 11:08:12 AM
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
What we need to do is get a third party to check once per quarter on our total contributions to each charity. Ginger will give an exact number (shes our district rep for compassion). If you have a total sent on a certain date that matches the total spent, then we are audited up to that day... So this coin is provably legit, besides you can see all the individual orphan letters coming in on a regular basis. Those kids are required to send at least one monthly letter....
Not to beat a dead horse, but does it make sense to have transparency or reporting with BBP sold on a specific exchange, the BTC it was sold for, and then the BTC sold for fiat? The complete paper trail would just make the charity contribution. I like how Kairos showed their paper work. Also, the BBP addresses involved so anyone can publically verify the transactions easily.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not accusing you of anything negative. I'm just trying to reduce and/or prevent these insane criticism thrown at BBP. I know your heart is in the right place and you're doing a great work... but nothing beats Satan at his own game than documenting all the steps.
What we could do is have You call Ginger and see if You can set it up so you can administer, manage and pay for a certain percentage of the children per month and do the paperwork that I require for the pool, that that would take part of the load off of what I do. Then you can keep exchange receipts showing your SSN from end-to-end.
Thanks.
EDIT: We already have all that in the pool. Click on Orphan Fundraisers. But yes, you should ensure you are not agreeing with criticizers, as we already have 100% accountability. There is nothing missing.
July 13, 2018, 10:09:48 AM
PurePool:
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
@Lichtsucher, Apart from the daily Autosend that is not working, I see in the Pool Statistics that the number of shares dropped a lot but the pool keeps founding blocks.
Update: The last block paid was 57760 and no more entries in the Transactions since July 13, 2018, 9:30 a.m. It seems that it got stuck again.
Thank you!
July 13, 2018, 07:25:23 AM
I tried some time ago. 15 confirmations so far and it didn't even show up at C-CEX.
Me too - I sent 125 bbp 7 blocks ago and it did not confirm nor pop up - so it appears CCEX put us in maintenance, which is great, but I didnt receive a message.
Sadly, it looks like it's not in maintenance, we can check that on the following link:
https://c-cex.com/?id=ws
It should say "Maintenance" in place of the QR code, as seen on some other coins on that page.
I guess it's time for:
If the wallet is not upgraded after 57,700 please post emergency message here and I will bombard messages to put us in maintenance (as at that point, ccex would be on a fork).
Note that any user can also help by going into the trollbox and asking us to be put in maintenance.
Note that any user can also help by going into the trollbox and asking us to be put in maintenance.
I see a few people already wrote in the chat, I just did too.
Just checked C-CEX, 7:25 am ct https://c-cex.com/?id=ws
Wallet Block count Version Difficulty Money supply New block seen Last check Status
[BBP] 57039 1010204 696 no info 2 days 21 hours 16 min Delayed
July 12, 2018, 06:34:56 PM
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
What we need to do is get a third party to check once per quarter on our total contributions to each charity. Ginger will give an exact number (shes our district rep for compassion). If you have a total sent on a certain date that matches the total spent, then we are audited up to that day... So this coin is provably legit, besides you can see all the individual orphan letters coming in on a regular basis. Those kids are required to send at least one monthly letter....
Not to beat a dead horse, but does it make sense to have transparency or reporting with BBP sold on a specific exchange, the BTC it was sold for, and then the BTC sold for fiat? I know you are currently using your American Express to fund at least compassion.com children. The complete paper trail would just make the charity contribution. I like how Kairos showed their paper work. Also, the BBP addresses involved so anyone can publically verify the transactions easily.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not accusing you of anything negative. I'm just trying to reduce and/or prevent these insane criticism thrown at BBP. I know your heart is in the right place and you're doing a great work... but nothing beats Satan at his own game than documenting all the steps.
I would argue against this suggestion (not out of principle, iust practicality). If the funding is worth $9300 worth of BBP, why should anyone care if $9300 worth of BBP are sold on an exchange to fiat or if the balance is paid in USD and those BBP are reinvested? It's a slippery slope, but also a weird way to force additional steps for those acting as administrators of our funds and charities.
Just my 2 cents. Happy to debate, but at the end of the day I care only that the outside for which the proposal was approved is accomplished. I don't need (or want) to see every step of the bbp distribution to wallet to exchange to first to bank to wallet transfer. Just prove to me the bill got paid. Nothing else matters.
