Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Customminer

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33
392
so who's formulating the idea and approaching blockpay.ch (via email)?

I'll raise this topic during the next Bitshares hangout on the 14th. I'd appreciate anyone reading this to reach out to others they believe would be interested in this topic (for discussion or development).

I know there are plenty voicing opinions in this thread, but I'd like to take a moment to share mine.

First and foremost, I do not agree with any actions that add strain to the reserve pool (without a very strong argument for long term benefit).  Witness pay has just increased and more active workers are draining the pool faster than increased activity can keep up.  Long term goal should be a sustainable pool which balances pay with fees.

I believe the idea re: fees allocated to the reserve pool has shifted towards an increase of fees being allocated to the reserve pool, which would be a deflationary move which would slow the rate at which we are burning through the reserve pool.

Second.  There should be no change to LTM fee percentages (small changes to non-LTM is fine with me).  Many have chosen LTM knowing the cost-benefit of 80% fees returned.  Don't mess with this.

Agreed, no changes to the existing fee schedule are in scope of this proposal. The topic is discussing the allocation of the fees accumulated from the existing fee schedule, between the reserve pool, referral system and asset holders.

Third.  We must explore motivations and desired outcomes for any suggested changes.  What problem are we trying to solve?  What impact does this have on the long-term health of the Bitshares ecosystem?

In my opinion, the two things which would help Bitshares the most is:
  • increased supply of bitAssets
  • usable liquidity


The problem we're trying to solve is the lack of incentives for holding assets on the Bitshares DEX long term; back in BTSX we offered 'x% on anything' where by holding bitUSD yielded a portion of the bitUSD fees (proportional to the total amount of bitUSD in existence). The potential 'interest' rate in such a profit sharing mechanism is/was greater than the interest rates offered by FIAT banks.

This profit sharing mechanism was one of the major marketing points of BTSX that I have missed in the BTS 2.0 DEX and I think that its reintroduction could boost the amount of users utilizing the BTS DEX.

By increasing the incentive to hold FIAT savings as bitassets on the BTS DEX we potentially increase the amount of bitassets in existence & thus less BTS are liquid.

Regarding usable liquidity, if there are more bitAsset holders then we have more individuals who could actively participate in market making (especially with the ease of use of new tools such as btsbots).

The reason being that more active and usable markets will attract new traders to the DEX.  Rewarding those who simply hold assets does not improve the DEX.
If we can get all/most/more Bitshares holders to hold their bitshares on the DEX instead of on centralized exchanges, we minimize the risk of said centralized exchanges having a massive voting weight with which they can disrupt the voting mechanism (proposals/polls/committee/witnesses/etc).

I come back, then, to the idea suggested a little while ago: Reward those who have bitAsset debt (collateralized position) with (new) market fees from same bitAsset markets.  Only those with debt collect dividends (from the market-produced trading fees -- aka "market fee") at a pro-rata basis.  Simply holding a bitAsset does not yield dividends.
Providing dividends upon shorting of bitassets is open to abuse, 'yield-harvesting' was one of the main reasons that this functionality was removed during the upgrade from BTS 0.x to 2.0.
https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#socialized-yield-is-broken

Holding a bitAsset means that you've either bought these tokens off of someone that shorted them into existence, or you created them yourself with sufficient backing collateral, so an increased demand for bitAssets for long-term holding does improve liquidity.

393
General Discussion / Re: Fuzzy lets talk Sharebits
« on: April 10, 2017, 10:51:51 am »
whaleshares & sharebits!

I wonder if whaleshares will cover golos too?

394
This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.

Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.

The referral system isn't worthless, it's driving new users to the network but I agree that it's currently allocated too large a slice of the overall network fees and not enough users are making use of it.

This referral sys was BS since its inception. Its overall costs are several orders of magnitude higher then its benefits.
That was Max Wright idea, I remember BM was against at the time. It is mystery to me how they manage to persuade him to change his mind and include it in BTS 2.0, as well as leather disappearance of its sole creator. It reminds me of amateur marketing Bitshares consumes since Brian Page.

