Topic: Biblepay BBP Community Discussion Thread - page 12. (Read 23762 times)

What do think is the tax problem? If you sell BTC, you are taxed. But you give to a charity, so that is a tax benefit. I don't see a tax problem... maybe accounting and paperwork problem mostly.

DASH is centralized to some degree. You need some centralization because the wisdom of the crowd is not ideal. We need a steward who will keep the values of Jesus Christ and align BiblePay correctly to those values.


This is good reason to have a non-profit. IMO, run BiblePay like a business. There are decentralized aspects which is good use case (like charity proposals), but other aspects need protection and centralized is a good idea.

It's inevitable that crypto decentralization in it's current form will not last. This is because it is rapidly coming under government regulation, as all markets historically do.  

The smart choice as Christians is to be among the first in the crypto world to publicly embrace financial transparency and integrity in our procedures.  

The Biblepay Foundation (TBF) was thought to avoid tax problems for the individuals to liquidate the charity funds. On the other side, it had the risk of increasing centralization.

After learning that charities could be payed in BTC (thus avoiding tax prosecution for individuals), the whole TBF could be left behind, so we could have a DAO-like organization and avoid the centralization issue.

On the other side, we still need to incorporate some sort of company to allow us to develop the iOS wallet app (Apple is very strict on this and won't allow individual accounts to publish anything that sounds like trademarked) and we still need to improve on communication and prepare a solid continuity plan for the development and roadmap.

As you may understand, it's not easy to do centralized stuff pretending to be decentralized and it's difficult to have a unique, visionary team lead and at the same time pretend to be a bazaar-like open source project.

All these imbalances will be ironed as the project makes progress and it's really feasible to evolve to a full DAO system.

Outstanding votes:  I mean we have 346 Sanctuaries in the info screen.  The margin to pass a proposal is 10% of the total Sanctuaries, so that is important to understand the arguments I make.  In hard numbers, right now, a proposal has to have 34 or 35 net yes votes to pass; i.e., 70 yes , 40 no = 30 net yes...less than 34 so failed proposal, 100 yes 60 no = 40 net yes greater than 34 so passed proposal.  So when I refer to outstanding votes, I mean the 346 Sanctuaries that are eligible to vote.

In the below examples I'll use the number 34 for outstanding votes and margin needed for passing.  I'll use 50 as the "whale" voter.  I'll use 120 as the normal votes cast (when the whale is limited, there will be 86 other votes cast).

1) No one should vote more than 10% of the outstanding votes "yes".  This means someone who controls 50 Sanctuaries (in the current environment) should only vote yes with no more than 34.  This would be enough to pass a proposal if no one else voted.  Otherwise, it would turn it into a simple "rest of the majority" rules situation (that is to say, if the community was evenly split, it would pass).  I think this is fair as someone with 50 or more Sanctuaries has a lot of skin in the game, but limiting it to 10% of the outstanding votes means the rest of the community gets their consensus passed.  So if the whale votes yes 34, the rest of the community will stop it if they vote 42 yes 44 no (only 32 net yes), but it will pass if they vote 43 yes 43 no (34 net yes)

2) Because it is a hurdle to get proposals passed, no one should vote more than 5% of the outstanding votes "no".  This means if the "whale" votes 17 no, then the community can override the "whale" with a super majority of the remaining votes.  So the rest of the voters could vote 43 yes, 43 no and it would fail (17 net no), 69 yes 17 no and it would pass (net 35 yes).

3) Margin of victory is 10%.  Explained in the preamble.

