Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 57 results by Shattienator
On the subject of who gets what and where the value is held, if a new Devcoin is created I offer this:
It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that.
If I hold a bar of gold, it is still a bar of gold and worth the market price if I choose to use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick, it still has the same value and it is still negotiable. Doesn't matter if new gold "bars" are shaped like spheres with little points, my bar still has the same value, once for ounce, as the new one.
I well understand we are not talking about hard assets but, digital ones. Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.
Cryptocurrency is not a gold bar. It even does not exist - you can not "use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick".It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that.
If I hold a bar of gold, it is still a bar of gold and worth the market price if I choose to use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick, it still has the same value and it is still negotiable. Doesn't matter if new gold "bars" are shaped like spheres with little points, my bar still has the same value, once for ounce, as the new one.
I well understand we are not talking about hard assets but, digital ones. Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.
There are enormous number of cryptos with zero value. Look at any exchange - you can see a lot of cryptos for sale for a minimum possible price (NYC at coingather, for example). All these coins have zero value just from the beginning. If you buy nothing why are you waiting that nothing one day will become something?
Devcoin a bit different - the good idea was in place.
But it ended up the same way as all other "coins".
I have some wallets with millions and millions of all kind of these "shitcoins". Long forgotten ones. I wonder if all these "coins being held" should be honored at all. Dead is dead - end of story.
Day T is not set at all. That is a idea.
The rate increase is set, not target date.
1 satoshi is not a final target - it is not even a target, it is just an ordinary exchange rate somewhere in future. Next week will give 1.2 satoshi. Another week - another 20% increase etc.
1, 10, 100, 1000 satoshis per DVC to be a reached someday with gradual exchange rate increase. But without any deadlines. Rate increase can be slowed down over the time
I think the rate increase idea would be a fundamental mistake. Not sure how else to explain why so will leave it at that.The rate increase is set, not target date.
1 satoshi is not a final target - it is not even a target, it is just an ordinary exchange rate somewhere in future. Next week will give 1.2 satoshi. Another week - another 20% increase etc.
1, 10, 100, 1000 satoshis per DVC to be a reached someday with gradual exchange rate increase. But without any deadlines. Rate increase can be slowed down over the time
It is just an idea. Not final at all. Just to keep that in mind while designing the whole system.
Constant rate increase looks good until 1 say satoshi reached. Or maybe 10. But later it possible create problems with the exchange with constant increase of "reserve" for future conversions up to enormous amount. It greatly depends on unpredictable conversion demand changing over time.
We need to keep this obvious flaw of this proposal in mind. I can't even imagine what distribution law applicable to that conversion-rate scheme. Completelly no idea ATM. It prevents me from predicting any demand in conversion with the reasonable rate change approach. Linear 20% a week increase is just for illustrative purpose - no rational behind this figure.
Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.
Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
It doesn't matter whether day T is set. The issue is the scale of existing optionality.It depents on patience and greed
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.
Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
Devcoin's basic problem is already patience/greed vs. 'reward os dev'. People are people and doesn't seem much point starting anew to immediately rely on a different result from that trade-off.
"Once conversion to new coin.." - that's my point. I don't know what the solution is but would certainly be better to force all conversion at 1000:1 on day 1 (0.16 btc equiv) than 1:1 on day T (160 btc equiv).
Day T is not set at all. That is a idea.
The rate increase is set, not target date.
1 satoshi is not a final target - it is not even a target, it is just an ordinary exchange rate somewhere in future. Next week will give 1.2 satoshi. Another week - another 20% increase etc.
1, 10, 100, 1000 satoshis per DVC to be a reached someday with gradual exchange rate increase. But without any deadlines. Rate increase can be slowed down over the time
DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.
...
But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.
The WORST thing you can do for long-term DVC members/contributors is not reward for existing holding. You would essentially be saying "So you contributed to DVC? Cool. You held your coins instead of dumping them because you believed in the project? Well, you should have just tanked it with the others because now you get nothing at all! Oh, by the way, interested in joining us on a new project?" Anyone that did this would end up with no reason NOT to continually dump at that point, because you'd be showing that it's the "right" thing to do.
You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).
You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).
Just take a look at the price chart:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/devcoin/
DVC was dumped all the time. Just from the beginning.
And it will be repeated with the new coin unless significant changes to reward distribution system. Even small fraction of existing devcoins converted to a new one will ruin new coin in days. I'm trying to develop reasonable way to sort it out with not devcoin holders left behind.
It will be very hard task.
Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.
Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
It depents on patience and greed
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.
Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?
Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions...
I'm saying that if you increasingly reward holdouts, rational holders will obviously just dump all coins at the last possible moment instead.Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions...
