Don't forget, the community page is only lightly moderated (mostly against profanity and objectively damaging speech).

So by and large, your posts won't be deleted here.   Biblepay has a lot of potential and the dev is certainly responsive to public pressure when its just not an outright attack.

Discuss, debate and improve.  Accept the good the dev has done and accept his faults as well.  Look for solutions and know the dev is most responsive to highly detailed highly solutions that have been implemented already and shown to work.  So if you can code, bang around in the code (it's open) and see if you can fix anything.   Good luck!

The other issue I see beyond taxes is this.

If I pay the premiums using a reward based credit card, I would be personally profiting from the transaction.  Given that if (and this is not a price prediction) we hit a valuation of 3 cents, the Orphan Fund would be bringing in about $200,000 a month, this could end up being a very significant amount.  To avoid appearances of, or possibilities of, wrong doing, having the non-profit Foundation handle the transaction from start to finish would be best.

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).

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.

The easiest way to mine is at BBP-Pool, https://www.bbppool.com/.  Yes, we're pretty complicated and could use a bit more hand-holding for new users, but if you are generally familiar with crypto and follow the guides, it should work for you.  But in short, for full rewards, you need 20 BBP per RAC you have.  The situation is similar to wallets that allow heat mining and stake mining, except in our case, you're doing a bit of both.  The Discord Channel is full of helpful people that can answer most any questions (and most of the time we're right too!).

So if you're hashing well at Rosetta and lack the stake, go to the above pool, it operates like GRCPool.  Otherwise, reduce your hashing at Rosetta and do more PoBH (heat mining) with your computer while doing some Rosetta.

A lot has changed in the last 9 months...but good to see you back.  Yes the wiki needs updating (I did a quick edit of the PoDC page to reflect both projects, but it likely needs some heavier editing).

In short, yes, credits at World Community Grid are valid, and actually grant 1.5x RAC in the project (as it tends to grant less than Rosetta@home).

BBP has been mined since July of 2017.  As far as Byteball, DCC and Nuemannium, there are good guides out there for the first and third if you google (I don't have the links very handy at the moment) and the middle one (DCC formerly known as SPARC) is at https://alpha.sparc.network/index.html.  All three work although there is no market I'm aware of for SPARC, and the only market for Nuemannium is through the WAVES wallet trading, which you can only trade NEU for WAVES...and it's not worth very much at all.

I think its only provable that the Dev owns about 84 of the roughly 330 nodes of which about 240 are enabled.  So he owns about 1/3 the active (enabled) nodes.  The issue is the lack of votes from other masternodes, on average only 130 of the nodes vote on a proposal, so in that way he does in fact own 2/3 the voting nodes and enough to personally skew any vote how he wants (since if everyone that normally votes voted the opposite, the dev would have net 38 vote lead sufficient to pass a proposal since our coin requires a net 10% to pass).  The response is to have more people voting, as he does not hold even close to the majority if the rest of the community acted in concert with each other.

I personally think what he did (pre-selling) was in the best interest of the fund but was handled incorrectly and should have been explained and approved in advance.

The current vote is in favor of lifting the requirement (although that is heavily weighed by Rob's majority of normally voting masternodes), and the forum poll is in favor of mimicing Byteball and giving members of Team Biblepay full reward and all others a smaller percentage reward (although Byteball prefers to call their team membership a bonus...it's all the same in the end).

I support the coin and Rob too, but motive on pre-selling is not an excuse for:

1) Lack of disclosure
2) Insults when questioned about something so vital to the mission of the coin

I personally believe Rob did not financially benefit from this and did this in the best interest of the charitable funds that were raised, but there needs to be far more disclosure for the community at large to take us seriously.  It's small incidents like this that make it more understandable why we're viewed by some critics as a scam coin.  However, I do believe the records support our charitable expenditures and the critics are incorrect, but any ammunition for them such as this is not good.

There is a saying, trust...but verify.  One of the four blocks for coin success (in my book) is trust, and the Compassion bills go a long way to proving our funds go where they should, more could be done.

I trust the dev, I also feel that a block chain report showing when coins were sold and for how much would be a good addition to the charity proposals.  If coins were pre-sold and then the actual coins from the budget replaced them, it should be fairly easy to show in the block chain which again, would intensify the trust in the project.

I'd also propose funds be sold daily for 20 days after the superblock, 5% per day at market rates.  And I'd like to see the Foundation handling this process rather than it falling on one individuals shoulders (since the accounting could become a significant task).  And again, a block-chain report showing BBP-BTC transaction, BTC-USD transactions and the corresponding values.

