I want to get a fair amount of value for open source projects funded.
The coin says that '90% of miners profits' are given away to fund those projects, right?
Maybe you can try to guarantee a minimum payout expressed in a more stable currency and then offer the payout in DVC. That would require store DVC in large quantities that could become a problem. But it is still feasible.
When and if the price stabilize then you can offer random payouts, but now... it doesn't make much sense. Not only the price of 1DVC is volatile, but even the number of coins per shares :\
If you want money for your projects, someone else must first be willing to give that money to devcoin. No one can create money out of thin air here. We are not a government, nor a central planned money issueing organization. Therefore the value and acceptange of a Devcoin is completely derived by the worldwide community of developers, marketers and most of all supporters who invest by buying devcoins on one of the exchanges and therefore kinda submiting a vote in favour of open source. The sooner you understand that the less you will be confused about this "missing price stability".  The good thing is YOU can already influence devcoin in a good way, buy buying devcoin, creating for devcoin, advertize the idea of devcoin, etc... The amount of good influence you can potentially bring to devcoin is only limited by yourself. |
|
|
|
Hi everybody, Let's start by saying that I'm a DCV newbie, a software developer, and DVC holder and lover. I probably absorbed some misconception and Id like you to help me get it straight. I discussed this issue with Unthinkingbit over PM and I would like to hear the community's opinion. DVC is born as an ethical coin to provide reward to individuals and organisations who contributes in open source projects. Right? something like this guys : http://bitcoingrant.org/ , the idea behind is spelled simple and clear: We want to build a better reality, one in which what we do everyday and what we believe in are finally aligned. We want to eliminate the nagging opportunity cost of pursuing your goals. We want open source to become central to how we move forward instead of being a hobby or an afterthought. And we want to build this reality together, with you. I would like to raise a concern and hear your opinion on a delicate topic. What I think that is unfair is that the amount of the reward is basically random, or at least a gamble. Assigning a varying number of shares with a varying number of coins per share with a high-price volatility sounds really like betting. This undermines the whole mission of the coin IMHO. Moreover, I believe that if some other cryptocurrency can fix this problem DVC will become obsolete in no time. And I don't like it. Let me put you through an example: Say I want to build a DVC ATM machine (ndr: which I do want, and I have skills, tools, people, and time ) . It takes a lot of effort, work, components, people and skills. There is a 96 shares pending bounty on it. But before digging into the project and starting taking my time out of other paid projects, buy materials and hire people I want to make some math. The problem is.... I can't! 96 shares could be anything between 2k$ and 25k$ by the time I'm done. Right? It doesn't make sense. I created a certain value for the community and I would like to receive a fair value back. Not just a random number. Don't you think so? I would like to hear your opinion on this because it really makes the whole idea of DVC weak to the eyes of a FOSS software engineer. I'm sure that a better solution can be found, and I'm sure that is not easy. At all. But nothing is, until its done! What do you guys think? Let me know what you think please . An open source software developer. isn't what you describe a fundamental problem with all cryptocoins, and not just devcoin? You ask for total predictable reliable price stability? Isn't that something only a centrally planned economy can provide? But we sure don't want that, do we. I have no crystal ball, but I do assume that when... ...more people use a coin worldwide with... ...more (and bigger) exchanges... ...and don't immediately convert their coins into fiat money all the time... ...we WILL have a much more stable price than we have now. Only future will tell, but I like the fact how far cryptocoins have already gone, with the participation of something like 0.1 % of world population. |
|
|
|
Small screenshot of what I have:  As I said on first post, coding is done and I'm testing it. I'm waiting for my graphic designer to send me his work and adapt the code. Again, I accept donations to the following QRK address: Qh3kYHSFemmwbYVGRU5vbsdmrykHALnyiu Until now I have one donation, total amount received: 81.90 QRK. Thanks to the anonymous donator! More people donated. Total donation received until now: 1557,90 QRK. Thank you! Probably tomorrow I will have the design. I will try to adapt the code to the design this weekend. Will keep you updated! Looks great so far. But please explain how do plan on solving the usual problems of local coin markets? how will your escrow plan work? what kind of customer protection plans will you offer? what kind of user valuation/rating system will you implement? As you said your coding is finished, so I assume you have answers to my questions? |
|
|
|
I just started trading recently and I've learned the biggest obstacle to overcome is patience.