And at a better rate, which would undermine above objectives (deflation, price etc) far more.
(this is just about what's been discussed, not necessarily my own opinion where I agree it should just be a new project).
Yes. Exactly. Dump later not now.
It new coin will not succeed - then better rate never become a reality, but if we put good conversion from the beginning - there will be no future at all.
And rational holders should be rewarded a bit, doesnt it?
Just give a new coin some time to breathe and gain strength. Do not "premine" or give any other possibilities to dump coins just from the beginning.
DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.
You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.
New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.
But, if new Devcoin team will reach an agreement that old devcoins need to be converted to new one - then we have to think about convertion mechanism which will help us to avoid huge dump of old devcoins through Renewal/Conversion system.
New coin will be burried alive if 16 billion of devcoin (OK, even if 10% of existing devcoins) will be "immediatelly" converted and dumped.
6 years of generation produced too much coins. Even a portion of it will kill new one once conversion system will be in place.
So the possible solution is to offer unfair conversion rate at the start of the conversion system offering much better rates for patient holders.
But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.
3. Devcoin Renewal Service launches to convert old to new
Devcoin was launched on July 22, 2011. For six years there are nearly 16 billion of Devcoins.In order to renew old Devcoins at the rate of 1 satoshi it will require about 160 BTC or about USD500K.
This is just for conversion/renewal alone.
What we need to do to avoid DVC flood for DRS?
Lets make conversion rate to rise gradually over time. It means the later you apply for a conversion - the better conversion rate you have.
For example 1000 DVC to be converted to New DVC (nDVC) at the rate 1000 DVC for nDVC equal to one satoshi.
For a first week. Then increase the rate by 20% - 800 DVC for satishi.
In 32 weeks it will reach current rate of 1 DVC for 1 satoshi. And 10 times increase (to 1 DVC for 10 satoshi) in one year.
10% rate increase give us 1 DVC to 1 satoshi in about 66 weeks. 1 DVC to 10 satoshi - in 88 weeks. etc.
This is just an example - the rate can be made flexible and the rate change over time can be flexible as well. Maybe I'm not good at math
But in any case this is an idea to implement DRS without flash sales at the beginning.It will be completelly not wise to dump existion bitcoins almost for nothing. All existing DVC for 0,16 BTC at the start of DRS. Or keep it for a one year and get current rate (Coingather sometimes have some buy support at this rate, but in general it is impossible to sell even few million devcoins at this rate, for DVC/LTC pair it will be about 0.6 of satoshi for DVC, DVC/DOGE at about 0.4).
Yes, I undestand that this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, but this is reasonable limitation for a renewal service if we want to keep old devcoin, not just dump it.
The conversion rate increase should be made publicly available, rate change should be clear and predictable.
Regarding Receivers. I think it will be better to implement Smart Contracts to New DVC.
Will possibility to "invest" or "directly" donate open source projects within blockchain.
Maybe with GitHub intergation.
Make Master Smart Contract which will deal with charity/donations on regular basis.
Yes, it will require some coding work. Surely it will require serious changes to blockchain itself. Etherium as the base or something like this.
Block reward distribution thoughts:
10% to miners (in case of merged mining) or 25% for standalone mining.
60% of the rest for Receivers (55% of total for merged and 45% for standalone mining).
And the last portion for Devcoin development/promotion.
Say for the first year with quarterly review of this scheme.
We just need to allocate shares more intelligently / effectively.
-MarkM-
That is the problem of a Devcoin - constant sell side generation forces Devcoin receivers to sell them as fast as possible because any new block will generate more and more coins going on sale. All the time. So keeping any coins will reduce its value without any chance to increase.
The reward distribution should be designed to provide the reason to keep the coins for some time (or for a long time). It meas that the Deflation strategy should be implemented. Bitcoin have reduction of coins generated. Devcoin should have the same to succeed. Say reduction of generation rate by 0.1% each 144 blocks (once a day) - it will give roughly 30% reduction annually. 50000 coins per block will become 35000 coins per block in one year. From 36K to 24K - for the next year etc.
Just for example.
ATM the sell side generation is about 220M a month. To keep the DVC price at 1 satoshi there shoud be a 2.2 BTC buy side support each month. It can not just come out of thin air.
So any reward receiver forced to sell its share immediatelly once any buy side appears. Even at 1 satoshi per DVC. Coingather right now have buy support for only 64K DVC at 1 satoshi.
Any generation reduction will give (small) possibility that coin will increase in
So Deflation strategy should be discussed, not Inflation one.
DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE OF DEVCOIN
...We are not starting from scratch.