I'm not saying I would, but its pretty enticing for miners solely after profit to go though the work to split machines up to fall under any cap.  If they do that, then they do one of two things, either the dump unneeded coins and destroy the price or they convert into Sanctuaries and skew the ROI for others.  Again, not saying they would, but if our two biggest did that, there would be roughly 50M BBP suddenly freed up, if that all went into Sanctuaries, it would mean an instant 10% increase in Sanctuaries.

More importantly, it opens the door for botnets to crush our coin.  That was what was occurring before PoDC, it appeared half to two thirds of our coins were being mined by botnets.   When they left, the price rebounded (which could have been for a variety of reasons, but legitimate users started seeing reasonable numbers). The people least sensitive to the price of generating coins would be the ones hijacking computers and given enough incentive many will cheat.

We've tried to gain users, you can earn more writing orphan letters each month than the average home system is going to generate on PoDC but we struggle to get letters written.  You can get an airdrop which is enough for the average home system to partially stake and get rewarded but haven't seen a ton of small new users from it.  You can go to BBP-Pool and PoDC for 65% of the reward with NO Stake, but their user base seems to be capping out.  So would this help, who knows but so far there have been three methods to get around the objection that it's hard to get started due to stake and there has been little long term growth directly tied to that.  My belief is removing the stake would get users that are solely for the financial benefit, like I am at Byteball (and would wager most if not all the others from BBP that are there are for the same).

As far as selling the Orphan block, yes, I would agree.  Sell no more than 10% of the take per day would be a good starting point, 5% might be better.

I respect your thoughts and discussion.

My major proofs that 1% is pretty high are 1) Byteball.  The paid out on 84.8M WCG Points, and there were a total of 906M points earned overall at the project.  So they go less than 10% on a no-staking, no-risk, super-easy to link coin.  2) Last time I ran the numbers, on the two CPU projects we were about 10x more profitable than Gridcoin. Gridcoin users are, by and large, savvy with crypto, so the technical barrier to entry is pretty low for them, but we've not seen many converts recently, which if they cared solely for maximizing profit, the would come here, PoDC BBP, sell it and buy GRC for a massively increased return.  That they haven't leads me to believe we're either still too hard, we've not been convincing enough that we're not a scam-coin or there are too many anti-religious crypto users that wouldn't come here even if the profits were 100-fold.  I don't truly believe we're too hard for a GRC user, so that leaves really the other two options, the first we can affect by increased transparency and the second we have not bearing on.

If you haven't already, please vote on the Team Requirement proposal.  I'd hope the following would sway a no vote, but if you still feel yes (killing the team requirement) is justified, then please vote!

TLDR: I fell it's unlikely we'd gain more than 1.5M Team RAC at the most wildly generous numbers. This would, if fully staked, add only 30M BBP demand for the coin, which is roughly 1 month of average volume/15 days of newly minted coins.

So, here is my logic on why removing the Team Requirement is not going to help.

First off, as a holder and big PoDC miner of BBP, there are two conflicting thoughts that present before considering the actual primary issue. The first is if the BBP Team Requirement (which I'll save some typing and call BBP-TR) is removed, but we also ban other coin teams (basically Gridcoin and Byteball) then one of two things could happen. One, nothing. Two, we could spike our RAC. A spike in Team RAC would make mining unprofitable for most if not all current users unless you had some unique advantage such as dirt cheap power. So the current miners, like myself would drop out. So we'd need a HUGE spike to offset this. If we did see a huge spike in RAC and that corresponded to a similar long-term increase in price, then as a big holder, I should welcome this. Sure I wouldn't be mining anymore but, in silly terms, if price went up 100x because the RAC went up 200x, then I'm coming out great!

The issue is this. Look at Byteball. There is no team requirement, in fact wasn't even a Byteball Team for the longest time, and the benefit for being on the team is still small. I can account for most of the top 10, which is about 50% of the distribution. I'm pretty close to the top 10, in fact most of the top 10 is Team BPP, but I'd wager the rest of the other BBP users don't know much about it either and are either 1) cashing out when they mine or 2) hoping for a price increase since this is basically "free" coins.

So the question becomes, where are all the team members from Hard[OCP], US Navy, Oracle, Overclock Forums, etc? Why are they not participating in Byteball? I don't see them in any large numbers (at least in coins rewarded, since again, I've got most the top 10 covered and the top 10 is about half the reward), Byteball is incredibly easy to set up. It's trivial enough I think my beginner computer friends could get linked to Byteball following the instructions. However, none of them would be able to figure out our coin without help, and then the issue of buying crytpo to stake, would end that discussion. So I don't think (if we block Team Gridcoin and Team Byteball) we'll see many new users from this, since the most crypto savvy ones are going to be blocked. And the rest of the teams, as evidenced by their non-participation in Byteball, which has far less complexity, are not interested. Or maybe because in part, most of the big teams, don't do much CPU BOINC.