Overall this system didn't bring anything to Bitshares except a benefit to entities which take advantage of this hidden taxation tool. Which brings me to the point. I am afraid it will be very hard to get enough support for the change of this useless feature. But we'll see.

I disagree. The fee change to nothing and the lack of features for ltm rendered it useless. Referral systems are multi billion dollars of magnitude better than what anyone else could possibly add to BitShares. Problem is no one here has any clue.

Fees aren't 0 though, the rough estimates of 1 million BTS per month at current rates works out at $6400 per month for the referral system.

I disagree that nothing better than the referral system will be implemented into the Bitshares network, this thread alone is proof that better ideas than the referral system can exist. Billions of dollars of magnitude? Bitshares hasn't seen this magnitude come from the referral system, lol.

No one here has any clue? Why not educate us on that which you claim we don't know instead of putting users down?

Let's not make this all about referral system, this topic is too important.

Here's a thought :

Take 20% off of the fee pool.
15% go to ALL DIVIDENDS
5% go to LTM DIVIDENDS

that would lead to yet another cycle, investors would upgrade, fuel fee pool by upgrading and marketers/registrars  would earn as well.

Win win win?

What happened to finding devs and price estimation before talking about the 'golden girls'? Haha ;D https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23981.msg304394.html#msg304394

You say 20% off of the fee pool, do you mean the 20% allocated from fees to top up the reserve pool, or a 20% sharedrop from the reserve pool?

I agree with Tbone (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23981.msg304385.html#msg304385) that by cutting the 20% from the reserve pool income that we somewhat introduce inflation (as these assets would otherwise have been locked temporarily in the reserve pool), where as if we were to cut the fees allocated to the referral system we would not experience inflation.

I like the idea of introducing a separate allocation of the dividends to the LTM users, it could potentially drive up LTM registrations!

We should vote on the 80% fee allocation between referral and dividend features if this idea gains traction.

BTS reserve pool should be spent on essential network operations only, which are witnesses and essential development projects. Referrals, dividends and other farts and whistles  should be funded other ways.

And giving away 80% of BTS revenue to referrals is just stupid.
I agree that referrals and dividends should not come out of the reserve pool, and I don't believe anyone in here is proposing this - we're focused on the fees that are currently allocated to the referral system.

395

I believe that we should offer more than 20%, this is something we could potentially vote on within the client. How would we go about voting on multiple possible parameter outcomes within the client? Best to bring this topic up in the next Bitshares hangout on Friday then move forwards to polls with a few hand selected combinations?

How about:

Network; x% Interest; Referral System
20, 40, 40
30, 40, 30

first of all, before we talk more than the golden girls (as usual), please find a dev and get a price estimation on the costs. also, pretty sure this needs a hardfork. the parameters could be set by the committee, but let's talk about the details once this can be implemented
Is there a pool of known Bitshares contract developers that we can work with?

Hardforks are no problem, we only need 21 clients to upgrade for it to be successful. Besides, we've got several additional hardfork upgrades awaiting integration (MPA hardening) that could also piggyback on a single hardfork.

396
[member=42582]Customminer[/member] -- I'm not sure over what period time those fees were accumulated.  But it can't possibly be since inception of BTS 2.0.  I don't even think that pool includes all fees currently being collected.  I mean, where is BTS on that list?  The overwhelming majority of fees are collected in BTS, not those other assets, right?  So we need some clarification as to what that pool is, exactly. 

But in the meantime, looking at the top 20 "most fees paid" list on cryptofresh, it appears we've generated at least ~17M BTS in fees since BTS 2.0 launched.  That's about 1M BTS per month.  Actually, it's more since this is only the top 20 accounts in terms of fees paid.  So I think it's pretty close to my guess of 1.2M BTS monthly.  Not to mention, the current monthly rate of fee collection should be higher than the monthly average over the last 18 months considering the substantial growth in transactions we've been experiencing.  On the other hand, a lot of the fees listed below may be from creating assets and therefore more "one-time" in nature (or at least more irregular). 

Anyway, this is just a bunch of guess work.  We need to know the actual rate of monthly fee collection.  But if my guess is even close, then this idea of redirecting a portion of referral rewards could fund substantial bitAsset demand without having to increase fees.  Even if I'm off by an order of magnitude, then this could still be worth pursuing considering, as [member=31]fav[/member] mentioned, it could kick off a virtuous cycle that could end up being substantial.

