Quote from: sunk818 on October 03, 2019, 02:04:12 AM

Quote from: bible_pay on October 03, 2019, 01:41:43 AM

Quote from: sunk818 on October 02, 2019, 10:37:15 PM

Quote from: bible_pay on October 02, 2019, 10:03:46 PM

2) On changing the receive address, it does change the blockhash, but then it also reveals the "key" to breaking the idea you posted about choosing the winner.
Timestamp wont help either. Either one can be manipulated by the miner, and make themselves the winner based on the table.

Maybe take sanctuary recipient address instead? Or a combination of sanctuary and miner? Or include BibleHash... Or taking the last two digits/letters (16^2) and you have 1 in 256 chance miner will get the block. I'm sure there's a sweet spot between complexity and hack proof. If you can distribute rewards to different solo miners more often, you may not even need a pool. Then One Click Miner Configuration is all that you need

@jsheets the One Click Miner Configuration line ending issues should be all fixed now. I'll do some more testing, but I can confirm 1.4.4.9 works great under macOS .

We must have a misconception here.
Anti-Bot-Net: Limits "rich kids with too many computers" or a rogue hacker who installed 300 copies of biblepay in the school system.

ABN with UTXO: Limits miners to those that hold 125K min abn weight. Basically fulfilling the above fully.

I thought earlier, when you were discussing ideas of distribution you were trying to limit the reward to One block per distinct receive address (which wont work because it can be hacked).
Trying to limit rewards equally across segments using biblehashes or blocks or sanc addresses is just a fallacy; I dont see how a miner would not be able to hack that; they just increase hashpower when they know their block is going to win; this equals the same we have now: the random luck of a winning hash based on hashpower.

Earlier when I mentioned CPIDs, I used them because you have to *work* hard to build up RAC and then sign the cpid - so you truly are limiting the reward to a worthy recipient (similar to how we are rewarding through minimum UTXOs now - you must prove you have a stake in BBP to mine).

Please think about it, and if you have a full method to limit rewards to single entities feel free to post; but I dont believe one exists in *open source software*; Manna uses telephone numbers (SMS codes) - but that can be hacked by buying multiple phone cards etc.

Curious, why are we talking about ABN? Weren't you just considering removing ABN? I offered a potential alternative. If you think ABN is better to have in BiblePay, I have no objection. I personally like ABN. I think CPID w/ BOINC is very reliable and a great alternative as well. I used to think science & BiblePay don't mix, but after meeting people like oncoapop3, I see science and Christianity as a powerful and peaceful combination.

LOL, I never said I disliked abn. I like it. I said maybe the fact that we are "too clubby" right now (an exclusive club) to have the privilege of mining BBP, and I feel we have a low user count, it might warrant consideration in disabling it until we have more than 100 miners, and I brought up the discussion with the very clear statement that "Is it better to be clubby with no users" or "be with a botnet and a lot of new users". I'm trying to grow the user base, so please don't say Im contradicting myself. If we had one new user per day, I would not raise lowering the ABN value.

You offered a potential alternative? LOL, no-- you didn't - I have answered every one of your posts, and you offered only fallacies (no alternatives). I said Quote unquote: In open source software I dont know of an alternative (to regulate botnets) other than : UTXOs or CPIDs. I mentioned phone numbers, but with Manna I dont believe thats an alternative.

I fully agree that BOINC could potentially augment BiblePay - especially from the perspective that we *welcome* sinners and scientists to be saved (I'm not accusing scientists of being atheist, I realize a lot of Christian scientists and Messianic Jews are out there, not a problem, you are saved and welcome too). Thats the whole idea; to expose blockchain geeks to the gospel! The more the merrier. I primarily stopped PODC when I felt like we couldnt support it because it was detracting from our gospel development (with only 2 active devs - MIP and I). Its not impossible to add cancer mining someday, but we have to fully think that through before we commit to it. I dont want to do it at the expense of a new prayer forum and DSQL ecosystem, etc.

I recommend re-reading this post:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2388064.msg52633073#msg52633073