Topic: BiblePay - New Coin Launch - Official Thread - page 28. (Read 119833 times)

Yeah, I like the gentle route myself.


I agree now, lets try to keep it simple and not add anything that makes it harder to mine.


But I still believe we should consider integrating God in, and be a God oriented community - one that at least witnesses and promotes a community that is growing closer to God.  One of the original visions was to make this a place where Christians can easily find each other, yet we will have a high percent of geeks.

Ok cool, we will just add F8000 to fix the 'processor mutex', add retirement accounts to have a highly deflationary sweep account, God nodes (super sanctuaries) with their actual use TBD, Blockchain News rebranded as multi-type objects, and Sanctuaries at Christmas.   And in-wallet trading from savings account to Biblepay.  And slack devs at Christmas.


Should keep us busy for a little while anyway.

On the subject of carrots and sticks.

I would caution against any activity that is so required it makes mining impossible if not done.  The safeguards put into place by this coin to reduce the likelihood of GPU or ASIC mining seem to be working well.  While there is a clarion call in religion to witness to others, there is also the warning to not judge others.  So, I would suggest, much like with the orphan letters, the rebuking of non or negative activity be with a gentle touch.  And the reward for doing such an activity also be modest so people are not performing for the rewards.

To me, the system with the orphan letters is reasonable.  If you don't write a letter (or a good enough letter), you lose 5%.  If you do write a letter, you share in the monthly stake of the 5% penalty.  I would refine this to say the penalty for non-action should cap out at 5% and half the penalty go to the orphan fund and the remainder split among those who act.

Furthermore I would argue if you go the blog route, that you would incentivize the MN holders to collude against some miners.  For if there were 10 MN, and we all had one miner, what would prevent us from saying collectively that the 990 other miners "weren't up to standard" and get 0 reward but we get 100% reward for our 10?  Again, if you have an avenue for a personal testimony type blog, or sermon blog, great.  And the network will actually subsidize it by hosting.  But to penalize someone who isn't religious or is simply a poor writer is not the way to witness to people.

So, taking it to the final step, I would suggest that a mining URL be optional but necessary for additional rewards.  In the short term you can tweak the Orphan Letter system or leave it as it stands for now.   The overall structure of a block reward could be tweaked to 10-5-40-40-5 (Orphan-IT/PR-Miner-MN-reward).  That anyone with a mining URL qualifies for a share if they've taken action in the prior 30 days, and an action being at this point either write an approved letter or have an approved blog post (requiring the same metric as the letters).  The reward would go round-robin much like the MN reward, with the reward going to the qualifying oldest URL that had not received a reward.

The upside is everyone quietly contributes to this, but it is very accessible to "win".  For those that don't want to do it, the penalty is minimal.  For those that want to participate, they strengthen the coin without an immediate reward.

Im a bit confused by the network hashrate in the wallet:

"networkhashps": 355952751341.9575,

this stated that the hash rate is about 355ghs!  i guess theres a decimal misplacement here. and it must be something like 35mhs or something.

Can anyone confirm this, because my PC is doing about 20khps so either my PC isn't high enough or theres millions of computers on this network!

Thanks

So Ive been researching the difference between X11 and F7000 and have uncovered some more info related to HPS consistency across all processors platforms and instance counts.

Some of you have really been hard on me, especially those who cant grasp the distinction between a "node level mutex" and a "processor" mutex.  You even went as far as to say the BibleHash itself is inconsistent.  One thing Ive learned over 30 years in software, is nothing about a computer or its software is inconsistent.  (Unless someone puts a rand() statement in the code).  Another words, every "hard" problem that Ive seen over the years, in the end, always has a very clear reason. 

Let me explain the difference between a node mutex and a processor mutex.  A node mutex is one where an instance of the software is forced to wait somewhere in the
 *instance* of a program for a memory space to be available.  A processor mutex is one that consumes the entire processor and it does not have to wait except for new work, and the entire server is frozen in what appears to be a locked state (btw, a crash is very different than a consumed processor).

So with BiblePay, with Pre-F7000, we had a processor mutex, in the sense that one had to buy more hash power to hash against the money supply.  With F7000, the goal was originally more of a much stronger line of defense against GPU porting, hence the reason we added the node mutex.  Ill stop here and explain.  There are two places in BibleHash that are extremely hard or impossible to run on a GPU: asking the node to go back in the chain for a block index hash, or for example a transaction hash.  Since the node level instance stops hashing while it waits for the data, the other mining threads slow down.  Otoh, if you run multiple degraded instances on one server, you have parallel stops.  However, what I dont like about that is it encourages low quality instances whereas I believe it is healther for us as a community to have higher quality instances.

So in light of this, the basic explanation is that F7000 does do its job in preventing BibleHash from running on a GPU, but it promotes the user to run as many low quality nodes as possible to squeeze as many BBP per hour from our community. 

I think the answer to this is during the Christmas update (Sanctuaries), we release F8000 with a few more enhancements to fix the problem (we can test these in testnet as soon as available).  #1:  Add a math problem to BibleHash.  This would force the processor to execute a few hundred K of instructions deterministically but unknown at the time of the hash (IE Block hash + timestamp  hashed) so no one can predetermine the problem, and this solution would be similar to executing N X11's hashes for a second or so, thereby changing the state of the nodes miner back to a processor mutex level, thereby solving the degrading network problem. 