20-50% daily fluctuations on the altcoins are very common. When you see a coin's rate go up by 20% over a few hours it's easy to think "Holy crap this is it! It's going through the roof! Buy all I can!" The reality is, that's just a normal day.
Turning a 500% or 1,000% profit on a coin is purely luck. It happens, yes - but there are so many coins out there, it's tough to keep an eye on them all, including constantly lurking on forums for news/developments that might cause a coin's value to skyrocket.
I think alot of people who lose in the market are thinking (hoping) they can make big money in a few hours time rather than days or weeks time. They see a coin up by 150% on CoinMarketCap.com and think "Man - if I had invested $500 this morning, I would have made $1,000 already!" So, they look for a coin that is up by 20%, buy it, and hope it goes up by another 30-100%. This is a great way to lose $$.
85% of the time, every big rally of 20-50% is followed by a decline of close to the same amount a day or two later. Look at the 24h and 1-week lows, buy somewhere near these lows, hold for a few days, and sell at 30-50% profit. Yes, we would all love to see our investment triple or quadruple (or more) over a day or two's time. Yes, sometimes you will regret selling at 50% profit when you check the chart a day later and realize you could have made 80% or 100%.
For me, I'm perfectly content with turning 2.0 BTC into 2.5-3.0 BTC over a 24-hour period. Doesn't sound like much but it compounds very quickly.
Assuming 30% profit on every investment:
Turn 2.0 BTC into 2.6 BTC on day 2 of trading
Turn 2.6 BTC into 3.38 BTC on day 4
Turn 3.38 BTC into 4.3 BTC on day 6
Turn 4.3 BTC into 5.7 BTC on day 8
Turn 5.7 BTC into 7.4 BTC on day 10
In a week and a half, you earned 5.4 BTC (roughly $4,000)
I agree that patience is one of the biggest problems. Also the desire to trade at all times. Suppose you just won 100% profit. You should then not think that you have to reinvest all this money in a new gamble immediately. That's how you'll lose everything in the end. You have "to sit on your hands" most of the time, as they say. Wait for the really exceptional trade opportunities that appear from time to time, those trades that make sense and you really believe in. (like a solid coin with long established history and good community, that has an extremelly low price for some reason) Don't look for good trades all the time, because most of the times good trades are not available. And then your brain plays a trick on you and imagines the lesser of all bad trades to be a good trade... that's when you will lose. |
|
|
|
Mining total-noob here: I have ordered the 2TH/s CoinCraft rig which will consume 3000 Watt in Turbo mode. I am concerned that at such high wattages there might be a fire hazard if one of the components in the rig decides to give up the ghost. What do you experienced guys think? Is this a valid concern? I don't have a basement or anything, just an apartment and I am planning on placing the rig in a corner of my living room.
makes here even someone thought about the point! So when do I get the device are completely oversized for my current line? I don't see any problem. Just ask an electrician, and order him to come to your home. Even if you have to use thicker cables or a new socket on the wall, it will not be expensive compared to the price you already payed for the mining rig. He will maybe adjust the fuse panel too. (often people install washmachines or ovens that require such high wattage, so electrician will know what to do. It's a common thing to have something with 3000-4000 watt running in your home, but an electrician has to update your home probably.) Just please ask an electrician, and don't do anything yourself. I suggest that if 3000 watt is not possible in your place, that you first let the rig only run in power save mode, or remove part of the asic boards until your electrician has updated the wires/sockets in your place. |
|
|
|
Until they add an option to go like "spread this many coins across this price through this price on each satoshi for me okay thanks that is cool".
I think you could use their trade API with cronjobs on your server to do exactly that. |
|
|
|
I do this on Vircurex of course, originally because no other altcoin exchange seemed responsible about what coins to list, and now also because those bitcoins sitting there in lowball buy-offers earn "interest" from Vircurex's fees so even if no one ever sells into those offers they are earning anyway, which is super-nice and yet another reason to pick Vircurex as my exchange-of-choice.
Yes, but since vircurex started listing Quarkcoin and Dogecoin I start to doubt their responsibility a little bit. I Hope this will not become a trend. Still my favourite exchange too by far. |
|
|
|
Let's first create a portal where artists openly share and talk about their creation process. Then you can have your A.I. departement (devcog? ) go ahead and try to figure out the underlying principles of the cognitive processes behind the artists creations.  I would subscribe to that. |
|
|
|
One major goal of mine is to enable the development of playing.
