Hey buddy!  I'm liking your ideas related to devtome and steemit.

We need an exchange for devcoin, and the more exchanges the better. I suggest a 60 share bounty for the first person(s) to get devcoin on another exchange, 40 shares for the next person on another exchange, and 20 shares for the next. Any objections?

ALSO: It has come to my attention that to compile devcoin, and other coins that old, against Boost 1.58 instead of 1,54 you need the following sed command's effect:


Maybe someone can make the corresponding change in the git repo?

-MarkM-

confirmed

Regarding official repo... I have a fork of the coinzen on my account here https://github.com/FuzzyBearBTC/devcoin-1 but I also have another fork from knotwork's cherry picked repo https://github.com/FuzzyBearBTC/devcoin I am concerned at the ownership of the coinzen repo as the forum coinzen has now long gone.  I dont mind hosting the official repo but would like to clear up the old one if not needed etc.

How about bisq? It's the only one I trust actually, apart from localbitcoins of course, but we can't list it there.

coingather.com has been down a few days, they are silent on twitter 

Hello DEV team,

I'm happy to announce that your coin has been listed to ItalYiiMP 2.0 for mining,

to get paid in DVC just set c=DVC as password in your configuration.

As an additional service, the explorer is available at the address http://italyiimp.com/explorer

visit http://italyiimp.com.

best regards.

Ragarg.

You and K1773R both agreed to do it. Thank you both for offering. Looking over the last account file with the ongoing list in it:
https://github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/blob/master/account_73.csv

I see that K1773R already has an administrator position, and you don't. In general, I want the administrative functions to be spread out, so that if an administrator leaves only one or two duties are dropped at a time, rather than a few at a time. So I prefer that you do it. However, it's up to you and K1773R, if you both decide that K1773R should do it that's fine with me. Please contact K1773R and decide between you who should take the position.

Thanks for pointing this out, what happened is that Hunterbunter's site:
http://dvccountdown.blisteringdevelopers.com

is down, which had the administrator lists. I just checked and found that this happened in round 74, so no administrator will get devcoins from ongoing for rounds 74 and 75. Would someone else like to maintain that list?

I thought I'd chime in with a few points. Back when I got started writing for the Devtome, Devcoin was one of just a handful of cryptocoins on the scene, meaning it didn't have much competition. Now there are over 500 cryptocoins in existence, some of which are so fundamentally solid and profitable that they are attracting the interest of venture capitalists and hedge fund managers. This means we can learn even more from the successful coins and honestly stack up Devcoin against them to see what would need to be changed in order to be competitive.

The following are a few observations I have about what it takes to make a successful cryptocurrency in today's industry:

1. More and more, it is important for a new coin project to be more than just a coin. It must be a complete ecosystem. This often means multiple tokens and interlocking systems. Some good examples are the emerging VIVA project (vivaco.in), Steemit (with its Steem, Steem Power and Steem Dollars tokens), Ethereum and NEM with their block chains capable of supporting other tokens.

2. There has to be genuine value supporting the coin. This means infrastructure that makes the coin easier to use or adds value to it in some way. Bitcoin has a lot of that (example, various trading platforms, Coinbase, payment processors, websites which sell quality products and accept Bitcoin payments) which has been added on by third parties. However a new altcoin needs to have some of that value added right from the beginning by the development team itself. Some other good examples of coins with value added infrastructure include DNotes and Steemit.

3. There has to be a development team. It can't be a one man show. The bigger and better organized the team, the better chance the coin has. A development team that runs the enterprise like a genuine business is even better. This means it can't all be about coding, though that is important. There have to be others on the team who handle the outreach and marketing and who tell the coders the features needed to make the coin user friendly for non coders (which is most of the people you hope will adopt your coin).

4. A coin needs a built in incentive to tie up the supply and keep it off the market. This means that it is in people's self interest to hold onto the coin for the long haul. Idealism or faith in the coin is not enough. If I am going to hold your coin there has to be something in it for me both now and in the future. The simplest way to do this is to offer some kind of interest equivalent whereby my holding onto the coin earns me a rate of return in the form of new coins or some other token. DNotes has the DNotes vault which pays monthly "interest" to all who hold coins in it for set amounts of time (the penalty for early withdrawal being that you lose the earned interest). Diamond Coin has a cloud mining operation where people earn Diamonds based on how much Bitcoin they have donated to the operation. Any Proof of Stake coin already incentivizes people to hold the coin and run the wallet.

I have always believed that Devcoin's biggest weakness as it works right now is that it incentivizes earning and dumping, not holding. Then to add insult to injury when it became known or suspected that people earning Devcoins were dumping them, they were often harshly repudiated here (not called out by name or anything but it was clear that those who dumped were considered to be bad for the coin,). In order to hold onto Devcoins you had to be altruistic towards it and basically take the hit from others dumping, and that is just not going to be sustainable because most of us plain aren't altruistic like that. This is probably the most important change Devcoin needs to make. The coin needs to be coded in to incentivize holding rather than dumping.