July 12, 2018, 04:29:01 PM
Don't know if someone posted already, but since it was brought up again: Kucoin currently has a free-listing-vote-competition running right now. Only problem is that you have to be signed on the exchange and join the Telegram group. Apparently you can propose any project, but you should write in short times why it would deserve to be listed there.
https://medium.com/kucoinexchange/vote-for-your-coin-telegram-action-f749362be26a
I have tried it....https://medium.com/kucoinexchange/vote-for-your-coin-telegram-action-f749362be26a
after voting for Biblepay
Quote
Project placed 612th with 2 votes
July 12, 2018, 04:07:07 PM
Noxpost then why we using bbp from proposals 15M? We can use this coins for listing..... nobody see that coins from proposall was sell ... ask him where are all coins from proposals with proofs screens .. transfers to exchanges ...
All his answers is lies
All his answers is lies
You are talking like you have a birdbrain.
Why would our sancs be based on masternodes if our users didnt get rewards for locking the funds, and the privilege to vote on important charitable governance issues?
July 12, 2018, 04:04:51 PM
It's weird how many suspicious people continue to draw some conclusion that Biblepay = Rob and that Biblepay Money = Rob's Money.
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
Yeah I forgot to post this the other week, although now I dont have time to make this statement suave, but someone was arguing with me about the 'provability' of our RPC command (along with Theymos). I figured out later that night that we *can* prove our contributions at checkpoints, making us 100% provably legit.
What we need to do is get a third party to check once per quarter on our total contributions to each charity. Ginger will give an exact number (shes our district rep for compassion). If you have a total sent on a certain date that matches the total spent, then we are audited up to that day...
So this coin is provably legit, besides you can see all the individual orphan letters coming in on a regular basis. Those kids are required to send at least one monthly letter....
July 12, 2018, 03:59:21 PM
Jaapgkv im checking all this things on this coin and is very untrustworthy.. dont believe this ways
Dave. Kucoin wants to fill the form only from main dev.Slovakia user wrote this 2-3 weeks ago .... so? Its dumbaaa when main dev screw on it...he is lazy for this....
Dave. Kucoin wants to fill the form only from main dev.Slovakia user wrote this 2-3 weeks ago .... so? Its dumbaaa when main dev screw on it...he is lazy for this....
Don't worry, I'm not deleting any of slavino's posts, he's not swearing.
But lets follow this all the way through.
I implore you to post any single thing here that is untrustworthy or a sham, or one single thing I've done to hurt another person.
Unfortunately Slavino as your track record shows, you have fabricated stories in the past and you have a horrible personality.
If I own sanctuaries its because I believe in the coin, does that make any stronger of a case to buy bbp than if I believe in it?
Who cares if Cryptobridge is taking a couple weeks to go live. They have an integration process, that is to be expected. No one can make 'free sanc income' off of .50 bitcoins in two weeks.
July 12, 2018, 03:57:41 PM
Okay, sure. Let's take that route then But since the wallet is not my expertise, I'll let others take it from here. I can always add it to the FAQ as a supplement to the wallet.
But since the wallet is not my expertise, I'll let others take it from here. I can always add it to the FAQ as a supplement to the wallet.Publish the FAQ and someone technical can include in the QT wallet.
I'll add the wallet list to my TODO's
Nearing completion on my current task finally..
July 12, 2018, 03:47:29 PM
@Lichtsucher, sorry to disturb you again but the daily Autosend in PurePool is not working. Not a big problem because the rest is working fine, but just wanted to let you know.
Or is just delayed for some reason?
Thanks.
Update: No, it is not delayed. The Autosend is not working.
Or is just delayed for some reason?
Thanks.
Update: No, it is not delayed. The Autosend is not working.
July 12, 2018, 03:05:02 PM
Okay, sure. Let's take that route then But since the wallet is not my expertise, I'll let others take it from here. I can always add it to the FAQ as a supplement to the wallet.
But since the wallet is not my expertise, I'll let others take it from here. I can always add it to the FAQ as a supplement to the wallet.Publish the FAQ and someone technical can include in the QT wallet.