Excellent, I was thinking that the fee tables on Cryptofresh were a tad off. These figures make the concept far more feasible & worthwhile of implementing. The more successful the BTS DEX gets, the better the interest rates become.. if only FIAT banks worked like that, haha!

I was just thinking about how exchanges would behave if we introduced this functionality.. Would they claim the interest? If they did, would they pass this onto their users? If they didn't collect the interest, or didn't forwards the interest to the rightful asset holders could this seriously reduce the quantity of coins being held on centralized exchanges? It may tilt balance back in favour of decentralization.


By the way, we really should not contemplate reducing the network's current 20% share of the fees.  That would be inflationary, which would decrease demand for BTS.  It would also make it more difficult to fund worker proposals.  If anything, we should increase the network's share, which would be deflationary and would also make it easier to fund worker proposals.  Both factors would help increase demand for BTS and help compound the effect of offering interest by contributing even more to the virtuous circle.
Funding worker proposals in the short term would not be affected, as the BTS stored in the reserve pool is substantial. That said, I agree that reducing the network fees would lead to BTS being made liquid in a more rapid fashion, but I do not agree that it is entirely inflationary as it is just reintroducing coins (which would otherwise have been temporarily locked away) back into the public's coin supply in a more timely manner. A more explicitly inflationary move would be to sharedrop BTS from the reserve.

I think we can make substantial room for 'x% interest on anything' out of the referral system's fees.

By the way, we really should not contemplate reducing the network's current 20% share of the fees.  That would be inflationary, which would decrease demand for BTS.  It would also make it more difficult to fund worker proposals.  If anything, we should increase the network's share, which would be deflationary and would also make it easier to fund worker proposals.  Both factors would help increase demand for BTS and help compound the effect of offering interest by contributing even more to the virtuous circle.

agree, just take 20% of referral income. that way registrars could still maintain 20%, marketers could get 20% and 20% interest
I believe that we should offer more than 20%, this is something we could potentially vote on within the client. How would we go about voting on multiple possible parameter outcomes within the client? Best to bring this topic up in the next Bitshares hangout on Friday then move forwards to polls with a few hand selected combinations?

How about:

Network; x% Interest; Referral System
20, 40, 40
30, 40, 30

397
I love the idea of being able to offer an interest rate of return on bitAssets.  OP's idea of redirecting some of the referral program's share of fees is an interesting way to accomplish it without reducing deflation (i.e. increasing inflation).  The question is how much of the desired effect will be realized if we reduce the referral program's share of fees from 80% to 60%?  To know that, we really need to know how much we're currently collecting in fees.

Looking at the cryptofresh reserve budget page (http://cryptofresh.com/reserve) , the following chart is shown:


Is this accurate? Are these stats since the launch of BTS 2.0 or are they representative of a few months?

Regardless, assuming the 27,416 BTS represents 20%, 100% should be 137,080.

These stats may be discouraging at the moment, but BTS is beginning to build up traction and we're seeing new TX/day records. The more popular BTS gets the higher the sum of collected fees will be & the more effective the 'x% on anything' will be.

Do we have additional sources for these statistics? Would anyone be able to dump the stats directly from the CLI?

Side note - cryptofresh states "Accumulated assets may be transfered, traded, or held, at the committee's discretion. They are not part of the Reserve Pool balance.", this means that the 'Bitshares cash flow' infographic is incorrect.

But let's just say for argument's sake we're currently collecting $10,000 (or ~1.2M BTS) in fees per month.  20% of that (redirected from the referral program) would be $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year.  That would support 1% annual percentage rate on $2,400,000 worth of bitAssets.  Or 2% APR on $1,200,000.  Or 4% APR on $600,000.

How about:
10% -> 'Reserve pool'
50% -> 'x% on anything'
40% -> Referral system

The referral system is great, but I don't view it as better than having a strong 'x% interest on anything' feature, plus it only goes to a small quantity of community members as opposed to all asset holders.

