We need to keep on minting coins forever without halving the minting, because we need to keep sending 90% of the coins to the people/projects (addresses) that are listed in the receiver files.

-MarkM-

Devcoin continues minting coins forever partly because receivers need to be receiving coins forever.

Changing the fee structure probably requires checking the block number, so that existing blocks do not suddenly look like they had too little in the way of fees?

So you maybe cannot simply change fees boom just by changing the numbers in the code, you also likely have to keep those old nubmers in there for when the validity of old blocks is being checked, and have any change in fees take effect as of some specific future block.

Unless you are absolutely sure that your new fee values/code does in fact still find all already-existing blocks and all blocks people who continue to user old code to be be valid, of course. But you'd better be very sure of that, because some people are likely to keep on using old clients for years thus to continue sending fees as dictated by the old code not by the new code...

-MarkM-

On the topic of Battle for Wesnoth, all the campaigns mentioned in Devtome date back to a version of the Battle for Wesnoth software that is now a few versions out of date.

Accordingly all those campaigns need running through the "lint for campaigns" syntax-checker that automatically updates what can be updated automatically, then all the things that tool points out that it cannot automatically correct will need to be manually corrected.

In addition, none or almost none of the scenarios in those campaigns have soundtracks. At best they maybe just run Wesnoth's default playlist or maybe might have chosen one from Wesnoth's very limited repertoire of soundtracks, or maybe even just let the program pick randomly from its default playlist.

Some of those campaigns are behind the times more than merely in the sense of being coded for out of date versions of Wesnoth but also in terms of not keeping abreast of what has actually being going on around them.

For example, so far none of those scenarios mentions Devtome, whether or not any of the characters in them have even heard of Devtome is not specified, which of those characters also writes Devtome articles in addition to creating holobarracks programs (such as those very Battle for Wesnoth campaigns themselves, all of which are attributed to at least one of the characters found in at least one of those campaigns) and so on.

Currently the only way players of those campaigns would be led to discover Devtome is by following the clues that lead to such things as the CrossCiv server (or ... oops, I was going to write MUDgaard but then it occurred to me that none of those campaigns mention MUDgaard either, they are so out of date! ...) and meeting therein some player who thinks to mention Devtome to them.

So it would be nice if someone brought the campaigns up to date with the latest version of Battle for Wesnoth, whereupon adding references to Devtome and MUDgaard might make more sense (since being use-able with the current version should result in more users than if users have to install an old version of Battle for Wesnoth in order to play those campaigns) than it would right now.

(For those who are not aware of the fact, maybe it is worth mentioning that this (Devcoin, Devtome etc) whole project, like the GNU project that in the campaigns is refered to by terms along the lines of "Grand Nexus Uberplot", and Battle for Wesnoth itself that is characterised as a form of holodeck-programmer training-tool for deployment on planets on which the deployment of actual holodecks is deprecated, is part of the game...)

-MarkM-

Well at the very least, remember that in a wiki anyone can edit anything.

Devtome articles can be spelling-corrected, grammar-corrected and so on by anyone.

So at the very least the same should be the case with a devtome-equivalent for music or images or movies or 3D models or whatever.

So for example if someone posts an item of pixel-art purporting to be an image of a certain object as seen under a certain light, and they maybe didn't get quite the right hue or shade or tint or whatever on a certain pixel, someone else, maybe someone who has the actual model and the actual light-source the image supposedly depicts, could correct that pixel.

The scope for auto-generated "spins" and "spam" and "drivel" seems to me potentially massively higher in imagery and soundtracks because it is so very easy to generate trillions upon trillions of images, as compared to generating trillions upon trillions of text articles that are grammatically correct and actually seem to have something to convey.

(For sound for example one could set oodles of noisemaking models moving around making noises, maybe in reaction to each other, or you could run Battle for Wesnoth with sound and record the soudns of a massive battle, and by varying which units you deploy you'd get different soundtracks, so you could make a track of elves versus goblins, another goblins versus loyalists, and so on and so on and so on.)

Though admittedly maybe I just have not been following the development of constructive grammars, article spinners and suchlike spammer-tools closely enough lately. Is it still the case that when you generate trillions of articles using a constructive grammar the resulting articles seem to somehow lack internal sense and consistency and such?

For imagery one could fairly easily zoom cameras around OpenSimulator environments, having scripted objects walking around, random placement of trees and shrubs and buildings and so on and so on and generate insanely huge numbers of images, and each would have an internal sense and consistency because each is simply one possible angle of view of one possible configuration of three dimensional models.