...need a fair system that ensures we are rewarding people that are actually serving the purpose of Devcoin...
As Sidhujag noted, if you plan to fundamentally modify generation and distribution then need to start anew. ~14bn existing supply so perception & economics of a change won't fly otherwise:...We are not starting from scratch.
...need a fair system that ensures we are rewarding people that are actually serving the purpose of Devcoin...
1) Would look dodgy.
2) Wouldn't make sense to expect fundamental change. Already constant generation = falling rate of supply growth as a percentage of total per period. Simply adjusting that lower means very little at this point (relatively tiny numerator/relatively huge denominator).
3) If you do it anyway and maintain current framework, need to recognise that price is basically pegged to an implied monetary measure of work via distribution. This is primarily a quality/community/enthusiasm/acceptance problem, not a technical problem.
i.e. DVC/BTC currently = Implied $ value of a share/(DVC per share/(BTC/USD)). Getting DVC/BTC higher requires increasing $ value of a share and/or lowering DVC per share.
4) If you do it anyway and maintain a [different] generation/distribution framework you need to seriously consider how you'll overcome (3) and how legacy supply and perception will feed into mechanics and assumptions about the future.
I have two ideas in mind:
1. Start anew radically, everything from scratch, kill the old DVC, people should SELL all their current DVC stock to preserve a bit of their money
2. Make a hard cut. Implement a DVC RENEWAL SERVICE (DRS) where people can "submit" their current DVC so that it gets converted into the new DVC
#2 makes more sense for me. BUT we should set a conversion rate that pumps the new DVC up. For example a relation of 10,000 to 1. For every 10 thousand OLD DVC sent to DRS, you get 1 NEW DVC back. Maybe it should be 100K or 1 million, I'm open to proposals!
Lets say that DRS is implemented. On every round the new DVC Rewards Distribution System (RDS) should pay to the following FUNDS:
1. Fund to Convert OLD DVC into NEW DVC
2. Fund for Open Source Projects and Assets (Devtome?)
3. Fund to pay the staff (core team, mirrors, nodes)
4. Fund to pay miners
Then we have to figure out the Inflation Rate Strategy (IRS), how much DVC should be generated on every round? Should it be static or variable like STEEM?
Why do you need to keep old DVC alive? Currently there are no possibilities to sell DVC say for amount of 1 BTC - whole Coinsource have no such buy support on DVC pairs.
For option 1 this will be just a new coin. In this case it should be a ICO on any notable f. Basically it will give all the options you have mentioned in option 2.
In reality - the new coin with the old Idea is the only option that can succeed at the ICO funding. With new protocol, new features, new RDS and IRS in place. Basically we can start with new whitepaper and get and strategy for ICO. But do we need the old Devcoin with all these "premined" (from ICO point of view) coins?
Just keep in mind that it will be much more easy to build a new coin from a scratch then to try keep old coin alive.
So, in general, there only one option - to kill old coin (not kill, actually, but not to try give it a new birth - with merged mining it will be alive for some time in any case) and start a new one.
Hi guys. Good to see devcoin is on the comeback.
Can someone list exchanges where I can buy/trade devcoin? Would prefer to stay away from vircurex. (If possible).
Any insites into the current spike in prices?
TIA.
Can someone list exchanges where I can buy/trade devcoin? Would prefer to stay away from vircurex. (If possible).
Any insites into the current spike in prices?
TIA.
Coingather is your choice.
Three pairs available:
DVC/BTC (https://www.coingather.com/exchange/DVC/BTC)
DVC/LTC (https://www.coingather.com/exchange/DVC/LTC)
DVC/DOGE (https://www.coingather.com/exchange/DVC/DOGE)
I was able to create a new wallet address and send 2000 DVC to Coingather today. Let's see how long Coingather takes to acknowledge my deposit. It was made about 10 minutes ago.
Yes, Coingather fixed the problem with DVC wallet.Devcoin client shows last block number 276375, dated April 20.
No blocks beyond this date.
Devcoin have died?
No blocks beyond this date.
Devcoin have died?
