There are review processes in place now for Devtome content, authors that get poor ratings from reviewers get paid less, good reviews leads to higher pay.

So that is starting to come into place. First there had to actually be authors and content, then once we had authors the option was added whereby they can review other authors. Before we actually had any authors there would not have been much point in trying to recruit reviewers, and the author population has been useful as a source not only of reviewers but also of administrators.

Bear in mind also that DeVCoin is deliberately intended from its initial design to be worth a lot less per coin than Bitcoin.

Back when DeVCoin was created a lot of people were arguing that Bitcoin should move its decimal point; DeVCoin thus deliberately started out with its decimal point already moved so as to hopefully avoind running into those same arguments.

-MarkM-

That does not require a new coin.

Just do it to a real, useful, popular coin to make it even easier for everyone to use it.

-MarkM-

I don't see any fixes in those searches. Most results my browser shows as one I already visited too but I checked them again.

Hopefully if it is indeed fixed I will find once I get Moneychanger onto a Fedora 19 box again that it now works.

Going to have to go build it for 19 again to try that. Maybe they have updated the packages by now with whatever fixes, though those bug reports never seem to end with any claim that it has actually been fixed yet.

Also try to figure out what exactly needs copying from build machine to a machine that has keyboard and monitor and mouse in order to run it on a target-machine. In case it still does not work over ssh -X from my (Fedora 17 still) workstation aka graphics-terminal.

Monday I will find out firm dates for an electrician to rewire my country-house, once that is wired up I will finally have plenty of electrical circuits so be able to fire up more of my machines and have room to equip more of them with screens and keyboards and mice in an accessible manner.

-MarkM-

This one is still running just fine.

I guess some day it, like all the merged mined coins, will be needing rsnel's RAM-usage fix that has already been applied to several of the merged mined coins, but so far it has been humming along nicely for years without it.

Has anyone actually tried the OP_EVAL thing?

Afterall enabling that so it can be tested was part of the purpose of this coin.

-MarkM-

Okay, it works. Lets get some pools to give it a whirl eh?

Maybe Bitparking can give it a try again?

-MarkM-

rsnel has fixed up geistgeld with the so-called "dirty fix".

What that means is the RAM hogging problem has gone away but it is not indexing the merged mining proofs to disk like the full fix he did for I0Coin does.

The proofs are still present in the blockchain file, just not nicely index on disk for lookup.

Nothing apparently looks them up anyway yet so this works fine. It will still be nice just for completeness to get the full fix in place someday though.

It still uses the old geistgeld code too, so basically this is just a quick and dirty fix to solve the RAM hogging so people can go ahead and merged-mine GeistGeld without needing 16 gigs of spare RAM to do it in.

Someday it should be updated to latest bitcoin code and the full fix, that is, basically be re-done based on I0COin's nice new code.

But as it is it merges nicely, looks like it even might be working quite well enough for some major merged mining pools to be able to try it again.

Maybe we can get bitparking to give it a try?

The source code is at https://github.com/rsnel/geistgeld/

-MarkM-

CAvirtex does.

-MarkM-

Wow this latest fashion in scams is wildly popular isn't it?

The text seems kind of stolen too, doesn't it?

-MarkM-

Good idea.

DOGE is hopefully a little different from most crapcoins because by whatever means or reasoning it managed to get listed by Vircurex.

Vircurex hasn't dropped Feathercoin nor Worldcoin despite their pathetic hashing power that was way less than DOGE's so chances don't seem high that they will drop DOGE, maybe even if its difficulty drops as low as those other two "also ran" scrypt coins. Unfortunately.

(I would prefer they dropped one such coin when adding another, e.g. drop the lowest difficulty scrypt coin that they had listed when they added DOGE, but it doesn't seem to be happening. Lets hope they don't keep adding every crapcoin that happens to momentarily get more hashing power or volume (or both) than those they already have, or at least not without dropping some of the even crappier ones.)

Unfortunately if the other coins listed at Vircurex aren't to get tainted by association it looks like they are going to have to try to provide support for DOGE just to try not to have the entire exchange get a rep as just yet another scam-of-the-day exchange tainting the rep of all the other coins listed.

So chances seem reasonable that it will go up and down over time much like DeVCoin has done.

Maybe not though, afterall I admit I never was tempted to try to support Feathercoin nor Worldcoin just because my coins had to associate with them; instead I just kept hoping they would get de-listed...

But even if they do at last finally get de-listed DOGE would presumably be the last to go if it manages not to drop down below them in difficulty and volume.

It will be interesting too see whether DOGE is just another gang-banged crapcoin or actually has enough dedicated hashing power of its own even without the fly by night gangbangers to maintain its difficulty higher than those other two "also ran" scrypt coins.

-MarkM-

It was overpriced. Compare it to DeVCoin, it mints way more coins than DeVCoin.

It will likely drop in price to 30 satoshis or lower like DeVCoin has tended again and again to do.

-MarkM-

Maybe you're not doing this right.

The latest tech for this kind of thing is to announce you are going to implement such a great idea and everyone can buy shares of the implementation by sending bitcoins to such and such an address, and the sooner they send the more shares they get per bitcoin they send.

Then when you hit 100 or so bitcoins you can reveal the idea and announce a second wave of the IPO to raise funds to hire a project lead, and so on.

Actually that last part is probably wrong, really the proper way is more likely to just go like goodbye and thanks for all the bitcoins once enough bitcoins come in.

-MarkM-

There are shitloads of profitable scams you can use to keep up your GPU addiction habit.

For a real currency we need real security.

-MarkM-

Well great then, the problem is known. So the solution will be forthcoming.

If you want to somehow get credit for it before someone else announces it maybe you should get your lawyer to draw up some non-disclosure contracts and look into finding some developer who would be willing to sign such a thing. (Is anyone that dumb anymore though?)

Also, are we to assume the whitepaper detailing the technical specifications of your implementation of a purported solution has not been peer-reviewed?

Can you link to your resume, linked-in etc that shows your technical expertise is in fact such as to inspire confidence in your ability to nail down the details of a solution that will actually work, is feasible to execute and so on?

Also, have you some kind of evidence of a thorough search of prior art to ensure that your idea is in fact unique? If so then maybe you should patent it, then you will be free to announce it to the world secure in the knowledge you will profit from it if anyone deems it worthy of actually doing.

-MarkM-

Sure the original idea was a get rich quick scheme for GPU owners, they wanted to keep spawning more and more scams to keep cheating people out of money by selling them an endless stream of insecure crap, to keep spewing more and more such crap so who cares that it is all insecure as only idiots/suckers would ever throw money into such crap and suckers deserve to be suckered.

But unfortunately a lot of suckers have been suckered into putting a lot of money into Litecoin so it behooves us as responsible members of cryptosociety to try to secure that damn blockchain regardless of the schemes and dreams of the scammers.

That means ASICs, because until people all over the world have ASICs securing that blockchain it continues to be a train wreck waiting to happen.

It is maybe also true though that we ultimately need free open source ASICs if there is any truth in assertions that otherwise only the ASIC design companies - the owners of the designs - will be able to deploy effective hashing farms and will not distribute the hashing power.

-MarkM-

Well maybe your idea of what the problems are differs from other people's opinions.

-MarkM-

Of course it has not sailed yet, the thing is still vulnerable, once it gets ASICs that are seriously way more efficient than GPUs then it will be time to sail.

-MarkM-

It is good that the GUI does not work, because the kind of people who feel they need a GUI also tend to be the kind of suckers who will buy into a coin whose hashing power is so abysmally pathetic that the thing is basically just a honeypot waiting to be PWNed at any moment.

Coins are financial applications, the very first thing should be security.

If you are not prepared to secure your blockchain all the GUI crap bells and whistles marketing etc etc is all just a giant scam scamming people into throwing their money away.

-MarkM-

I think various methods were worked out whereby people could somehow double-blindedly create a coin. None of the people would have the whole private key, or something like that. Such things were much discussed over the years.

For more info. use search function of the forum...

-MarkM-

Your entire basic premise though - that of spawning yet another coin when we cannot even maintain and surround with services and so on the coins we already have - seems to me to be part and parcel of the whole movement you purport to be objecting to.

We have more coins already than we have enough people to fully support and test and do unit tests for and secure build setups for and a full panoply of services for and advertising for and so on and so on and so on.

Moving on to create yet another just seems part of the whole slash and burn lets make a fast buck no matter how destructive that is kind of mentality.

So how about take it that a coin has already been created, that part is more than amply taken care of, heck maybe even too many have been created, now lets settle down to the real work of secure build process, full set of unit tests, market-makers on exchanges committed to making a market for the coin, miners full time dedicated to ensuring the coin has over half of the CPU power or GPU/FPGA power or the specific ASICs designed for that coin, payment processors exist for it, block explorers, the whole panoply of services.

You strike me as just another of those "oh lets not work. lets get rich quick by spawning yet another coin when we haven't even done the work needed to support all the coins we already created" people really. We have coins. What we need is all the infrastructure around them.

I even run into comments sometimes on here that amount to "I cannot be bothered to support such and such a coin so I shall write it off as dead and make a new one".

Such crap, as if they will support the next one either. Its just serial slash-and-burn.

What they are really writing off as dead is actual work, actual providing of value. They write all that off in favour of suckering more suckers with more scams. Including your proposal that amounts to lets make a less scammy-looking scam...

Actually it sounds like you want to drag serious developers / software support staff / eetc away from supporting what already exists to lend their reputations to your proposed less scammy looking scam.

The reason already long established coins sometimes seem to have no developers / support staff is because there are already too many such coins for them to keep up with supporting them all. Adding yet more to their workload does not seem helpful at all. How about rolling up your sleeves and helping support the coins we already have?

Look at the merged mined family of coins. for example. It has been taking forever to even just simply propagate to all of them the RAM-hogging fix that was initially tested in I0Coin. Adding yet another coin to the list of coins that need support, work, services, devs etc etc etc attention seems very counter-productive.

-MarkM-

Actually VIrcurex replied to my panic email about what a horror it was to see yet another garbage coin on Vircurex that it was high volume that made it attractive. A lot of the coins on Vircurex are reasonable seeming coins but have rather low volume. Maybe because there is way the heck more volume in scamming the masses than there is in selling them only the best of the best.

I wish they would drop Feathercoin and Worldcoin, since DOGE demonstrated that almost overnight an internet meme could conjure up way more than enough hash power to PWN them both.

-MarkM-