Hi West,
I've haven't read bitcointalk much when I was abroad, and I don't know if there has been recent talk of removing the Team BiblePay requirement to PoDC, but I agree with you that having the team-requirement is something we should cherish. It's a strong statement. Whether it's the smartest in terms of adoption is debatable, but I'd rather have a smaller and committed group than a larger less-committed (also if terms of HODL).
I agree that we're fine for now on the exchange-front. Our efforts should now shift mainly to PR.
About the changes for the coin: I have thought about the variable Sanctuary payments in the past, and I agree with you that it would be more fair that Sanctuaries and PoDC miners get equal rewards. I have only limited knowledge about the technicalities behind this, but I think this is a fair point to discuss.
About putting a lower cap on the emission: I guess there are different theories about this. I think it's a good point you mention with BiblePay needing a workable budget in the far future. But I guess that the thing is that we have no idea what the future will bring. Maybe the BiblePay foundation will have products by then that will ensure a steady source of income (for charities). Of course, the decentralized nature may change I guess? But maybe we can have a donation address by then, and the contents of that address can still be divided in a decentralized way.
Rob, when creating the coin, did you envision a certain future with regards to the eventually zero block-reward and decentralized charity donations?
BBP has an emission schedule with an approximate soft cap of 5.2 billion by 2050, but in reality the small amount of coins being produced per block (IE 50 coins per block) is still enough for the system to function in the same way (as an economy of scale) as it does today. We would drop to a level emitting something like 25 coins per block in the year 2100. So we do not actually drop to a hard zero emission but we arent producing enough to materially change the 5.2 billion total either. The theory is, a budget of 120,000 bbp per month will fully fund whatever charity activities we have in the year 2050, and 60,000 bbp per month in 2075 etc.
As far as how our DGW difficulty algorithm creates a dyanamic reward which slightly changes the Sanctuary reward due to the total coinbase reward, I have a personal view that this is good - because if we are every under a hash attack, rewards are lowered at that time. The technical reason both sanc & heat miner reward is decreased is because the miner who found the block actually pays the sanc payment. So since our coin works in percentages, it would not work correctly to emit a block with a 50% penalty that pays the heat miner zero and the sanc 100%, the miner wouldnt mine it, so it is the way it is because of the distribution percentages in the heat mined block. The heat miner pays the sanctuary because the heat miner found and created the block.
However I think this should be discussed along with any changes that DAHF may have on biblepay, since in the near future,we may have a third mining algorithm in the finance sector being born. We are doing as much as possible in analyzing this for the benefit of the orphans in order to create a thread to discuss it. It has to do with having the sanctuaries mine as a new animal using new datasets never before used in crypto. Then sending the outputs of these analyzed portfolios into black boxes in order to form a hedge fund for biblepay, where the orphans receive 10% of the gross profits. We have a lot to discuss, so please be patient while I make a wiki on DAHF paths as this is a very dynamic animal.
It's good to know that the emission does not entirely fall off. However, I'd still be of the thought that putting a (and I should have phrased this better the first time) FLOOR of 100-200 would not harm the coin, yet would still enable good works to continue indefinitely. Additionally, such a statement (if I could write it clearer) would give certainty that BBP intends to be around beyond 50 years and has a mechanism in place to ensure that.
While I cannot speak to the technical solution of how to change the way the DGW works in regards to the PoBH and Sanctuary reward, I will say it creates inequity in the system as both Sanctuaries and PoDC are to receive the same percentile rewards, but on any given day, PoDC receives 15-25% more than the aggregated reward of the Sanctuaries. This gives uncertainty to the potential investor and skews our emission schedule.
So without regard to the difficulty of the technical solution to make it happen, I still believe the system would benefit from that change, which is a flat Sanctuary reward per block equal to 1/205th of the daily PoDC reward. Putting numbers to it, yesterdays PoDC reward (and the reward until the next Budget Superblock) was 1,110,119. This means the Sanctuaries to get the same 38.5% reward, need to average 5415 BBP per reward. The maximum reward I've seen a Sanctuary receive over the last week has been just under 4600 BBP. So on the BEST day, one Sanctuary got 20% less than the theoretical value it should have. A quick look shows over the last week or so, the average Sanctuary reward has been about 4350, so the majority of Sanctuaries got 25% less than the theoretical value. Again, this would fulfill our stated goal of PoDC and Sanctuaries each receiving equal rewards.