On a side note all, West started testing the news feature in testnet and then made the good point about the DAO being open to a copyright lawsuit if someone copies a news article fro mainstream news, so we sort of stopped testing the feature until we find out if there is a way to maybe have the user click a box that says I relinquish all legal ramifications held against BiblePay. I was wondering if a few testnet users could please test this anyway with a harmless article in testnet now that testnet has 8 participants? The reason why is we might use this for orphan letters or compiled in help guides:
http://forum.biblepay.org/index.php?topic=14.0(On a side note the lull in sanctuary testnet is because I am adding a feature to the pool and working on the retirement accounts at night. I would think 1-2 more days max and I will be back with the next thing to test in the sanctuary thread).
Anyway, first I do disagree that "any change we make" will be disruptive and hurt the coin. Not true. Ive been around the block 8* (actually Im still going around the block every day actively - right now - in the day time). The more innovation in this coin, the better. And, we are in our infancy, and starting from the bottom of the barrel right now.
However I agree that if we make it a nuisance, or too hard to mine BiblePay, we risk curbing the user base and I really dont want to do that.
And I do agree that it might be too strong to try to police miners, and levy and major fee (like you all said over 15% or so).
I really like the idea of having forum URLs to mine however, I think its one thing that would set us apart as the light from the dark, in that we could promote high quality character to our community and the ones that see it as too big of a nuisance will just not take the effort to do it, leaving more coins for the true biblepayers. We could Recommend a walk-in-Faith page, but in reality, accept any forum URL content that is "edifying" to the community. The only content that would be "policed" per se would be something like this: Anonymous miner sets up a forum URL, and writes one unrecongnizable sentence in the blog, and its obviously not "edifying" to us. So maybe we make the acid test Edifying/Not Edifying. If a blog URL is "not edifying" the sanctuaries hold a vote to mark the URL as neutered. At that point the mining activity on it is rejected.
So let me propose a new idea- one that would work by default:
- Mining URL would be Required for all, otherwise no blocks would be mined (something like URL=http:// in config file)
- If one sets up a blog that is Not edifying and links to it, and is not caught, the mining works but blocks pay at 75% level
- If one runs a non-edifying blog and Is caught by a sanctuary, and vote is entered to ban that URL, blocks start paying at 0% level after the vote
- If one runs an edifying URL, payment starts increasing from 75-100% over 60 days, until full seniority is reached. One must just continue to add something edifying one a month to the blog to maintain 100%.
So blocks would always pay 75-100% with a valid URL, depending on seniority level, and 0% with a Banned URL or a missing URL.
The sanctuaries would have a command to 'vote against URL' and if supermajority pushes the command, the URL is then banned.
What Im thinking is this would end up giving us a Huge, positive web presence, and a closer loving community.