Each of those potential outcomes would represent a substantial increase in bitAsset demand.  But the numbers are based on a guesstimated 1.2M BTS per month in fees.  Is that even close to reality?  If so, we could be onto something here.  In which case the next question would be how to implement this.  It sounds like we would need the dividend feature.
Your estimated fees, according to cryptofresh, are nowhere near the current estimates. We need additional sources of information to confirm this is the case.

The Peerplays dividend feature is fully open source & uses the MIT license: https://github.com/BunkerChainLabsInc/peerplays-profitshare/blob/master/LICENSE.md

I'd vote for a worker proposal for implementing this.

398
I'm in favor of a Dividend method.
Seconded. It'd be great if there was an automated & scheduled dividend mechanism for MPA assets.

If we implemented dividends for MPA then also providing the functionality (by default disabled) to UIA would be great, not just redistribution of fees but the issuance of additional UIA as a form of interest (only plausible for UIA, not MPA/EBA as they require real backing value).

399

Yo,

One of the major selling points of BTSX for me back in 2014 was the 5% (or x%) on 'anything' marketing (that and sharedrop theory). The idea that I could store MPAs/UIA in effectively my own bank and get better interest rates than that FIAT banks were offering was a powerful message that had me (and a lot of other users) sold.

I realise that in the migration from BTSX (BTS 0.x) to BTS 2.0 we removed 'socialized yield', however I believe that the removal of profit sharing though asset fee yields was a mistake.

https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/lessons-learned-from-bitshares-0.x/#socialized-yield-is-broken

The following quotes are from the above link.

Quote
Under BitShares the BitAsset holders receive a yield simply by holding BitUSD. This yield was between 1% and 5% APR on average. Unfortunately, yield harvesting can happen at any time by someone shorting to themselves to gain a very low risk return and undermining goal of encouraging people to buy and hold BitUSD. The yield was funded from transaction fees and by interest paid by shorts.

The funding of yield through fees was successful despite the fluctuating rates (1 - 5% APR AVG).

The issue was that users were able to 'yield harvest' by shorting to an alt account, effectively cheating the system.

An alternative distribution mechanism to paying interest by shorting is required.

Peerplays has the ability to distribute 'dividends' to users that hold the peerplays tokens, we should be doing something similar for tokens on the BTS DEX. Hopefully peerplays dividend/profit-sharing code is somewhat compatible with Bitshares (it's using graphene after all).

Relevant peerplays docs:
http://www.peerplays.com/news/how-does-the-profit-sharing-function-work/
https://peerplays.com/docs/Peerplays_Whitepaper.pdf

Quote
As we stated previously, undercharging for transactions is bad for business and BitShares was effectively earning nothing for all transactions of BitUSD because 100% of the income generated from fees was paid out to BitUSD holders as yield and nothing was left over to cover network expenses.

We now gather 20% of fees into the reserve pool (which also contains over 1 Billion BTS), which goes towards workers and witnesses.

80% of fees go towards the referral system.

I would propose that we re-evaluate the distribution of fees between the reserve pool, referral system and asset holders. We could burn through a chunk of the reserve pool, but this would be temporary as we would eventually need to reintroduce such fees to build the reserve pool back up. I think it's most fair to take a chunk of the fees from the referral system.

Infographic showing current BTS cashflow:
https://i.imgur.com/uLxEMat.png

Quote
While Socialized Yield is broken, BitShares 2.0 offers a far better alternative: Collateralized Bonds. Collateralized Bonds enable arbitrary shorting between any two assets, guaranteed interest, and no risk of being force settled. This system privatizes the yield to individual bonds and the terms and leverage available can be far more flexible. In effect, BitUSD becomes cash and a Bond becomes a Certificate of Deposit.

The concept of "Collateralized Bonds" did not make it into Bitshares 2.0, so in effect we cut asset holders out of fee redistribution without providing a replacement source of income for holding assets on the Bitshares DEX. I believe this may be a reason why we had a downtrend when switching from 0.x to 2.0 (disregarding merge drama).