The other thing I would like to introduce before Christmas update is making mining more of a privilege.  I was thinking, instead of asking BiblePay to pay you simply because you plug a computer in and *want* to hash, what if BiblePay wants you to contribute to the community?  I was thinking at the very least, the node will somehow need to ask the miner to Repent for sins and make a blog of progress.  Maybe we make the mining software require a Repentant sin in the block, (IE Think of the 40 mortal sins listed in Send Money (in the wallet) | check Repent | Look at the dropdown values), maybe each week, the miner must repent of a sin, and describe how they are doing in their walk of repenting for sins in the message.  If no repentance is being given, no mining is awarded.  But each week, either a new description in the walk of a sin free life must be added, or - a new sin to be worked on, this way we can hash the repentance information and ensure it is changing once every 7 days (this way, if its done once a week, its similar to keeping the Sabbath).  So our miner would help you Keep the Sabbath.  You will wonder, how will we enforce it?  I think we can have a REST URI built in, and have the sanctuaries run the RESTful web service, and ban miners who arent repenting coherently.  Their miners would be shutdown.  It could be a service we require of the sanctuaries.

I think these two features would make BiblePay consistent across all platforms, and require a level of participation to weed & feed out the wheat from the chaff in the community.

Maybe we let you choose to either maintain a "walk in faith" URL (from forum.biblepay.org) that genuinely explains your walk with God as a miner on your personal URL page on the forum (using minername), IE your sinner testimony +  your spiritual encounters  and how you grew closer to the Lord.  That URL would be mining argument #1 to mine biblepay.  It would be policed by BiblePay police department (sanctuaries).  For incoherent pages and bad character- who would then lose the mining key.

I really like this idea. I would personally do this and I would take a lot of satisfaction from sharing "my story". I think it will encourage other with our experiences.


Alternatively Option #2 is you could prove that you wrote a letter to an orphan within 30 days.  One or the other.  All others dont successfully mine the block the miner just keeps running.

The idea of having alternative contributions is a good one. Like it!

Agree! The "repent" will make this coin only for religion instead of charity. The dev should use pos instead of pow since he is strong against mining.

Yes, I really like what you and West had to say about the risk of repentance.  On a side note though, I didnt mean to suggest that it was definitely related to Christian repentance, but yes I did mean to suggest it was Bible based repentance. 

Lets definitely entertain more ideas, and break this down into even a more basic idea.  One that has to do with the privilege to mine to begin with.

Im thinking first of all, this is technically the opposite of one click web mining.  Its more of an added step for the privilege to receive biblepay coins from mining, and something that has to be maintained on a regular basis by the miner.  Although this might be counter to the popularity argument, I actually think the benefits of this outweigh the risk. 

What ends up happening is I think the true believers in BiblePay will stay and maintain the miner, and more coins will then be available for them to mine.  These are the people most apt to invest in biblepay.  This actually increases our value (making it have intrinsic value) in contrast to bitcoins energy arb equation (when you have just miners with black boxes, the price is related to how much energy it costs to mine a block).  That to me sounds like a winning attribute to start with.

So, lets shift the idea a bit.  Maybe we let you choose to either maintain a "walk in faith" URL (from forum.biblepay.org) that genuinely explains your walk with God as a miner on your personal URL page on the forum (using minername), IE your sinner testimony +  your spiritual encounters  and how you grew closer to the Lord.  That URL would be mining argument #1 to mine biblepay.  It would be policed by BiblePay police department (sanctuaries).  For incoherent pages and bad character- who would then lose the mining key.

Alternatively Option #2 is you could prove that you wrote a letter to an orphan within 30 days.  One or the other.  All others dont successfully mine the block the miner just keeps running.

Orphan letters cannot be reused.

We could potentially change the news creator page to our new letter writer page in-wallet, hash the orphan letter, and use that txid as the input for your mined block (for 30 days).

The URL for your walk-in-Christ or walk-in-God page could be created by you on our forum, and then linked in the mining config setup.

I really like the idea of "making mining more of a privilege" by encouraging contribution to the community. The letter writing to the orphans is such a good idea and one thing that attracts me to BiblePay.
However, I do worry about forcing repentance to mine. I think for sure we should be encouraging people to grow in sanctification, but in my opinion, it needs to be from a place of Godly sorry (2 Corinthians 7:10), rather than motivated by self-interest (in the sense that "now I can mine because I repented").

Perhaps we could spit-ball a few other ideas to encourage community contribution and make mining more of a privilege?

Thank you for the clear explanation of the changes.

One risk to the "repent" to mine is that you would encourage "false repentance" which in some circles is tantamount to encouraging additional sin.  You also run the risk of alienating the people who are non-religious but have a spirit to help.  If I'm an honest person but agnostic, but I enjoy the idea that a large portion of this coin benefits the less fortunate, a forced repentance puts one in a tough situation.  Do you be honest and say, "I'm agnostic and there is good and evil but no metric for sin", do you go against your moral code and lie saying "today I ate shellfish" or do you drop the coin?  Furthermore, depending on who is the arbiter of if the repentance is coherent, you risk the gatekeepers deciding what is and isn't a sin, which is a pretty complex thought seeing as how most people pretty much pick and choose what parts of the Bible are "right" (no adultery) and "outdated" (no shellfish).

In the end, I think the repentance concept is interesting but you would end up alienating a good portion of the user base or at a minimum not have the desired results.  A better option might be for there to be some task to do.  Any task is going to be "gamed" at rate that is directly proportional to the inconvenience of it and you have to consider the number of users that will be running from the command line.  Having repentance as an option in the wallet is good, much like prayer requests.  But I'm of the opinion that forcing any activity is going to be alienating and damaging to the coin.