Code:
devcoind getinfo
{
"version" : 80501,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 278239,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 9,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 42782206.42434672,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1493542679,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
{
"version" : 80501,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 278239,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 9,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 42782206.42434672,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1493542679,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
Code:
devcoind getpeerinfo |grep addr
"addr" : "64.71.72.56:52333",
"addr" : "82.200.205.39:52333",
"addr" : "64.156.193.100:52862",
"addr" : "86.126.0.100:55429",
"addr" : "47.144.12.240:63940",
"addr" : "67.80.40.56:52205",
"addr" : "75.37.199.115:58228",
"addr" : "158.69.245.58:35042",
"addr" : "69.181.165.105:52333",
"addr" : "64.71.72.56:52333",
"addr" : "82.200.205.39:52333",
"addr" : "64.156.193.100:52862",
"addr" : "86.126.0.100:55429",
"addr" : "47.144.12.240:63940",
"addr" : "67.80.40.56:52205",
"addr" : "75.37.199.115:58228",
"addr" : "158.69.245.58:35042",
"addr" : "69.181.165.105:52333",
Do not forget to download the latest receiver_*.csv files from http://devcoin.darkgamex.ch to ~/.devcoin/receiver/ otherwise the synchronization will stop.
Thanks!
Can anyone give me an estimate on the size of the blockchain? I'd like to install devcoind on an older machine (~15gb of free HDD space) and I'm not sure if the blockchain can fit.
DVC blockchain size is about 700M now.So does the community want devcointalk.org or not??
Happy to run it, happy to import the data and threads from coinzen backup, don't want to have 2 forums running side by side though if someone else getting coinzen back up up and running. No offence but it has been some time now?? any idea on what the delay is? and the people allocated to run the forum... what evidence is there they will not dissappear like coinzen later down the road?
Fuzzybear
Happy to run it, happy to import the data and threads from coinzen backup, don't want to have 2 forums running side by side though if someone else getting coinzen back up up and running. No offence but it has been some time now?? any idea on what the delay is? and the people allocated to run the forum... what evidence is there they will not dissappear like coinzen later down the road?
Fuzzybear
I can't speak for anyone else, but just today the transfer of coinzen.org completed, and the domain now redirects to devcointalk.org. You've done a nice job on the new forum Fuzzybear. The domain can be transfered to whomever, or I can adjust DNS, pointers, etc. as you folks need. Registration is paid to June 2017.
TT
Recommend you don't post domain name suggestions publicly for obvious reasons. Maybe ask for folks to check availability then pm suggestions for available domains.
This is a good point, just send domain name ideas in a pm to me. I didn't think it was a big deal since there are a ton of new gtlds coming out, it doesn't have to be .com or .org any more, but it might be easier to select the best of the bunch and put get the admin list to decide it.
Regarding spam, would it take too much time to just verify new accounts manually? How many legitimate new accounts can you get daily? Just send a form letter email to all new accounts a couple times a day, personal responses with a legitimate reason for wanting to post get enabled, the others get discarded. The job might even be entertaining, and a nice way to meet new members of your community.
TT
TT
I'm not sure about this, Shattienator might know more about how possible/easy this is, although I do know spam accounts were a huge problem on coinzen.
Spam filters should be adjusted quite often.
But in any case it is not problem to manually verify about hundred accounts a day. Spam accounts usually have rubbish emails of very-very detailed description. Very few real users provide full description including full name, location, birthday, several hobbies and lot lot more - all at once
Mainly all spam accounts can be identified almost immediatelly.
Since the coinzen forum is going to be switching soon, I will use this thread to post bounty proposals:
I'd like to propose a bounty for 240 shares, for sidhujag to update the devcoin client (https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin-wallet) and devcoin android wallet (https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin-android) from its current version, 8.5.1, to the newest bitcoin core, 0.11.0.
Notable changes per release:
0.9.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0 - windows 64 bit installer, autotools build system, bitcoin-cli changes
0.10.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0 - Faster synchronization, Transaction fee changes, RPC access control changes, REST interface, improved signing security, watch-only wallet support, and more
0.11.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0 - Block file pruning, memory usage optimization, improved fee estimation, improved privacy
If there are no objections, this will go into effect in about a week.
I'd like to propose a bounty for 240 shares, for sidhujag to update the devcoin client (https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin-wallet) and devcoin android wallet (https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin-android) from its current version, 8.5.1, to the newest bitcoin core, 0.11.0.
Notable changes per release:
0.9.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.9.0 - windows 64 bit installer, autotools build system, bitcoin-cli changes
0.10.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.10.0 - Faster synchronization, Transaction fee changes, RPC access control changes, REST interface, improved signing security, watch-only wallet support, and more
0.11.0: https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.11.0 - Block file pruning, memory usage optimization, improved fee estimation, improved privacy
If there are no objections, this will go into effect in about a week.
I totally support the move and change of forum that is hopefully going to take place. If it's going to be open source and creative commons. And I believe Papacrusher is correct with the idea of still having altcurrency.
I'm not that good with naming but I would say opensourcedvc.com or creativedevelopers.com or dvctalk.com
Maybe not .com, but .org? Org sounds much better for open source idea.
P.S. There are lot of "Creative Developers" sites, FB groups etc.