Does anyone have any further information on this collateralized bond market? I could only find the following:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=16752.0
https://bitshares.org/technology/collateralized-bond-market/

---

Edit:
Recent related threads:
"New Bitshares Dividend Idea" https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23706.0.html
"Dividend feature" https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21476.msg279498.html#msg279498
"Incentivize SmartCoin collateralization" https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23707.0.html

---

What do you think?  +5%

Best regards,
CM.

Content replicated: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/lets-bring-earn-x-interest-on-anything-back-to-bitshares
Useful info: http://cryptofresh.com/reserve

400
Beyond Bitcoin / Re: [TEST] ShareBits Testing Thread
« on: April 07, 2017, 10:58:56 pm »
Cool, can we tip any asset via the forum?

Not yet. And if forums change as proposed more and more on the forums, maybe not all.

I'm looking forwards to the release of Whaleshares and Sharebits :)

401
I have created a thread on Gridcoin's forum to drive up interest in this project: https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/53393-brainstorming-bitshares-boinc-project/

402
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares price discussion
« on: April 06, 2017, 03:03:24 pm »
Buy bitBTC or OPEN.BTC.  I'm guessing the alt coin pump is coming to an end and bitcoin will probably bounce back to having %75-%80 market cap dominance.

Other than Xeroc's worker, there hasn't been anything really of note to get super bullish on BTS (I'm sure someone will post a huge list of all the great things coming for bts).  It's the same story with most of the other alts.  Random pumps.

I wouldn't mind knowing what's going on with BTS?
Tune into the Bitshares hangouts each week: https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts

403
Stress-test whitepaper released! : http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-stresstest.pdf

Read the above PDF report for the recent stress test within the Bitshares testnet!

Relevant quotes from above whitepaper:

Quote
Transaction Production
In  order  to stress-test  a  network, we need to produce actual stress which is not easy to achieve at the scale that we needed for our tests. Furthermore, we wanted to simulate a more or less realistic scenario in which multiple in-dependent parties distributed on the globe produce transactions, each transaction trying to make it into the next block.

For this reasons, we have asked the BitSharesTalk community to participate in the stress-testing not only by means of providng validation  nodes  across  the  planet,  but  also  to  produce  the  re-quired stress.

Sounds like we could help out here!

Quote
However, the Peer-2-Peer networking code has been optimized for a block interval of about 10 s and thus leaves a lot of room for  optimizations  when  talking  about  high-throughput  at  low latencies.

Ok so the lack of computer resources available to create transactions wasn't the sole bottleneck for maximizing TPS, this is potentially an area of witness experimentation or machine learning (to find optimal parameter optimization for ranges of TPS load).

Quote
Conclusion section
The Peer-2-Peer code seems to be working nicely but results show that it could be one of the bottlenecks currently preventing us from going further. The computational resources of our validators have more than enough back-off for higher throughputs but the networking code was not able to provide sufficient data (e.g. transactions) to raise it during our stress-test.

Ok, so perhaps the lack of computing power isn't required until the network code is optimized?

404
BOINC vs Commercial Cloud Computing
Research papers

Research TL;DR: (Note - 7 year old statistics!)
  • In the best-case scenario, hosts register at a rate of 124 cloud nodes per day.
  • The ratio of volunteer nodes needed to achieve the compute power of a small EC2 instance is about 2.83 active volunteer hosts to 1.
  • Effectively, with a commercial BOINC project, there exists the opportunity to create a cloud computing service without actually owning/providing the computing capabilities yourself. Imagine creating Azure at a fraction of the cost..

405


Content mirrored: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/bitshares-boinc-project-brainstorming-thread-all-ideas-welcome

Hey,

I'm Customminer from the Gridcoin https://gridcoin.us community, I've been a holder of BTS since BTSX days & have a very positive outlook on the future of Bitshares!

I have been paying attention to the recent Bitshares testnet stress-testing https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23829.0.html which yielded a rate of approx 3k TX/s, it was mentioned in the 13th Bitshares hangout https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/bitshares-hangout-13-w-christoph-hering-fuzzy that a potential reason that we were limited to 3k TX/s was the lack of computing power at the disposal of the stress-test organizers - I believe that the BOINC & Gridcoin community can help!