But that thought aside, let's look at some very hard numbers. If we could get a 1% conversion rate, that is, by removing the BBP-TR, we would get 1% of the overall user base to become BBP users and fully stake their mining, what would that really mean? (and for the record I think 1% is way too high). At R@h, we're anywhere between 15-20% of the daily work done, Gridcoin is usually about 10%. Yesterday the two teams combined accounted for roughly 29% of the work at R@h. So if we got 1% of the remaining 71% that would be 225K RAC. At World Community Grid, we're about 3%, Gridcoin is about 4.6% and Byteball is about .5%. So between all three projects we're basically 8% of the total. Again, if we could get 1% of the remaining 92% that's about 1.2M RAC. Even rounding up we're looking at, again in my opinion of the best case, roughly 1.5M RAC added to our team. That would create demand for 30M BBP to stake, which is roughly 1 month of our average volume, or about 15 days worth of newly minted coins. How would that affect us? Who knows, but probably not by more than a few satoshi of value in the medium term.

In the end, the market is poor all around. We've overextended our support of orphans given the fall in price. Removing the BBP-TR is removing one of the potential major marketing points of the coin, the hard and fast numbers of how many people we've added to the cause of scientific research. How many we can lay exclusive claim to for being on BOINC. We're the number 3 team ALL TIME at Rosetta@home, set to be number two by mid-October. And number one in RAC there. We're number 89 all time at World Community Grid and should break into the top 50 by the end of the year, all while being the fifth highest there in RAC. Giving up that potential marketing angle for what I suspect will be a pittance of users seems not worth the effort. And using that programming time (however small) seems to be a poor use of resources in an increasingly lean time.

Actually if you're mining at below the cost you could be buying, you should be buying...that is the real art.

The expansion from 100 to 300 orphans so quickly was good to see at the time, but reinvigorates my feeling we should pay the entire child's premium in advance.  This would protect the coin from market variations as the Orphan Fund could be (on the vote of either the Foundation when it arrives, or the Sanctuaries) held on to and waited for a better price, or slowly sold over the period of 30 days to minimize price disruptions.

The idea is this, the maximum age a child is in the sponsorship program is 22 years old (it can be as low as 18 and varies by country).  So instead of expanding in the future, let's pay the remaining term off for each of our orphans.   Then in future months, when times are good, adopt new orphans and pay their entire term in one fell swoop.  Ideally we should select orphans that have recently lost their sponsor's because the disruption to them is tremendous and most will be older and harder to find new sponsors.  Additionally, we can likely afford more sponsorships if we sponsor eight 16 year olds rather than one 5 year old.

As to the current problem, we have few options.  Throwing a hail mary and opening the floodgates to try and get more users by removing the team requirement or adjusting the staking formula will likely not convert enough users to justify the upheaval for the current user base.  There is work in progress for DAHF, which I'm unclear how it will precisely increase the utility of BBP, I'm willing to watch and see.  There are still enough months prepaid at this point to limp forward for a short time when hopefully the markets will regain strength.  But we might have to face the hard facts, support may have been expanded too quickly without enough of a safety net.  Unfortunately, hundreds of kids could be affected.

I look at successful coins and a majority of their users are NOT miners.  So chasing more miners to me is not the path to success (although as the coin becomes more successful, more miners will also come), the path to success is finding a use-case for it (utility) then allowing BBP to fill the use-case space.  What that is, I'm unsure.

While I really like Aikda3k's thinking of the BBPD, a problem I see is there would have to be an organization guaranteeing the value, and that would make it a borderline security (or pseudo currency like Tether). 

I'm hopeful that can be hashed out in the near future as it was an exciting way to get people more involved.  If I recall, it was discussed that a letter could be paid no more frequently then once per 30 days but had to be done at least every 60 days or the orphan returned to the general pool.  But it would be great to see!

It had been mentioned in the past that at some point we might look into having one individual accept the responsibility to write to a specific orphan in an exclusive manner so as to foster a relationship between the two as opposed to the ad-hoc system that is in place where (very likely) each orphan will receive letters from multiple voices but not building a relationship.  The normal intent of the letter writing is not just that the recipient gets mail, but rather that the sender begins to learn more about the recipient and their situation.

Is there any way to discuss this in more detail or implement it in the near future?

The coin is working on establishing a Foundation, which then intends to hire a law firm to get a legal opinion that BiblePay is not a security.  Beyond that, the accounting of how coins are distributed is searchable via an explorer, there is an accountability page which has receipts proving the donations that the coin has made.  In the end, safety is a relative term, but given the nature of the cryptocurrency markets, any investment requires due diligence on the part of the investor to weigh the evidence and decide if an individual feels the risk is acceptable.

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.