Well we already have, in the software development side of things, a distinction between "any old crap you choose to come up with" and "stuff we actually need".

So maybe we could do the same with other media?

Actually it is already maybe not only in programming, but in "being a developer of free open source stuff" in general.

In general you have to be a person who works at least ten hours per week on free open source stuff in order to qualify as a developer to get onto the receivers list.

(That is, in order to get one "share".)

I am not at all convinced that it takes forty hours to write 1000 words for Devtome, which is why Devtome author pay seems out of scale with everything else.

But, also in general, if what it is that you work on in the way of free open source stuff happens to be something we really need, such as bitcoin, or Open Transactions, then you only have to be a person who spends at least ten hours per month working on such stuff.

So I would imagine that at a bare minimum random images or sounds or music that someone feels like making should pay no more than 1/4 as much as images and music that are specifically required.

For example if it is decided that the devtome site or the devcoin site or whatever needs a soundtrack, maybe because websites without sound earn less money, attract less visitors and so on, then presumably making such soundtracks ought to pay at least 4 times as much as just submitting random tracks just to get your pay per byte or pay per run-length minute or whatever a devtome-like site for music would use as a metric in calculating pay.

If it does become necessary to have a soundtrack for Devtome, then maybe it would turn out to make sense to have a distinct separate soundtrack for each article, based on the contents of the article and maybe also carrying on the general musical theme that relates all the tracks of all the articles together so on hearing one you can guess it is probably the soundtrack of a Devtome article and maybe - maybe even "hopefully" - also what category of article it is the soundtrack for...

Battle for Wesnoth needs soundtracks for scenarios, and maybe also grouped soundtracks, so that a campaign can carry a theme throughout a whole bunch of scenarios with the track reflecting the mood of the individual scenario as well as the overall theme all the tracks of all the scenarios in the campaign have in common that relates them all together. If Battle for Wesnoth becomes a mission-critical component of the overall devcoin vision / roadmap, then presumably making soundtracks for those campaigns and scenarios that are needed for Devcoin's purposes ought, again, pay four times as much as just random stuff that was not designed specifically to fill a particular need that the Devcoin project has.

I do think that Devtome author pay is probably way out of scale with everything else, and I still think that should be corrected.

In fact it seems to me that ideally we should at some point no longer need to pay authors by the word, because, hopefully, we will eventually be able to do authors the same way we do any other developers of free open source software, which is to say, if we find a good author who habitually as a lifestyle spends ten hours per week creating free open source stuff they should be able to get onto the receivers list as a developer of free open source stuff.

Notice that they get the same one share regardless of whether they only spend the absolute minimum - ten hours per week - working on such stuff or they do such stuff 40 hours a week or 60 hours a week or 80 hours a week or whatever.

The idea was we are looking for those people who already naturally as a lifestyle contribute their time freely to free open source development.

We seem to have gotten sidetracked from that, with Devtome suddenly we started trying to bribe people to develop free open source writings or to release their existing writings as free open source, and in fact I do not even recall our having even tried to go out and find authors who already have been freely contributing at least ten hours of writing per week to free open source projects...

-MarkM-

In a way, kind of.

First off, an illustrator of some kind maybe, that can, given a novel, try to illustrate it.

That way eventually maybe instead of spending millions of devcoins hiring human actors to act out a plot, each person will be free to let their own computer illustrate/animate it for them using their own preferences as to what goblins look like, how a dark and storm night looks, whether a dark and stormy night seems to them to be better illustrated with a musical score or just storm sound-effects or both, and so on and so on.

Right now when we get an animated illustration of a famous novel or book (e.g. the Bible, or a Dickens novel, or Lord of the Rings etc) we get just a particular artists' or director's or film production crew's interpretation of the novel or book as cast in moving images or enacted as one particlar play or screenplay more or less "true to the original".

There is massive need for the ability to automatically illustrate things; nowadays millions of devcoins worth of wealth goes into making just one visual representation of what happens to happen in a game someone plays, and this acts as a massive "moat" or barrier standing in the way of game development.

The plot and mechanics of a play or game or event or performance are in many cases the important part. People still read novels even though movies have been made of them. Partly this might even be due to the failure of many movie versions of a novel to faithfully represent the actual novel. They tend not to actually enact the novel graphically but in fact to chop up the plot, change it around even, alter the gender of some characters maybe, all kinds of changes. They seldom actually just directly display what the actual events described in the novel, in the order they are described, might actually look like.