BOINC https://boinc.berkeley.edu/ is an open-source kit for volunteer distributed computing, it can distribute any kind of computing task and has between 250k & 560k active users (differing estimates depending on what site you go to.. it's difficult to guesstimate) & 4 million registered users in total. To put the scale of available computing power in perspective, team Gridcoin has 100k hosts at its disposal and currently only rewards 0.5% of the active BOINC community. The majority of the BOINC community contributes their resources entirely for free, those that crunch under team Gridcoin are rewarded GRC by the network on behalf of whitelisted projects (project owners pay nothing).

I spoke during episode 200 of the BeyondBitcoin hangout https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyondbitcoin-spotlight-gridcoin-03-24-17 and the 14th Bitshares hangout Chris4210[/member]/bitshares-hangout-14-03-31-17]https://steemit.com/bitshares/[member=38926]Chris4210[/member]/bitshares-hangout-14-03-31-17 on this topic.

I try to encourage the development of new BOINC projects each month, join in the discussion: https://steemit.com/@cm-steem/brainstorming-boinc-projects-006

The tools:
https://github.com/marius311/boinc-server-docker
https://github.com/marius311/boinc2docker
https://www.docker.com/
https://github.com/xeroc/python-bitshares
https://github.com/xeroc/bitshares-docker
https://github.com/grctest/project-rain-site (Outdated, needs uplifted to latest BOINC version)

The ideas:

Bitshares Testnet Load Generator!

It was mentioned in the last Bitshares hangout that the Bitshares testnet stress test may have been limited due to a lack of resources available for creating a larger transaction volume - what about distributing testnet load generating software out to a few thousand computers around the world via a BOINC project?

Such a project wouldn't be eligible for Gridcoin whitelist status (no GRC rewards) due to the bursty nature of stress testing (GRC needs continuous work availability).

You could easily distribute an UIA to your volunteers proportionally to their completed work by adding a Bitshares field to the BOINC signup page and user profile.

I'd imagine that for this idea, you would distribute a docker container which contained python dependencies, the testnet stress-test python script, and the bitshares client.

Once running on an user's machine, it would need to create a testnet user account, the project admin would send enough testnet BTS to each volunteer bitshares account, each account would register as lifetime (for less fees, but not neccessary),  then the main stress-test script would begin bombarding testnet with transactions.

The 3000+ TX/s rate achieved in the recent Bitshares testnet stress-test was great, but let's try to push it to 1 million + TX/s!

Relevant links:
Bitshares testnet stress-test thread : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=23829.15

---

Bitshares Full/API node distribution

Alongside the testnet load generator, you could distribute full node servers out to volunteers to supply additional network resources to the Bitshares network.

This would require the development of a proof-of-bandwidth credit mechanism (how to reward credit to users based on their full node availability/capacity/consumed-resources).

Since full-nodes are always required, this would make a Bitshares BOINC project eligible for Gridcoin whitelisting.

This would require setting minimum computer spec requirements, so not everyone would be able to participate unlike the load generator.

---

Machine Learning + BTS

You could distribute TensorFlow https://www.tensorflow.org/ docker containers, and perform machine learning against data gathered from the BTS DEX.

---

Witness experiments

We currently have ~25 witnesses, down from 100 in the switch from BTS 1.0 to BTS 2.0, we could experiment with different quantities of witnesses in an automated manner to evaluate optimal quantities of witnesses.

---

Volunteer incentives!

The BOINC web server is programmed in PHP, you can easily add a Bitshares (and bitshares testnet) account field to the account signup page (and profile page), then expose said account name within the user statistics xml files (which is generated every 24hrs) then you can proportionally distribute an UIA on the BTS network to each BOINC volunteer proportionally to their contributed computation (RAC). Since these xml files are public, anyone could distribute their own UIA against your volunteers (new sharedrop vector!).

If there is a continuous availability of work units for volunteers, then the project would be eligible for Gridcoin whitelist status (the Gridcoin network would distribute rewards to your volunteers).

---

Do you have an idea for Bitshares which requires vast amount of distributed computing power? Please post your ideas in this thread!  +5%

Thoughts?

Regards,
CM.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33