Related to this, it must be assumed that people will game the system if it is beneficial to them to do so. You need to engineer your system in such a way that there is no benefit to attempting to gain the system and that using the system in the way you intend is what gives the greatest benefit to the end user. That can be very challenging to accomplish but I believe it is possible and the successful (and not so successful) coins now out there have a lot to teach us about what kind of things need to be written into the code. The code should also be flexible enough that when you find a loophole you don't want, you can fix it with an update or fork.

5. The development team needs to have a good reason to create buy support for the coin on the open market. Again, altruism is not enough. In the case of Diamond coin, the developers need to buy Diamond in order to pay the weekly payouts from the cloud mining operation. If the developers aren't buying the coin, then others need to do so for reasons of self interest. With the exception of the speculators who are there to profit from trading itself, the reason that anyone else would buy the coin has to be because they need the coin. You need the coin in order to gain the benefit from accumulating and holding it, or you need it to pay someone with it, or you need it to buy something with it. An altruistic desire to prop up the coin's value is not enough and won't be sustainable long term.

6. The coin needs to be attractive to speculators. Speculators are important because they provide liquidity for everyone else, meaning others can easily buy or sell the coin at a consistent value (not too much difference between top buy and sell requests). So whatever it is that makes speculators go "wow, I want to speculate on this coin!" is what your coin needs to have so that everyone else can have the needed liquidity to get into and out of the coin at will.

7. The coin needs to have a solid community of people who are there because being part of this community will better their financial lives in some way. They should believe in the coin but that belief should stem from solid fundamentals and the perception that this coin will do good things for their bottom line. In order to nurture this community it is very important to have basic courtesy and professionalism wherever that community gathers. That community needs to be growing.

There are probably a couple more points that I have missed, but what I have shared is a good starting point. How does Devcoin do on each of these fundamentals? How could it be changed or forked to excel in those fundamentals which are weak now? The honest discussion around these points could become the basis for a solid plan for how to update Devcoin to now be competitive in today's industry.

Feedback is impossible until you make firm proposals/justification. What changes you want, why and how.
Reiterating a purpose and focusing on secondary issue of a swap is not a plan.

1. Define a new Rewards Distribution System (RDS) for new generated Devcoins (a new policy for the receiver_xx.csv files)
2. Define a new Inflation Rate Strategy (IRS O_o!), no more wild generation of Devcoins!
3. Implement RDS & IRS in tesnet
4. Hardfork Devcoin

how did you come up with 1mil:1? whats the total supply now? i think 1000:1 seem more realistic. we dont want to reduce the coin too much. i think new total supply should be around 100mil to 1bln. anything more than 10bil. looks like a pump&dump coin(unless we have superstar team working on it) and appears to mainly cater to whales.

i ill say drs should be no longer than one month. this coin has been around over 4yrs. we cant wait forever. lets move fast and ignore naysayers. decentralization means we go democratic and dont heed one or two persons biased argument. just like after many years of debate we finally did the segwit wtnss adoption, lets stop being lazy and start moving.

I explained why in previous posts.

Edit: Main change motivation seems to be lower/limited supply and/or deflation. It doesn't therefore seem logical to convert existing supply (particularly a method with perpetual optionality) and expect a changed outcome.

The past is over. Gone. Those that contributed nothing by definition wouldn't be further rewarded because they have no skin in the game.

I did say "It may not reward holders".

Do not mess with the code

Deflation is a good move I think. The issue is.. what happens with existing coins if this is hard forked/redone?

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?

DeVCoin is fine the way it is, what needs working on is the shares allocation.

The Devtome wiki was a nice idea, and actually it probably is still a nice idea, but it has not been making money yet has still been getting the lion's share of the generated coins, which has served to massively reduce the amount of devcoins people actually developing software have been getting and the amount of coins paying for hosting for our stable nodes.

So if we have not done so already we should limit how much goes to devtome by dividing only some specific fraction of all the coins among the shares that are about the devtome.

Since so far we have only two categories really, one being devtome the other being everything else, we should probably separate the shares into devtome shares and other shares and assign half the generated coins to devtome shares the other half to everything else.

That should make at least a start toward correcting the huge problem that devtome has turned out to be, and might help get more attention put into software development.

Personally I would like to see three categories reallky, one being devtome, one being the Galactic Milieu, the third being everything else.

That is partly because flooding the markets with devcoins via devtome has constantly undermined the Galactic Milieu's attempts to support the markets, to the point where eventually all the devcoins-versus-bitcoins markets have vanished, leaving us only paired now against litecoin which is a coin most of the Galactic Milieu never wanted to touch. Folks are reluctant to invest in litecoin vs devcoin markets for fear of getting stuck with litecoins.

Also, having a constant supply of DeVCoins coming into the Milieu will greatly help ensure that players actively harvesting resources in the various aspects of the game can always reasonably expect to be able to trade resources for coins, as we can have a budget within the game enabling non-player-character companies nations etc to purchase resources.

I remind you all again of the conversion rates files stored at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

ALSO: It has come to my attention that to compile devcoin, and other coins that old, against Boost 1.58 instead of 1,54 you need the following sed command's effect:


Maybe someone can make the corresponding change in the git repo?

-MarkM-

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:

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.