What is the impact on stability by running different version of nodes? I notice on the
Cryptoid block explorer a wide range of versions running ranging from 1.4.3.2 to 1.4.4.7 and one unknown version number. Will the old ones just be ignored or are the differences not mandatory.
Basically, we have not had a hard fork consensus break since 1.2.0.1 (that changes the consensus rules), so we have these old versions still running because they can - and there is very little harm in running the old versions. That's why you still see some older versions in 'versionreport' because we havent enforced the upgrade in a hard way - this is primarily driven because we are trying to keep the exchanges on the last mandatory as long as possible. (They view it as a nuisance to upgrade and could delist us if we abused the privilege).
The more recent versions are more efficient with gobject propagation. Some things we learned this year require us to add business logic on top of dash's logic to delete old objects. Then we have the endeavor to upgrade to deterministic sancs (pushed by Dash .14) in the recent versions, with the turnkey providers not supporting deterministic, so we are now adding code and testing it that allows workarounds to upgrade to deterministic in steps, etc.
In about 90 days though we should have all this consolidated into the .14 branch and be "allowed" to push a mandatory again - that would cause everyone to upgrade to one single version.
Thanks for the reply and it makes sense. Have you considered reducing the coin supply from 1.78bn to a lesser amount of say 1.78m? A lesser number of coins are almost always more preferable and of interested to the market. I also looked at the links to the exchanges to try and analyse the trading patterns and noticed that the C-CEX link on p1 does not work.
Thanks for the update: I removed QIEX and C-CEX and added Tokok.
As far as the supply count:
I personally believe in the original 5~ billion max supply for a few reasons. One, I feel people who don't care about BBP lose more coins per year (IE coins that people could care less about if they accidentally lose the wallet or throw away the PC) - because they are dealing with tiny numbers. I think over time, this will result in higher prices for us. But more importantly, I think we will design a novel service that will use up all of our coin supply- over the long term. For one, we have an announcement coming at the end of the month, for a new product called DSQL that will act as a utility (allowing people to buy and sell BBP for gas-type transactions in a decentralized database). The other larger use case is we are investigating document mining. If we ever make this part of the mining algorithm, miners will prove allocated space and users will lease the space for Christian storage, etc. Once we have this and church tithing I think we will be able to setup an environment where each currency unit becomes much rarer.
On an unrelated side note, Sun asked if I believe in DGW: Yes, I still personally like DGW also.
The document storage sounds interesting. Although several other coins have done something similar (
Storj comes to mind). Will the storage reside on the mining nodes or somewhere on the cloud and rights protected by the crypto and blockchain? Things that come to mind are distribution of gospel music and storage of biblical texts. What was interesting with other storage projects is that it becomes almost impossible to ensure that the content stays on topic. A content storage container on the Internet will very quickly become eg. a pornographic content store.
Yes, there are a few other coins that lease space out for decentralized storage, although its not clear which are in production (I read a few months ago there were still technical problems with each solution). We will be the first in production with reverse DNS and a decentralized SQL server. We will be the first with human readable URLs.
The data will not be stored at cloud providers; it will be stored in zones across BiblePay BMS nodes. In the first baby step, a volunteer will have to host a BMS node and run it on a piece of hardware such as a sanctuary and expose port 443. But in the future as we design BIPFS mining, a miner may host a zone on their home machine potentially (this is completely unknown at this point) but I would imagine 10-20 miners hosting the same zone for durability.
As far as MPIAA, GDPR, RIAA takedown requests, the person leasing the storage will need to post a collateral transaction before they use BIPFS for storage. Potentially $10-$20 or so minimum in a DSQL account, and each DSQL account is linked to the CPK. Our server will automatically deduct fees from that account as time passes or as it is used. If someone finds a hash pointing to porn we have a page - called a takedown request page - where the hash gets inserted in the DSQL table - in the takedown list permanently (this makes BMS physically delete it and block it). I think what we can do is sieze the account of the person who did it and donate it to the foundation as a penalty, etc. So because we will be the first with true decentralized reverse dns, we will be able to police this as we receive complaints.
I agree that we should probably make this a Christian oriented service and potentially not open to the whole of internet content. We can control this by setting the fees appropriately. If its expensive to host a video no one will host a video. But we can host the Christian Treasure Trove (IE the protected data that the Antichrist will try to scrub), including end-time and rapture videos, gospel songs, and Vatican documents at a discount, etc.