There are lots of games out there that only use text to describe events and characters and settings and objects, and part of why is that that is the most basic and inexpensive way of representing the situations and events and settings. To create a graphical client that would illustrate such games would be hard, but it would save billions of cost compared to hiring a movie director and crew of actors to enact each and every possible permutation of states such a game could be in.

It is also hard to go in reverse: to have actual 3D models of which you only get to see a 2D view, and from what you see on the 2D screen figure out what objects are supposedly there, how much damage which weapon did to what and stuff like that.

It is two very different approaches, in one approach you have a state of affairs and it can be depicted in various ways, in text or with various artists' graphical impressions or with various attempts at 3D clients that attempt to put together some kind of illustration that accurately and concisely and conveniently represents to players what the actual state of affairs happens to be. In another approach you just get to see images of what some artist thought such a state of affairs might look like, which can make it very hard to actually compute exactly what state of affairs it is that the artist is trying to convey.

Ultimately yes it would be nice to have a narrator program that can look at the actions of 3D models and deduce what they are doing what is happening what state of affairs they are depicting and thus be able to describe in words what is visible and what it means in terms of a state of affairs.

But when we post to the English-language devtome typically most of the words we use are available in dictionaries, those that are not are often true nouns; the point is all those words are free open source words, not copyright photographs of words so that other people cannot use the same words in their compositions; and furthermore the words are font-independent.  We don't have to buy a library of letter-sequences or a patented word-sequencer to use them.

I agree that right now it is hard to find a free open source model of each and every object depicted in arbitrary photographs or a free open source model of each and every instrument that a musical score calls for.

But we should bear that in mind at all times, so as to try to avoid using photographs featuring objects we lack free open source models of for example, instead trying to first get free open source photos (eventually actual models) of each of the objects that are included in the photo so that eventually we can compose the photo.

Devcoin is supposed to be about development, about developing things, free open source things.

So it should focus more on how to develop music or images than on merely trying to fill storage space with some tiny sample of all the possible images and music that can be constructed given the components from which music and images are developed.

Yes initially we need to "cheat", for example by having 2D images of goblins orcs motorcars ships shells sealing-wax or any other objects that the composer or designer of a scenario or situation or plotline or holonovel might want or need to incorporate into their creation. But we should try to keep in mind at all times that that is a cheat, that ultimately we want 3D (or more: incuding dimensions of range of actions and reactions would be nice too for example) models of everything so that we can construct new 2D images on-the-fly depicting things from any angle of view, and de-construct 2D images into what are they an image of and from what angle so instead of trillions upon trillions of 2D images covering every possible angle and situation we can compress it down to it is these things situated thus and so, as seen from this angle under this type of lighting.

There is still massive scope for artists, and a lot of their work can be made much easier and more efficient. Instead of having to spend all day drawing or painting one frame at a time of a cartoon they will be able to simply describe what it is that the cartoon is to depict and have 2D-view frames of those things and/or characters performing those activities at thus and such a frame-rate.

I do understand the concerns about artistic creativity but please try to also understand that a lot of artists do a lot of drudge-work / gruntwork that seems to them horribly un-creative, full time jobs creating "creative" (visuals etc), work that does not seem "creative" at all to them. Sometimes they even complain that such work dulls their creativity. (Citation needed?)

Often some lead artist or director or game-designer for example dictates exactly how everything is to look, the lead artist even sketches, maybe even fully fleshes out, one or more samples so the drudge-work guys see what style/mood/feel/theme they are to imitate, and the bulk of the "artists" then get to spend day after day churning out all the different view angles of the objects, all the different lighting conditions the characters might be seen in and on and on like that, total drudgery.

Just recently I saw a tool to help artists with that drudge-work, it let you automatically generate pretty good "under different lighting conditions" tiles for a 2D platform-type game from just a few renders, instead of having to manually render all the combinations / permutations. It was amazing, give it a flat 2D image and a few other 2D things and presto it generates for you a whole range of "it looks textured aka not 2D" versions for different lighting-situations. Amazing.

Too much of what artists do (in 9-5 jobs, for example) is very far from creative in their own eyes, and having artists do it is very expensive. So if we can make a tool that will illustrate a novel or plot or in-game situation without having to force artists to spend endless hours doing drudge-work that would be awesome.