4) In the future I'm of the belief the percentage of Sanctuaries that vote will go down.  Right now the highest number of votes in the last round was 142.  Most of the time 125 is more average.  At 125, that means about 1/3 of the Sanctuaries vote.  Notwithstanding that someone (most likely Rob) has cast the super majority of those votes, the general feeling is that there are about 50 votes at least that are not his.  So excluding the theorized Rob votes, 50 is about 15% of the outstanding votes.  Looking a DASH, they typically don't see much more than 20% of their Masternodes vote.  If we limited ourselves the the above figures, we'd see 20-25% voting, there have only been a small percentage of DAHS votes that have had that turnout.  As Sanctuaries begin to be spun up solely for income, they will increase the number of outstanding votes, yet be the most unlikely to vote about most issues.  Put another way, if BBP Sanctuaries were $75,000, you woudn't see many individuals starting them, it would finally get to the point most new ones would be investors.  They'll be less concerned about most issues than the average dedicated user (which is what we have now).

http://explorebiblepay.com/  KO
http://explorer.biblepay.org:3001/  KO
Circulating Supply on CMC KO


coin card  

and TOGO:ROBS WATCHDOG= junkie guy

If someone wants to invest $100-300k like Rob hahahahahahahahahahahahaha... best joke on BTT forum  yaaaaaaaaay sorry, 100$ .. ITS OK

and yes, when somebody controling so huge amounts of MN= its centralized coin


and yes,TOGO,is totally mistaken

There are 345 masternodes, ***assuming*** Rob operates 87,
that is 25.2% of all masternodes, and only 14.1% of all coins in circulation,
is this centralized for a coin worth $450k?

Strangely, only 249 of the 345 masternodes are in the ENABLED state (Why is this?)
87/249 is 34.9% voting power, is this centralized?

Weirdly, only 160 masternodes have ever voted each month,
This means Rob is given 54.3% voting power with others choosing not to vote,
this is not enough to push his own proposal through if most active voters vote against him though

Rob has some of the most experience in the space, has done the vast majority of the work, understands all the technical details, and he probably has the most time and money invested, the most skin in the game, if the project fails he loses his money

Is Rob still bound by the forces of the free market? Yes

Also, How many of you guys own Bitcoin?
How many of you guys own stocks in Amazon, Tesla, Walmart, or Facebook?

Satoshi Nakamoto owns around 10% of Bitcoin
Jeff Bezos owns 17% of Amazon
Elon Musk owns around 19% of Tesla
Walton Family owns over 50% of Walmart
Zuckerberg owns around 15-20% of Facebook

If you want voting power, put skin in the game, put your money on the line and step up to bat

Theres over 34+ million BBP in sell orders on the exchanges right now,
Theres 14+ million BBP that gets paid out to proposals every month and most have to be sold right away,
Theres hundreds of miners who need to sell BBP to pay electricity bill every month.

If someone wants to invest $100k-300k like Rob and his fellow investors probably did, then go ahead!

=

Understanding BiblePay Masternode Governance:
http://wiki.biblepay.org/UnderstandingGovernance

=

Masternode Setup Guide:
http://wiki.biblepay.org/Create_Sanctuary_2

Masternode Statistics/ROI:

- MasterNodes.pro: https://masternodes.pro/stats/bbp/statistics
- MasterNodes.online: https://masternodes.online/currencies/BBP/
- MNCN.online (Chinese): https://mncn.online/coins/BBP
- TradersGateway: http://www.tradersgateway.net/currencies/BIBLEPAY/Biblepay.html
- Mintnodes: https://www.mintnodes.com/coins/BBP

Masternode Hosting/Sharing:

- Gin: https://gincoin.io/
- Apollon: https://apollon.one/
- Mintnodes: https://www.mintnodes.com/

Masternode Monitoring:

- NodeCheck.io: https://nodecheck.io/
- BiblePay Central: https://www.biblepay-central.org/en/masternodes/

I think that it's good when dev controls a good amount of supply, but not too much. Devs are more active when they have their stake. Thanks for the interesting info about BBP dev masternodes 

How does now the writing letters section working? I wrote a letter to adopted child. I got only 6 votes during few weeks. Deadline was 22th of september. On pool biblepay org page I see only 3 letters together. Only 3 letters have been written this month??? My letter is still not sent. Is this working or not exactly?

Thanks for answers.

