I believe he said there will be 10,000 alt coins ?
snip... When the people of this planet wake up to the Ponzi scheme that's been perpetrated upon them by the central banks for decades, they won't want US Dollars, Euros, or Yen. The people will demand digital currencies. If the people of the planet adopted the 1000 shitcoins we now have, their demand for digital cash will be fleeting imo. The 1000 shitcoins we have are MOSTLY worse than the sick dollar. This rings true. But how does that stance help bitcoin, how does that attitude contribute to the common good, how does that position serve anyone but himself? Refreshing to see someone not trying to control every aspect of bitcoin, not trench digging, not panicking. Not thinking only his camp are right. |
|
|
|
|
I also asked "So we need a consensus on how many devs are needed/expected/required? (I read 3-4 min? maybe not such a project if only supporting 1 dev?)"
@ $0.49 this project can support 1or 2 devs. (are c0 devs also competing for this work?)
Yes, "if it was lower than 10% block subsidy, which it is not." But price dictates that calculation.
10% block subsidy only works on a decred price "well over $1.00" - Beyondtext.
|
|
|
|
|
^ So if decred price needs to be "well over $1.00" why is c0 pald at $0.49? (giving 2 or 3 times input value of $420K?)
"well over $1" is what $1.50, or $2.00 maybe?
What if decred is still $0.49 at end yr 1. devs will go unpaid/underpaid for work done?
Or will work not start for quite a while (a year for example) until the dev fund has grown and can be valued? (it is zero at launch)
|
|
|
|
^ yet all glebs newbie accounts got through?
Anyway, no evaluation of my previous figures? (except sam b)
This is how it looks to me.
c0 value their input to date at $420,000, valuing decred @ $0.49. Then proceed to say the decred project will not be viable at less than $1 per decred which values their payment at $840,000.
So c0 are profiting 100% on their input.
Then c0 collect 50% of all PoS (15% of all blocks), another 100% profit ($450,000) on original input in year one.
decred dev fund starts with nothing.
The dev fund collects 10% of all block. (5% Less than c0 get from each block)
The dev fund receive very little or no PoS. (as they start at zero holding)
c0 earning are not committed to decred.
c0 can do as they wish with this profit.
decred could have just had a 25% dev block reward?
This coin is primarily for c0 to profit.
The dev funding aspect is very much secondary.
This is my only concern with decred is the fact that as i understand it C0 premine is not primarily for paying devs. what if the value of decred falls below $0.49 ?? the subsidy will not be enough. also the C0 holdings massively inflate Decred's supply this deflates the value for each DCR/XDC/DRCD and it also makes investors worry considering the massive supply in one hand and the fact that for a while POS will be harder for the average staker. Even the boss (Beyondtext) said " the project cannot fund itself unless its exchange rate is well over USD 1.00 per decred." So as I try to explain $0.49 is far to little to fund this project. |
|
|
|
|
^ yet all glebs newbie accounts got through?
Anyway, no evaluation of my previous figures? (except sam b)
This is how it looks to me.
c0 value their input to date at $420,000, valuing decred @ $0.49. Then proceed to say the decred project will not be viable at less than $1 per decred which values their payment at $840,000.
So c0 are profiting 100% on their input.
Then c0 collect 50% of all PoS (15% of all blocks), another 100% profit ($450,000) on original input in year one.
decred dev fund starts with nothing.
The dev fund collects 10% of all block. (5% Less than c0 get from each block)
The dev fund receive very little or no PoS. (as they start at zero holding)
c0 earning are not committed to decred.
c0 can do as they wish with this profit.
decred could have just had a 25% dev block reward?
This coin is primarily for c0 to profit.
The dev funding aspect is very much secondary.
|
|
|
|
Oh it was ignored, along with my figures.  I had said I liked the idea of block subsidy, to pay for development. If it would work but, @ $0.49 even the boss, Beyondtext, has explained the project cannot fund itself. The dev subsidy wallet (DHG) starts this project EMPTY. The founders wallet starts this project OVER FULL, and therefore earns more in PoS (private profit) than DHG earn in block subsidy (to pay the devs) Is that right? decred needs to be minimum $1 to fund itself. (Beyondtext) Then Founders, (c0) get $10,000 per week just from PoS awards. Happy days. This project cannot support devs AND the founders massive demands. I hope no devs expect to actually get paid to work on this. Maybe 1 inhouse btcsuite dev? |
|
|
|
We are entering a new age of crypto...
It's refreshing to be involved with a humble talented group of individuals.
Cheers
Same old crap. Fudge the forecast figures. Most here too dull to see past their free shares. |
|
|
|
cointelegraph latest neucoin price analysis. http://cointelegraph.com/news/116072/weekly-altcoin-price-analysis-first-results-of-2016Neucoin moves on the road of disappointments. ...on December 31, 2015 the price of Neucoin was higher than $8. Each following day of 2016 the Neu price moved lower and reach today's $2.7 for 1000 Neucoins. And it is difficult to tell where this falling may stop. Next week the emergence of a new local bottom is possible at any moment. But the rebound or a turn of a trend is also probable. Placing buy orders at the level of $1.5 for 1000 Neucoin looks attractive as well. But for those who have bought this altcoin for $8 and above for 1000 Neucoin it will take a lot of patience now to exit with profit. Dart, Torrgeek, superman, please let the other few neucoiners know this good news! Worthy of a new thread on the noforum. Seems the ct shilling is over? "buy at $1.5 for 1000 bs", nice one Frederic. LMAO. (did Dan let you down on promises of price support? -Bit harsh if he just stop paying for your favour?) |
|
|
|
How has the talk come to this talented dog from the crazy x?
Bitcoinpaw skipped 9 important previous posts BACK to the doggy thing. (see Bitcoin-PAW) I think it is clear what is going on here is it not? |
|
|
|
rizz Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
You dont seem to be reading "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one." Also, you dont seem to read, as I am, that general consensus seems to want (or not strongly object to) an audit, (or other independent investigation) Good starting point, which may afford you some credit to continue TBF. Analogies are sometimes as useful as a cassette tape pizza covered in bleach. So I won't delve further into the soup kitchen example other than to say I have a different take. The line "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one." Is exactly what I've said all along. I'm not clear from your post if you are asking me to say this or want time to say more. If this is what you want, I fully agree ....I think it was in the OP. I know some consensus here and on Reddit calls for an audit -- from members I have not seen as much...really only a handful of members who want one and almost none who want one bad enough to volunteer. It's a lot like the calls for transparency and elections. Months back I sat down with a large corporate member CEO and proudly exlaimed "We are now fully transparent and have a 100% elected board." He replied "So what. How does that help Bitcoin?" Proving for sure that the losses are as bad as we think I think would be another shoulder shrug. Youv'e lost me. you started the analogies  . enough already  Ok, now I look again, OP says "I'm happy to support an audit provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one." So actually, we are close. (I wish you could stop saying "Dont see what good it can do" in the next sentence, it seem to detract from the sentiment.) You have had feedback. Now get pro-active, or not. You are the only person going to move this forward. I suggested already you reach out to the "ridiculously wasteful and reckless spenders" (ex board) for their personal financial support in this matter. This is where your SMALL time contribution comes in. THEY, the "ridiculously wasteful and reckless spenders" need to, and should want to, personally pay for this audit/investigation. (If they are "offered" the chance?) Step in Bruce Fenton.... |
|
|
|
Bruce I want to be be able to come on this board in the future and say "look at the positive things this org has done" And so do I, and so does franky, but... Bruce I still haven't heard a compelling case about how lots of time, effort and money dwelling on these errors helps Bitcoin. Principle is a funny thing. you either get it or you dont. Bruce I volunteered to help Bitcoin not chase skeletons. rizz Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
The thing is with this: do you realize you are asking me to take my own personal free time away from my job, work and family to pursue something that I don't believe in? Why would that be on me any more than it is on you? I didn't create the foundation, I wasn't involved in it during the early days like so many on this thread. I ad absolutely nothing to do with it until earlier this year....after the problems. It's no more mine than yours. I have a limited amount of spare time -- I'm willing to use that time, my knowledge, connections and any abilities I have to do things which I personally think help Bitcoin: organize conferences etc. I'm a volunteer. This is what I volunteered to do and it takes tons of time. I think it would make a lot more sense to expect me to do this if I 1) was paid or 2) had anything whatsoever to do with these issues. For me this feels like showing up at soup kitchen: "Hi, I'm Bruce, I want to volunteer to feed the homeless people." "Screw you, the guy who fed the homeless people three people before you who you never met wasted the money on donuts. We already know he wasted the money. Forget the food, get down in the basement and go through the file cabinet and audit for more details." No. quite the opposite. I'm trying to NOT ask for your time. (ok, To Be Fair, a SMALL amount of your time is probably inevitable, but..) You dont seem to be reading "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one." Also, you dont seem to read, as I am, that general consensus seems to want (or not strongly object to) an audit, (or other independent investigation) Good starting point, which may afford you some credit to continue TBF. I see it more like this, if we are sidetracked again, "Hi, im Bruce, I want to volunteer to feed the homeless people." "Ok, Thanks for volunteering," replied the echo "but the homeless dont trust "This Big Food" cafe any more, unfortunately, as the last chefs poisoned the hobo's dinner. However, if you conducted an appraisal of the old ingredient's while you assemble a new ingredient list, the hobo's may see why they got ill, and be more assured it wont happen again" "But I came to cook" cries Bruce "I poisoned no one, I wasn't here. I cant cook AND conduct an appraisal of past ingredient's. People will go hungry." "I understand Bruce" echoed the echo "if you invite the hobo's to organise/conduct the appraisal, and ask any ex chefs who would like to contribute financially, then maybe YOU could start to clean the kitchen. Given time, when the hobos see how clean the kitchen is, and they compare ingredients, when they smell the food cooking, when they...." "No" says bruce "thats a waste of time. There hobo's crist sake. They can take it or leave it" I cant explain my view more clearly than I have till now. It may well be an irrelevant/undesired view, but I thought it was/is clear. now. Watching. |
|
|
|
|
Audit?
Franky, do you want to move on without an audit? (think you said "hand in hand")
Who's not getting it here?
|
|
|
|
Bruce I want to be be able to come on this board in the future and say "look at the positive things this org has done" And so do I, and so does franky, but... Bruce I still haven't heard a compelling case about how lots of time, effort and money dwelling on these errors helps Bitcoin. Principle is a funny thing. you either get it or you dont. Bruce I volunteered to help Bitcoin not chase skeletons. rizz Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
*added * (Add time on that if you want, (due to lack of finance and time) same thing as "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved") |
|
|
|
rizz On a personal level thats fine,
But as BF chair, or whatever, I would like to see your default position as - wanting an audit for transparency-
Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
Frankie do you have some positive idea's about something that helps the future, while simultaneously looking at the past aswell
tomothy With regards to the audit, people will always bitch and moan about an audit not having taken place which leaves a specter of uncertainty shrouding TBF. It's stupid. It's fairly evident to see that the money's gone but that won't be an acceptable answer to contrarians. I don't know if you could put out a request or something similar for audit services but it could address the underlying cost of an audit. I'm not sure if that is something a company might want to do on behalf of TBF to then deduct as some sort of a tax break. Something similar could apply to ongoing legal fees/advice. That way you could satisfy the naysayers without throwing good money after bad... literally lol...
Makingsure HOW MUCH DOES TBF HAVE IN LIABILITIES?
HOW DO THEY OWE STILL "UNOFFICIALLY" FOR WHAT? Same thing again? Bruce I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to do one. I personally would rather focus on things more directly beneficial to Bitcoin Bruce I'd encourage people to look at the mission and current team.
Do you see, he cant/wont accept that very first basic, albeit ridiculous waste of time, principle? |
|
|
|
...this is not forcast to actually happen any time soon, using decreds own numbers.
You are asking for things that nobody can answer for you. If Decred holds no value for anyone, then of course no development can happen. Who would want to develop something that nobody cares about? I haven't seen you go nuts about btcsuite being funded without any income, and that's survived, nay, flourished over the years to a point where it's used at the core of many organisations today. Even Ethereum based its geth implementation on btcd. My point is that you cannot get upset about numbers nobody can answer - anyone who tries to answer them for you is a false prophet because no one can know the future. Decred will adapt to what's required for it to deliver and reach its goals. What other option is there? As we speak people are getting stuck into it and working on it. You just put one foot in front of the other and work - that's what will be done in good and tough times. One can theorise. Q. How many of these community devs will be paid, if decred was valued at or below $0.49? A. 1 and a bit, or less. I just want this to be clear to any "new devs working on btc for free, looking to get paid work here" |
|
|
|
rizz On a personal level thats fine,
But as BF chair, or whatever, I would like to see your default position as - wanting an audit for transparency-
Even if you still add, (due to lack of finance) "provided someone can lead it and do the work involved and/ or support the costs of one."
tomothy With regards to the audit, people will always bitch and moan about an audit not having taken place which leaves a specter of uncertainty shrouding TBF. It's stupid. It's fairly evident to see that the money's gone but that won't be an acceptable answer to contrarians. I don't know if you could put out a request or something similar for audit services but it could address the underlying cost of an audit. I'm not sure if that is something a company might want to do on behalf of TBF to then deduct as some sort of a tax break. Something similar could apply to ongoing legal fees/advice. That way you could satisfy the naysayers without throwing good money after bad... literally lol...
Same thing again? Bruce I won't stand in the way of anyone who wants to do one. I personally would rather focus on things more directly beneficial to Bitcoin Do you see, he cant/wont accept that very first basic, albeit ridiculous waste of time, principle? |
|
|
|
как правильно зарегистрировать ссылку?
Отправить мне сообщение на форуме или, если вам нужна помощь взглянуть на российском участке. Yeah ok, thanks.
I'll take that to specifically include _ingsoc also.
(and decred multi-author, obviously)
No, I haven't been involved with NeuCoin. Yes, Decred currently has multiple developers that contribute to its codebase and the project itself hopes to grow into a "hacker" collective of sorts in the future. A collective like that would mean anyone interested in development can step forward and be part of that ecosystem. Nobody will be excluded from the development process if they are competent - it is multi-stakeholder. Decred's primary goal is to create that ecosystem and everyone will be working hard to try and make that happen once the code is public and open-source. OK cool. Yes, decred currently has multiple devs, all of which are c0/btcsuite? (3/4 devs) A hacker collective would indeed include all who want to participate. But they will not get paid. Only 1 and a bit dev will be paid at $0.49 launch (asset allocation) price. That is a CUT in paid dev staff on this coin. So yeah, all join in devving, for free. Just like the btc devs. nothing new here. Anyone interested in a fair dev coin, this (apparently) ain't it. See my previous, unanswered analysis. If its another shitcoin, fine but.. _ingsoc This begs the question though, and it's a serious one, what's the alternative for a new dev in the future? Work on Bitcoin and get paid nothing? Or work in a system where you get compensated for innovation and contributions that feed back into Bitcoin as well? I know that's biased, but it's a legitimate proposal that's being formed. ...this is not forcast to actually happen any time soon, using decreds own numbers. |
|
|
|
blah blah blah
endless slagging match and endless naming calling about people that are not in the company anymore
endless slagging match and complaining about what the old company didnt do, but should of
endless slagging match about something that cant be undone ..
blah blah blah
boring boring boring..
blah blah blah
ok so i have summed up the 20 pages of this thread..
im moving on and looking forwards
enjoy months of arguing about things you cant and dont want to change
Bruce (added) In this case we already know what happened: a bunch of money was spend and Bitcoin value dropped - the money is gone and so are the people who made those decisions. I don't think an audit would uncover new info.
rizz Can you/TBF not focus on Bitcoin/moving TBF forward in conjunction with an audit? I don't really see much crossover.
Edit. Indeed, Would an audit not give some "credibility" to carry on?
Frankie do you have some positive idea's about something that helps the future, while simultaneously looking at the past aswell
Very much the same thing? (also my edit line) I think it somewhat unfortunate Bruce started this thread as "Where on earth did all the money go?" ... Then expect not to get a (negative) reaction on that subject. Bruces answer to that question? Ridiculously wasteful and reckless spending, (and other things) forget it now, move on. (open to interpretation of course) Also,Bruces engagement with some posters seemed completely unstructured. He seemed easily drawn into pointless repetative reactionary posting. (trying not to take sides here, but what did he expect to happen?) So, to help facilitate moving forward, Bruce needs to structure his debating technique maybe? |
|
|
|
Silly question, but I must ask.
Is anyone from the Neucoin project, past or present, working in, or anyway involved in decred, past or present?
I'm not familiar with Neucoin at all so in my case that is a definite 'no' (and I'm pretty sure that is the case for everyone). Anyway, you can see on github exactly who has been involved so far (not counting people who have only been involved in btcsuite) by going to the people link https://github.com/orgs/decred/peopleYeah ok, thanks. I'll take that to specifically include _ingsoc also. (and decred multi-author, obviously) |
|
|
|
|
Silly question, but I must ask.
Is anyone from the Neucoin project, past or present, working in, or anyway involved in decred, past or present?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