I want people to be able to play games in which characters such as bards can exist and in which a bard is a type of character that is typically known for his her or it's ability to play and/or sing and/or recite (perform) songs and/or poems.
So development of the ability to play is important for the development of the kind of immersive environments/games I am trying to develop.
In order to develop free open source such games, I need free open source play-techniques and methods for playing free open source songs or instruments, so that, for example, a bard can be portrayed playing an instrument and/or singing a song.
The number of people who want the ability to create such games is not as important or driving really, even if you insist that being able to appeal to a huge audience in order to get lots of advertising revenue, because even if only one person in the entire world produces such games, and thus only one person in the entire world perceives the importance of the ability to tinker with the underlying details that make a particular song sound like the singer has a sore throat, or sound like the singer is female, or sound like the singer is pronouncing the lyrics with a particular accent - pronouncing it the way a certain region's inhabitants pronounce that word for example - and so on the end result game the development of which is enabled by having full access to as much as possible of the underlying mechanisms and instructions might end up being massively appealing to the masses...
-MarkM-
I admire your dream of having immersive emergent worlds, created by playing with artificial cognitive processes. It is the next thing to revolutionize the way we create anything, not just entertaining things like games, music, etc... But I advice you to not use ambitions of future goals (that you can't even prove are possible) to make a decision of how devcoin developers should develop in the here and now. We should tell developers how to share, not how to develop. We owe them this much respect. |
|
|
|
Since art is not a science as is not being "developped", we must use a different approach. See my 8 ways of participating
Of course art is being developed and has been since way back long ago, probably further back even than when cave dwellers developed the art and/or science of developing pigments from minerals and plants and maybe even from components of animals and so on, and developed techniques for representing, using such tools, recognisable things such as animals, hunters, maybe even actual hunts... At some point techniques such as perspective and texture and such were also developed, such that over time the degree of three-dimensionality that could be, or was, conveyed by flat images was increased. And so on. Nowadays we have developed entire new media and entire new techniques. -MarkM- Yes, but I would differentiate further, in that a developer formulates a goal before he goes ahead and develops it.
I have never formulated a goal when creating music. I just sit on the keyboard and am always surprised what emerges after a while. THAT is the key difference. Ofcourse I can formulate a general direction like today my mood is for classical music, I want to use harpsichord and strings... etc... let's see where it leads me. Music is "played" not developed. I play while creating music. |
|
|
|
The 8 ways of participating, I like the sound of that... shaolin grandmaster approves of that.
I am still cogitating / meditating upon your schema, but right off the bat it strikes me that a lot of the explanations parts of it seem like condidates for Devtome, by having the explanations in written form. Exactly. So we would have a collaboration that interconnects devtome (textonly) with devmusic (music media) from the getgo. +1 |
|
|
|
please reread my last post, I added what kind of combinations could exist, to create more incentives for different kind of artists.
I think this would give more possibilites for an artist to participate, and don't measure an artists worth as if he were a code developper
Okay I will go back and read again. But meanwhile, I so far still do tend to think that we should be about art development, specifically about free open source art development, rather than about art per se. Art per se includes non free non open source art, and its development is often non free non open source development. We should in my current opinion as developed (hee hee) so far be about the free open source development of free open source art. There are plenty of places where people can submit and maybe even be rewarded for non free non open source art development and even the actual pieces of art developed by such processes/means. -MarkM- Since art is not a science as is not being "developped", we must use a different approach. See my 8 ways of participatingOfcourse, with code and text you can be completely open source in every aspect. (well, not necessarily in point 3 I make, or do devtome writers and developers explain their creation process? No they don't!  ) That's great and I admire that. But we must differentiate when it comes to art, to create incentives for participation, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. over time, participants of level 1 -7 will strive to become level 8. That's my goal. |
|
|
|
There should be different criteria that add shares to the bounty an artist recieves. 1) final product is free and in open source format (33%)
2) tools he used are open source (33%)
3) he explains the steps he made, enlightening us about the creation process (33%)Something like that would be needed as to also attract "secretive" artists who use open source tools. Or "secretive" artists who don't use open source tools, but like to share their music for free. or an other combination: an artist who likes to share his music for free, yet create it with proprietary tools, but be absolutely open about his creation process, in effect be like a teacher about it. etc... there are 8 possibilities for point 1, 2 and 3 to be combined: 0.0.0 (go away, we don't like your corporate ass around here.) 1.0.0 (free stuff to download) 0.2.0 (presenting open source tools) 0.0.3 (teaching about how to use proprietary artist tools) 1.2.0 (artist creates art with open source tools and final product is in downloadable open source format, but artist doesn't explain what's behind his music process) 1.0.3 (artist creates free music with proprietary tools and explains like a teacher his creation process) 0.2.3 (artist explains how to create music with open source tools, but doesn't provide any art example, only theory) You like that mark, hm??  1.2.3 (a dream come true, an artist creates free stuff with open source tools and is open about his whole creation process) .... jesus returned anyone? I will use those 8 ways of participating for http://devmusic.org and http://devsound.org and create examples for all 8 styles (expect the first one of course, which is just an example of how NOT to participate at all) The 8 ways of participating, I like the sound of that... shaolin grandmaster approves of that. |
|
|
|
please notice that devtome rewards people for using a free open source wiki, not, for example, for uploading a microsoft word document...
-MarkM-
Yes, I understand that and absolutely approve of it. |
|
|
|
|
please reread my last post, I added what kind of combinations could exist, to create more incentives for different kind of artists.
I think this would give more possibilites for an artist to participate, and don't measure an artists worth as if he were a code developper
|
|
|
|
It means, rather, that the artist needs to authorise the conversion of his art into a free open source form/format.
The result of his art (the final picture, music piece, 3d model) or the whole creation process? Please define what you mean with "his art". Art is also a state of mind. Would you accept someone creating a video using proprietary software like flash, but converting the final product into a free video format using FFmpeg.? Remember that we kind of need to bootstrap the whole process to some extent, and hobble along hobbled by various problems such as needing the free open source tools with which to develop the free open source tools, and needing artists and musicians and so on to use the free open source tools in order to create demand/market for improvement of the free open source tools and so on. For example some people say free open source tools are not good enough so real artists and musicians do not use them. I do not think rewarding artists and musicians for not using the free open source tools seems a likely way of encouraging the improvement of such tools. Partly because free open source does not tend to proceed along a trajectory of "if you build it, then they will come". Rather the opposite seems more normally / usually the case: unless they come, there is no point building it. That is why some people claim that much of free open source software seems to be written for the software's developer rather than for masses of people who never even bothered to get involved in the development of the stuff. Basically the programmers had already come, so what they - the people who did already come - wanted got built. So if we reward artists and musicians for using free open source tools, and those tools could be improved / could be better, maybe the fact that they need to use those tools in order to get those rewards might cause those artists and musicians to apply more effort and finances and lobbying and so on toward getting those tools improved instead of just running off with some non free open source tool to go do some non free open source project or something. Presumably the tools work just fine for the programmers who wrote them; maybe it takes a certain amount of knowledge or skill to even perceive whatever problems artists and musicians have with such tools. -MarkM- EDIT: Notice that for authors, we reward authors for using a free open source wiki program/site, not, for example, for uploading microsoft word document files... Isn't this like "putting the cart before the horse"? I agree that we should create incentives for artists to use (and create) free open source tools. I wholeheartedly support that.But they don't exist yet. (lightyears away from the extent we would wish to see) So if we were to wait until those tools are created, meanwhile we will not have any artist develop for devcoin. Shouldn't we start with more relaxed requirements, and give bonuses for musicians based on how much % open source they used in their creation process? I would suggest that we need some sort of openness from the artist. He should absolutely lay open what tools he used. That would than give us a way to judge and derive a percentage point of how open source his process is.There should be different criteria that add shares to the bounty an artist recieves. 1) final product is free and in open source format (33%)
2) tools he used are open source (33%)
3) he explains the steps he made, enlightening us about the creation process (33%)Something like that would be needed as to also attract "secretive" artists who use open source tools. Or "secretive" artists who don't use open source tools, but like to share their music for free. or an other combination: an artist who likes to share his music for free, yet create it with proprietary tools, but be absolutely open about his creation process, in effect be like a teacher about it. etc... there are 8 possibilities for point 1, 2 and 3 to be combined: 0.0.0 (go away, we don't like your corporate ass around here.) 1.0.0 (free stuff to download) 0.2.0 (presenting open source tools) 0.0.3 (teaching about how to use proprietary artist tools) 1.2.0 (artist creates art with open source tools and final product is in downloadable open source format, but artist doesn't explain what's behind his music process) 1.0.3 (artist creates free music with proprietary tools and explains like a teacher his creation process) 0.2.3 (artist explains how to create music with open source tools, but doesn't provide any art example, only theory) You like that mark, hm?? 1.2.3 (a dream come true, an artist creates free stuff with open source tools and is open about his whole creation process) .... jesus returned anyone? |
|
|
|
We want the free open source version.
Remember we are about development.
It is the development of art and music that we are trying to reward / incentivise, many specific items of art or music might really amount to merely samples / examples of what can be developed under the free open source rubric; we are presumably more interested in the capability to develop such art and music than in any particular items of art or music that are developed.
-MarkM-
Programming is about developing, creating algorithms is about developing. But not art. (certainly not the whole process of it) Let me introduce an example, a story rather by a musician and how he came to create a song. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_ClaptonEric Clapton created the song "Tears in heaven" to express his grief of losing his 4 year old son who died after falling from the 53rd-floor window. So let me get this straight, and make an open source development specification for a song like "tears in heaven" 1) first have someone die in your family. It is imperative that the death could have been easily prevented. 2) be depressed for years, preferably drowning your grief in drugs that increase psychological disorders you might already have like latent scizophrenia. Add suicidal tendencies as desired to increase the necessary feeling of hopelessness (to create authenticity) 3) let everything "ferment" for a few years until you find the power (and help of friends who want to get you out of the depression) and finally... 4) create a wonderful song, honouring the short life of someone you loved. |
|
|
|
I was merely addressing the apparent inability of artists to output their art in free open source formats.
-MarkM-
It depends. I think we should respect the artist by only imposing rules on the finalized work of art.Certainly not on the means he used to create his work. Certainly not on the process of creating the art. (he should decide if he wants to be all secretive about it, or explain the process indepth) |
|
|
|
It means, rather, that the artist needs to authorise the conversion of his art into a free open source form/format.
The result of his art (the final picture, music piece, 3d model) or the whole creation process? Please define what you mean with "his art". Art is also a state of mind. Would you accept someone creating a video using proprietary software like flash, but converting the final product into a free video format using FFmpeg.? |
|
|
|
After the video is created, we can convert it to something more available to the masses. Who cares what he writes it in initially? Let him choose his method, then we will be thankful we have someone talented enough to create it and just convert it after the fact if we dont like flash.
We care because bounties and shares are paid only for free open source stuff, not proprietary stuff. Its the same thing as all the audio files in Linux distributions being .ogg, they apparently have to be because the common alternatives are not free open source codex / codices. (I think we also don't use GIF anymore too, similarly, ever since the big burn the GIFs campaign a decade or so ago or more.) So sure if his flash authoring tool can also put out a free open source codex or he can convert it as you seem to expect to be possible (googling reveals google themselves made a converter to convert flash to HTML5) then fine, but we don't do bounties or shares for proprietary stuff so any bounty or share would be for the HTML5 or whatever free open source thing not whatever proprietary formats he used internally in his studio to create the free open source end-result. If he cannot produce free open source but you can by converting his stuff, then it would be you who should get the bounty, and you'd share it out among your team as you see fit, such as to give him most or all of it for creating the flash thing you used to produce the actually rewardable end result. -MarkM- I wanted to reignite the discussion concerning 1) open source vs free stuff2) using proprietary methods to create free stuffand what this would mean for every artist who would want to contribute. I reposted an earlier statement by mark that concisely describes his viewpoint. In my opinion there are many rather confusing and strange implications that make no sense for me whatsoever and are even potentially baffling and deterrent for any artist who would want to participate. For example... (emphasis added by myself) If he cannot produce free open source but you can by converting his stuff, then it would be you who should get the bounty, and you'd share it out among your team as you see fit, such as to give him most or all of it for creating the flash thing you used to produce the actually rewardable end result.
-MarkM-
So this would open the door for everyone who has better means of converting something someone created for free, even giving the converter the claim over the bounty and the power to decide how much money the actual artist would recieve. This is unsettling to say the least. Wouldn't that create incentives for similar behaviour like we see with patent trolls (a little far-fetched I agree), introducing a new species of competitor, no more only the creator species, but also the converter species who acts not necessarily in accordance with the creators? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