The data will be stored on ipfs (decentralized file system). You can add contact information. Churches can register their location and email. If you want to send someone bbp using their email address, this will be possible in the future. It doesn't have to be church only, you could register your email and I could send you bbp by email.

For clarification, what are "outstanding votes"?

Also, will you give us an example(s) that include the different aspects you've discussed:

1) no one individual should vote more than 10% of the outstanding votes
2) they should never vote more than 5% of the outstanding votes "no". 
3) This is because they must win by 10% margin of nodes
4) in the future I'm of the belief the percentage of nodes that vote will actually go down

Thanks

Sorry I have no idea what you're asking




Togo is still re-indexing the explorer,  adding a longer transaction history count.

http://explorer.biblepay.org:3001/ still not working.

what is businness objects new address in wallets? 

I have made a few guides here - https://hardforum.com/threads/mining-cryptocurrency-guides.1953299/#post-1043455720
If you sign up to run Electroneum please PM me for a referral code so that we both earn more ETN.

While it would be entirely impossible to enforce, I would like to see the following.

For the Foundation:

If it really is changing to Sanctuaries, here are some thoughts.  The Foundation is set to be a corporate entity (non-profit mind you).  So first, the Foundation if switching to Sanctuaries should be staffed by a council.  That council should be voted upon by the Sanctuaries in my mind.  But I would like to see for the Foundation vote ONLY , votes to require true identification of who a voter is and how many Sanctuaries they are claiming (and of course there would need to be proof of ownership).  The Foundation members should be elected by their true identification as well, although if an individual chose to say "My Name is John Smith and my BBP handle is CryptoBear123" that would be good too (but not required, although I'd personally be wary of voting for a non-community member).  Foundation members should be required to verify their holdings, not necessarily in a down to the penny way, but broad strokes such as own 10-20 MN and hold 5-10M BBP.

For general Governance voting:

While again, it would be based on trust, I would think no one individual should vote more than 10% of the outstanding votes, and furthermore, the should never vote more than 5% of the outstanding votes "no".  This is because the must win by 10% margin of nodes, makes it far easier to spoil a vote than pass a vote.  I'm lukewarm on if I'd be in favor of limiting votes for one's own proposals beyond a 5% quantity of outstanding votes, as in the future I'm of the belief the percentage of nodes that vote will actually go down, and prohibiting voting on your own entirely is a very high bar if you happened to hold a significant number of the normally voting nodes.


Additionally, on another topic, but tangentially related, I would like see further enhancements of the Sanctuary system, specifically the ability to name one wallet with the voting rights, a second wallet with the staking rights and a third wallet with the reward rights.  For most this would all be the same wallet.  DASH is working on this now.  

I would really like to see if it was feasible to do two more grand ideas which would help the coin I believe.  The first is coin leasing, where you could lease your coins to another wallet for a predefined time for a predefined cost.  The second grander idea works best with the preceding.  That is to allow multiple payees from a single block reward (either Sanctuary Reward or PoDC payouts).  If we could do both of the preceding, you basically would have a no risk - low work, shared Sanctuary, or shared Staking.  I'm not aware of any coins that have that feature, and it would build on the features we have now and improve them.  I think that sort of development could pay bigger dividends (that is extending the functionality of a current feature) than trying to work on entirely new features.

No ...  The I believe vote is based on 10% of the "active", we could easily exceed that if we take all MN's into account.

Granted this could change but it should not vary by a wild margin.  (Look for the "ENABLED" status nodes, you can filter this in the wallet easily)

What are your thoughts?


How do you determine Active masternodes? Can we simplify? Maybe:

limit voting to 10% of the total masternodes ? So if there is 300 total masternodes, you can use up to 30 masternodes you own? Or is that too much power still?

We'll let Rob explain the change from directors to sanctuaries for the foundation, but I suggest we complete our "true case for an improvement" for the MN-vote issue and give it to him for feedback.

We've got the basics in place, is there anything else to consider?

I believe voting is closed for this superblock cycle...

Rob will announce when the change will take effect.