It would still leave tons of room for creative art though. Just because your "make a movie of any novel any time you like" software comes with a bunch of off the shelf models of objects-found-in-novels with which to illustrate novels in no way means that an arist who makes a different set of objects the same software can use will not be able to find buyers; quite likely many people will be willing to buy object-sets that they find more pleasing to their eyes than any one set of objects already out there.

Look at Second Life, in Second Life you can edit your avatar, but people still hire artists to manually and painstakingly make a whole new different avatar or skin depicting the player.

So I think this kind of automation might even increase the market for custom hand-made artwork, since once anyone can have a model representing them or their house or whatever just by telling the computer various instructions like "give me bigger ears... darker skin... quiver over my left shoulder... gold ring on my left ring-finger..." etc, there will probably be people who will still want hand-crafted ones if even just to be able to say "ha ha my avatar is better than yours because good luck describing mine and having the default avatar-building software duplicate it without outright copying the hand-crafted skin that I am wearing".

But y'see for free open source we wouldn't want them to be wearing a hand-crafted skin that isn't free open source, because we want to be able to depict their character freely on other servers, take a copy home and modify it as we wish and so on and so on.

The big thing I suspect is the thinking in terms of composing from components. The actual skin and the actual frame over which to put the skin is better than just a bunch of 2D images of the avatar as seen from various angles.

So we should try to have models of all the things shown in a photograph in preference to the photograph itself, the models and skins for the creatures instead of just single views of creatures as seen from various angles and so on.

-MarkM-

On the television show they use human actors to play the parts of holograms, that is merely another case of being able to switch the instruments. We should equally well be able to have a different bunch of actors play those same roles from that same script, even aliens ought to be able to enact it.

Sure right now we have to laboriously have humans enact plays and scripts and screenplays and such, but that is merely an implementation-detail.

Right now we use Battle for Wesnoth to author "holonovels" and "holodramas" and "holodocumentaries" because we have no holodecks yet. We are stuck looking at two-dimensional representations of the action and choices and characters. Those Battle for Wesnoth scenarios though can still be the same scenarios come the day we have three-dimensional rendering options to allow them to be enacted/played/executed in 3D, and eventually in all-around-you 3D whether via goggles or full screen all around you.

The important thing is we have the actual code of the scenario, not just a movie showing what one player saw on their screen while they played the scenario.

So different players can play it differently, and different input-output devices can have it look different with players able to make their choices via different input devices.

-MarkM-

So include with the score a hint saying "many people find it sounds best when played on a harpsichord; in particular using a piano is deprecated by some (reference provided, of course..." )

-MarkM-

I saw a site just recently where a youth orchestra (landphilharmonic, I think) uses intruments built from scrap found in landfills.

Duplicating all those instruments would indeed be hard. But you seem to jump from that to it being impossible or improbable to 3-D print a violin or to code a violin-sounds-synthesiser. To me that landphilharmonic showed much the opposite from it being hard to emulate instruments, to the contrary it seemed to indicate that you don't even need a 3-D printer, perfectly use-able instruments can be created even out of crap found in landfills, no need for special and possibly expensive 3D-printer-ink!

But nonetheless 3D printer code for creating all standard and umpteen non-standard instruments is something we should try to have.

And robotic arms for bending metal and working wood etc should be able eventually to use landfill materials too, they just would need a feedback process of some kind letting them try the tone, adjust the object, try the tone etc, "tuning" it until it sounds as good or almost as good as the ones the landphilharmonic uses.

Also plans and instructions and guides for humans on how to find suitable things in landfills and how best to adapt them for musical use would also be good to have.

-MarkM-

Scores can be considered writing, in a hieroglyphic language whose characters include things like quavers and semiquavers (demiquavers?) and treble-clefs and such.

It is maybe just another written language.

As for what it sounds like, you should be able to simply press play, or modify which instruments to use and press play, or select a start bar or note and an end bar or note and press play, etc. And like a wiki, even be able to edit it so over time the community of authors uh I mean composers can settle upon which edit to leave as the main one that visitors see/hear when they vivist the page since all previous states of the composition will also be available to them.

-MarkM-

Supposedly a lot of "real musicans" could "hear" a piece by reading the score.

So it might be more effective use of people's time to have such musicians check the scores first before even bothering to impose some particular performance of a score using some particular voices and/or instruments and/or sound-effects upon the ears of people who cannot random-access the thing but must instead proceed serially through it, and maybe are not even able to listen to it in fast-forward to get a quick grok of it before delving down into nanosecond by nanosecond or second by second or minute by minute laborious executions of the score.