July 12, 2018, 02:37:29 PM
I want to create an overview of the most commonly used (or useful) wallet-commands. I don't have a lot of time for this right now since I'll be abroad the coming weeks and I'm not that familiar with all the commands. But maybe we can try to make this a community-effort?
I'd prefer they be integrated into the QT wallet. When you type help
Also, detailing all the exec commands would really help me. I don't remember what they are and help in the QT doesn't show me the exec command options.
Agreed, i'm curious why some things are buried in the "exec" function .. Perhaps an exec "help" is in order to provide the data list?
Okay, sure. Let's take that route then
But since the wallet is not my expertise, I'll let others take it from here. I can always add it to the FAQ as a supplement to the wallet. July 12, 2018, 02:36:09 PM
Does anyone have trouble using InstantSend on 1.1.3.8c? I tried to send different amounts of 100, 1000, and even 10,000, but it keeps throwing an error saying that Instantsend only supports up to 500,000 BBP. Just noticed it after I upgraded from 1.1.2.4.
I did have a problem with it, yes - but I didn't report it as I couldn't reproduce it.I could InstantSend 50,000 and 100,000 BBP, but not 200,000 or 300,00.
However, I think (not sure, but think) that the message was just misleading, and it was probably because I didn't have all of the funds sitting in the same address first. I was able to do instantsend of 100,000 -> 100,000 -> 50,000 -> 50,000 but that was the only way I could get it to work. Every other attempt threw the error you described.
The message is a bit ambigious.
To solve it, please go into coin control and manually select coin inputs less than 500,000, then re-send
.Cool. I didn't know about the coin control feature. Just went in to try it and was able to select my wallet which has more than enough coins. However, it still throws the same error despite the coins also having over a dozen confirmations. Tried 123, 1230, 10,000 "InstantSend doesn't support sending values that high yet..." Not sure what's wrong.
July 12, 2018, 02:34:00 PM
I want to create an overview of the most commonly used (or useful) wallet-commands. I don't have a lot of time for this right now since I'll be abroad the coming weeks and I'm not that familiar with all the commands. But maybe we can try to make this a community-effort?
I'd prefer they be integrated into the QT wallet. When you type help
Also, detailing all the exec commands would really help me. I don't remember what they are and help in the QT doesn't show me the exec command options.
Agreed, i'm curious why some things are buried in the "exec" function .. Perhaps an exec "help" is in order to provide the data list?
July 12, 2018, 02:33:25 PM
It's weird how many suspicious people continue to draw some conclusion that Biblepay = Rob and that Biblepay Money = Rob's Money.
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
Completely agree. Sometimes I'm reading words but I just don't know that to make of it. I guess it's also partly a language/cultural barrier. BiblePay has given more than 130k dollars to charity to this date, which is verifiable with the charities involved. Don't know what you want more?
All the rest is just crypto-101. If you don't like how masternode-governance works, stay away from masternode projects. If you don't like how crypto works, stay away from crypto. The end.
July 12, 2018, 02:05:05 PM
It's weird how many suspicious people continue to draw some conclusion that Biblepay = Rob and that Biblepay Money = Rob's Money.
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
I don't think any amount of "transparency / accountability / history/logging/whatever" discussion is going to convince people otherwise. Biblepay money is a decentralized collective, for which a decentralized governance committee (which includes some "big" players, admittedly) votes on how to spend.
Now, even if you assume that Rob has the ability to approve any proposal he wants on the basis of owning enough masternodes, that's just a "whale" situation. Is Rob a whale in BBP? I guess we might say that. Does it mean that Biblepay is therefore less than legit? You'd need to throw aside an awful lot of logic to make that leap.
If I (or anyone else) were to suddenly go from 5 masternodes to 50, for some reason, I feel like people would treat it differently. Maybe I'm wrong....but it's not like there are proposals getting passed of "I would like all the BBP for a new roof for my house" or something like that. We have the accountability page that tells us that the things we are voting to pay for are being paid. I don't need to see that it came from this wallet to that wallet to that exchange to fiat to wire transfer - just that it happened. I didn't vote for a proposal of "4M BBP to be sold on QIEX for 39 satoshi on july 17th" - I voted for "pay the orphan bill." If the orphan bill gets paid, I'm happy.
And yet, I feel like I'm missing something. That level of transparency clearly isn't enough for some. Why?
Jump to: