|
Well I'm not going to argue with you.
I think you are trying to swim upstream though. I think when you represent a community, it is always better to go with the majority opinion. I don't think many folks, out of the community at large, would side with you on this.
Also I don't think it does Devcoin any favors even it is shown to be technically accurate. New comers would then see that Devcoin is only worth about a millionth of what it was once worth a few months ago, which is not very inspiring.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, we can at least all agree (I presume?) that it is misleading to state that Devcoin had a high of $10. If it did happen, and I don't think it did, it was a very brief aberration and in no way really indicative of the actual, respectable worth of Devcoin.
I'm not saying you are acting dishonestly or anything like that. Let's just change the statement to something a bit more reasonable for the benefit of everyone, and accuracy, and move on. Sound reasonable?
|
|
|
|
|
I think that could only plausibly be accurate if it was when maybe it was the first day DVC was on Vircurex, and that was just one of the first offers maybe?
As you can see from the charts DVC was at the absolute most only close to about a $1, and only for a brief time, (.90 cents is the all-time high I could see), and was never anywhere around the $10 mark. Actually I might be messing up my chart-reading again. I think maybe 9 cents was the all time high, not .90.
|
|
|
|
|
Ignored....
If this person is older than 16 14 than I feel for him. He must have some sort of mental retardation.
|
|
|
|
Whoops,  , yes sorry, my math fail there. You are correct. |
|
|
|
[response to hotcoldcoin's post above] I'm not allowing anything. Merely offering a plausible explanation for the mistake. Note, I haven't read Finshaggy's other posts on this. There was ONE day, April 21st, according to the cryptochart for DVC at crytocharts.info, that the coin was worth about 9$, and may have, may have briefly touched 10$. Still would make FinShaggy's statement a big hyperbole and misleading, but I don't think this one error negates all of Finshaggy's work for the devcoin community or think that is a mistake worthy of banishment, personally. Just something that ought be fixed. As for the other topic of shares, I'm slightly bitter I missed the deadline at devtome. My contrib must have missed the script by just an hour or two  aw well, next round I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
Sort of a long shot, but not entirely implausible that the writer meant / was thinking 10 cents perhaps? The coin has been worth more than 10 cents often enough, but ya never close to the $10 mark. ... Though the way it was written, it does seem like $10 was intended.
|
|
|
|
|
This owl idiot is driving me nuts. He spams every Devcoin thread endlessly. I really wish I could strangle him with an ethernet cable, that'd be awesome.
|
|
|
|
I just realized I need to add a section about number of words rewarded per month. I will post it once I do. Also, I know I am missing details about how shares are divided up. If anyone has an article which clarifies that and is more accurate, please pm me and I will link to it  I think I have a solution to determine a pay structure. We should go with a meritocracy based around a badge system. These badges would act as rank and determine how much each writer gets paid. This way you would have granularity, merit, reward for quality, and reward for work. This badge system could also apply to programmers, musicians, or anything else. In order to get a basic level badge an individual would have to pass an exam. This exam should cost some coins and this would prevent spammers. The exam process would make it easier for Fuzzybear or whomever to review works. Perhaps eventually let random community members or even pay individuals to review them. The initial badge would declare that the individual meets the minimum qualification to be recognized as a writer, a programmer, or whatever. Then over time reward with different higher level badges. These different badges will act as rank and as long as the writer continues to write their pay grade will be a bit higher based on the quality of their previous work as recognized by their badge. There should be different sorts of badges passed around throughout the community which recognize different kinds of competency. Integrity for example is very valuable no matter if you're a writer, programmer or anything else and a lot of us would rather see the rewards go to community members with proven integrity. This would act similar to ebay or amazon where people maintain a good reputation and can get business but scammers and cheats don't. The better the reputation and integrity of the artist, developer, etc, the greater the portion of shares they should get. This would allow for the community to reward qualities not just of the work itself, but of the author or developer themselves and factor that into how much they get paid. For instance if Fin Shaggy is known to be a man of honor and integrity then he eventually will receive a badge and that badge will allow him to be recognized for that in pay rank. If Fin Shaggy is also known to be very competent at writing then he could get a badge for that and be recognized for that and get the $50 per share rate but the next person who does not have that badge or who isn't known as being a very competent writer, they'll have to focus more on earning the badge than on just pumping out low quality content. This will force them to actually care about the quality of their work for the badge. The badge should be difficult to revoke if it's an integrity badge. If it's a competency badge then it should be permanent for writers because if a writer proves they can produce a good piece of art work or software that should be enough. The next step would be to create ranks which are even higher than badges which I'll call medals. Give the medals out to the truly exceptional people. It works very well in sports such as professional boxing or basketball where the champions and gold medalists are recognized as being the best and get the sponsorships. This way established writers with good reputations for producing quality work will have badges, medals, and other qualifications and these should determine the worth of their shares. This way it's not marketing, it's not word count, it's not equally distributed like communism, it's merit and competency and these badges could stay with the developer no matter what coin they use in the future. If Ethicoin, Devcoin, Bitcoin, Litecoin or Futurecoin becomes popular these badges will still have established the merit and rank and would persist throughout all of that. This way I'll immediately know which among you are talented at whatever, which among you are knowledgeable or skilled, and which among you are honorable. Luckybit's idea is great, I think, as per his usual... the system would benefit from some sort of metric just besides word counts. The exams idea is good... maybe works would be separated in the wiki in tiers, after that, which would also help folks see what articles are well-thought of by the community. A lot of work, but I think this is the right direction to go. Something is needed to separate folks who are competent writers and folks who are just spamming whatever articles they can excessively for more coins with no care for any quality. Though I like Luckybit's general idea, it would also be great if there was some sort of automated system. It's tough to make a metric for a qualitative thing like this though... maybe exams would be better... page views are also easily faked, so they aren't effective. Maybe measure by outside links to the wiki articles made? The better the article or story is, the more likely it is to be linked elsewhere. This would also serve as good advertising for the community. |
|
|
|
tldr anyone please?
Swedish women are really, really hot. But beer is pretty expensive in the country, so it's not paradise. Oh and something about KNC being pretty legit. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks ! Great detail and depth.
|
|
|
|
(The following has been shamelessly adapted from oaxaca's & bogart's older auction thread.)Good day. Up next, for auction, is 15 shares of CoinHoarder's Batch 3 Avalon group buy. This represents a little over 2.075% of the output of 7 Avalons, the four module, 85GH edition.All told, these shares will deliver around 12 lovely gigahashes , hosted by Coinhoarder (this is 12.35 GH worth of shares, then minus power and hosting fee's of 2%, should work out to around 12 GH of mining dividends.) Group buy information: Original Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157930.0Group Forums: http://yourcoins.org/forums/index.php?forums/avalon-group-buy.2/ [I'll be putting these shares up for auction in the appropriate thread there, but waiting for a password to be reset.] Each investor owns a percentage of each of the seven 4 Module ASICs that were ordered. Monthly dividends will be pad out to each investor according to their ownership percentage. Dividends will be paid after electricity costs, any pool fee (yet to be determined), and the hosting fee are taken out. Total BTC invested in the group buy: 722.7025 BTC 595 Gh total from all Seven Avalons. The auction will last about 4 days +1 hrs from the time of this OP, and will end at 6:00 PM Saturday, Pacific Standard Time, June 14th. The minimum amount of shares to bid on is -5- shares. If there are multiple bids, some for groups of 5 shares, some for the entire batch of 15 shares, then I reserve the right to accept the bid for all 15 shares (I'd prefer to sell them together) over smaller segment bids, if it is higher. The starting bid is 1.75 BTC per share. The bidding increments are .01 BTC per share. The minimum bid quantity is for 5 shares, than further in increments of 5 shares. (i.e accept bids on 5,10,or 15 shares). A higher number of shares at a given price beats earlier, lower bids. If escrow is desired, I have no objection. I rather not though and feel it isn't necessary as CoinHoarder and these shares are well -established and I'm well-documented as the owner. No PM bids will be accepted. All bids must be in this thread. But any questions, feel free. Technically speaking, I own 15.0005 shares, so will be giving this 0.0005 to whoever wins the auction, in accordance to the largest segment of shares purchased (5, 10 or 15). Winning bidders have up to 24 hrs to transfer the funds over. Please post your offers like these examples: 5 @ 1.8 or 15 @ 2.05 etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I have one 7950 pretty much always running on my PC at an intensity of 15 or 16 for about 500 k/hash, and can use the rest of the system fine. I turn it off if I game though, and turn down the intensity to 13 if I watch a movie .
|
|
|
|
BFL is a horribly run company IMHO and I would not recommend anyone order from them, as they have a astounding back order. That being said, credit where credit is due, the Jalapeno is a great product though, and they have somewhat surprised me that they sort of actually do seem to be finally shipping now, only 9 months late or what-not. I can't argue that it is a great little product. 5 GH / 7GH for that power usage and form factor is pretty commendable. I'd love to have a Jalapeno running on a Raspberry Pi like that other guy But ya, would not recommend anyone actually ordering one (due to the production difficulties), and the company seems often dishonest (in its handling of many situations, and near continuously saying it was only 1 or 2 weeks before shipping, when in fact they must have known this was not the case, months ago.) If you have already ordered back-when and have gotten your J--- then congrats to you. I am a bit bitter it's arrived before the Avalon new batches, I have to begrudgingly admit my surprise. |
|
|
|
|
I'm fine with the lateness, but I'll be somewhat choked if the chips (not the samples, that's fine) get sent out before all the batch 1,2 & 3 are taken care of. (I'm guessing Avalon does intend to do this).
|
|
|
|
|
I have the same problem on one of my rigs. My guess was that it was because I am using unpowered pcie riser as opposed to powered, and my mobo is putting out enough power.
It isn't the card (in my case). It works fine in other systems. But my 3 third card of the same make on my one rig, connected with a PCIE extender cable, only gets about 75% the performance (450 k/hash as opposed to 600 for the other 2) . 7950's & scrypt mining.
I've been a bit too busy to fully troubleshoot it. I think I'm going to save myself the headache and just swap some mobo's around (with spare slots) so I don't have to use any extender cables.
|
|
|
|
|
Good to finally hear an update. It'll put some fears to rest.
I can understand them being late. Being months late sucks, but guess that's just how it goes. My main solace is that pretty much every ASIC is late, besides the reliable ASICMiner, which bodes well for the investment potential still.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you using any pcie risers?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