If the piece is good, but could be played in a way that would not sound so good, maybe the reviewers could also provide helpful hints such as approximately what range of instruments it should not sound too awful on, what kinds of speeds one could execute it at without losing its "artistic flavour" or "emotional appeal" and so on.

Like for example "assuming you'd normally play it on a 33-RPM turntable, this piece would make reasonable elevator music, but at 45-RPM it is much more stimulating, possibly not useful as background music, and at 78-RPM it would probably be more useful for cartoon soundtracks than for romantic background music for a candlelight dinner; By the way if you turn up the drum track and use this type of drum, you might find it affects more people in thus and such a way, whereas if you substitute piccolos for the oboes you might find it tends rather to suit X type of game-scenario" and so on.

Or "best suited for playing using husky female vocalist-instrument, if you go with a bass male voice you might also want to adjust this and that instrument in that and that way".

Or "recommended to be played in a minor key, however it also sounds very nice when played in the key of E flat" etc.

-MarkM-

Most artforms that will not work that way are basically one-frame or one possible sequence of execution things, very often deliberately cheating us out of having access to the source because our current society forces people to have to come up with make-work programmes to ensure their future access to "replicator rations" both in the sense of access to food clothing and shelter and in the sense of breeding-rights, the ability to and/or permission to breed.

Basically artists keep trying to hold back the actual how it is or was done to try to force people to have to come back to them all the time. They try to conceal the actual source code - the actual how such things are done or were done. In other words they try to hold back the source code and/or the source data.

Just like in the case of text we want the actual sequence of heiroglyphs, letters, or punctuation rather than a scan (partly because a scan has extraneous information in the form of what font the copy that was scanned happened to be using), for everything in general we want the what to use in what manner and sequence.

Individual paintings are merely examples of the output of a painter.

We want painters, so we can then re-create any of the paintings that particular painting-object or that particular painting-program has painted or could paint.

The source: the that which it takes to produce the sample output and which can also produce oodles more stuff simply by tweaking it, adjusting it, having it do its routines in a different order or with different brushes and so on.

One single static image is just like a scan of an article printed in a particular font.

We should be wanting the actual "content" of the article, so we can then tweak for ourselves which font we'd like to see it in, and we can correct any spelling errors if we choose, or introduce spelling errors that we happen to like such as changing English spelling to American spelling or vice-versa.

We want the equivalent of a wiki-for-music, that is a site where anyone can edit any piece of music, any of the instruments used to play it and so on, not just some historical snapshot of what one of the many many many permutations of the components of that piece happened to look like between some edit/change and some other edit/change.

A composer site maybe and a paint site, along with models of all kinds of objects so one can tell it "okay now put in Einstein leaning over the piano... no, give him a bow tie like Doctor Who's bow tie... okay now lets have Marilyn Monroe leaning seductively over him but with her hand in the piano player's pocket... good, good, now make the piano player be Chopin... nice, nice, now lets put Mozart in the audience..." and so on....

-MarkM-

Please watch Star Trek: the new generation enough to observe at least one episode in which someone says "computer, some musicians, please" and presto, the computer creates some professional musicians. Maybe even simulations/emulations of specific musicians.

That is where we are aiming.

We ultimately want/need to be able to say "computer, show me Sinatra singing that. Hmm no, start over but lets try having Madonna sing it. Hmm, better, okay give me Blondie singing it..." and so on.

-MarkM-

We would need a voice, and instructions about what it should say or do.

If your voice sounds different from some other voice, we ought at least have some generic modifiable voices or categories of voice, so we can categorise your voice as being either a voice of a certain category or a voice such as one might get using a certain set of filters/modifiers as input to a voice simulator.

Basically if voice synthesisers cannot yet produce a voice such as yours they need improving, and we want the open source version of such a voice-synthesiser.

We do not want a recording of you singing the song with your closed source human voice, we want the instructions as to how a voice is to be used to sing the song, maybe with some hints as to what kind of voice might perform it best for what kind of audience. (Maybe some audiences would prefer to hear it in a gruff voice, others in a soprano voice, others in a male voice, others in a female voice, others in a unisex or robotic voice and so on and so on.)

We want source code for how to go about singing such a song.

-MarkM-

Please watch Star Trek: the new generation enough to observe at least one episode in which someone says "computer, some musicians, please" and presto, the computer creates some professional musicians. Maybe even simulations/emulations of specific musicians.

That is where we are aiming.

We ultimately want/need to be able to say "computer, show me Sinatra singing that. Hmm no, start over but lets try having Madonna sing it. Hmm, better, okay give me Blondie singing it..." and so on.

-MarkM-

That is what we are trying to save other people from having to go through!

Yes, back in the dark ages before music software was free and open source, when music hardware was not free open source hardware you could print yourself using your home 3-D printer, and instruments were not free open source software or free open source instructions for free open source 3-D printers to print, you suffered horrible expense.

No one should have to go through that! This project is all about trying to ensure future generations will not have to go through that!

-MarkM-

For writing, think about fonts.

We do not care what font is used at display time to display an article, we are free to use any font we choose to use.

Publishers though would prefer we only get a scan of a printout of an article, and font publishers would prefer that it be printed in their font so that anyone trying to "duplicate" or "re-use" the article would have to have a license to use their font.

Instruments in music and vectors or brushes or inks/paints in graphical art are akin to fonts in that way.

To get a free open source Mona Lisa we would need to discover what brushes and paints were used, how, and in what sequence, to produce that painting.

We would then be free to see what the Mona Lisa would have looked like if it were performed using different brushes, different paints, different sequences.

-MarkM-

That seems insanely high, since we already have logo images so all that is needed is to re-size our official logo (whichever one was picked, we already paid bounties to get the logos in the first place didn't we?) to the correct sizes needed for this particular case of actually using the already paid for logo.

Its a one line command fergoshsakes, "for size in sizeone, sizetwo, sizethree do resize logo".

-MarkM-

The main purpose of fees is to discourage spamming.

Devcoin creates (more than) 1000 times as many coins per block as bitcoin so fees were set as a thousand times higher than bitcoin's fees back when we created Devcoin.

The idea was that Devcoins would be worth 1/1000 (at best, and actually now that bitcoin makes only 25 coins not 50, presumably more like 1/2000) of what bitcoins are worth, so that however many bitcoins of fee it would take to discourage spammers it would presumably take 1000 (nowadays maybe more like at least 2000) times as much fee to accomplish the same amount of discouragement in Devcoin.

So maybe while you are at it you should update our old "fees 1000 times as much as bitcoin's fees" to be at least 2000 times as much.

Which would be a hard fork, so should be set to come into effect at some particular block number.

Plus we can predict ahead too, we know in how many years bitcoin will again halve its number of coins per block, so maybe we could plan ahead to have our fees jump yet again at those times. Though when those times actually come bitcoin will maybe have changed its fees so come the day we'd want to look at bitcoin's fees and do our multiply accordingly then when updating devcoin again then.

-MarkM-

Open Source is ultimately about performance, not the results that a particular performance results in.

So really what we want is not a recording of the output of a performance, such as a static image or a specific bit-sequence that represents a noise or sound, but, rather, the instructions necessary to perform that performance or produce some particular output/recording of a performance.

Open Source is all about performing, also known as executing.

So for a digitally painted painting someone painted with a paint program, what we should be wanting is the full recording of all the brush-strokes along with the code of all the brushes and so on.

Because our freedom given us by our free open source license should include the freedom to modify any of those brush-strokes or brushes, so we can see what that painting would look like if we moved our brush differently in a given moment of stroking a brush, or used a different brush or a different paint for certain of the brush-strokes, and so on.

Thus ultimately any static flat image or end-result-of-performance soundtrack is not really what we want for free open source at all, as that is simply a snapshot that does not include the source code, the instructions, the which brush or instrument to use and how to use it, that is the source code we need in order to duplicate / replicate / re-perform the thing.

-MarkM-

The plan was that we would use Open Transactions for the other-arts and other-sciences sites, so that we would allocate DeVCoins to those entire genres or sciences or arts then those individual projects would each be able to divvy up those DeVCoins themselves from their Open Transactions accounts or Open Transactions servers instead of trying to fit all the artists and scientists of all those arts and sciences all into the extremely limited 4000 blocks aka 4000 shares of the actual DeVCoin blockchain.

Ultimately maybe even Devtome would end up using Open Transactions too, since writing would be just one among many many arts and sciences so the entire art and/or science of writing would itself maybe only be getting one share or fraction of a share. (Once there are 4000 arts-and-sciences, the blockchain would only be sending out one share to each on the blockchain; the art and-or science of administration maybe included! This is why we need a huge market-cap!)

-MarkM-