Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2020, 03:34:48 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 [347] 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 ... 427 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated  (Read 1050373 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1038



View Profile WWW
July 21, 2017, 12:20:06 PM
Last edit: July 21, 2017, 01:03:24 PM by markm
 #6921

If there are people on the receiver list who are doing nothing, that is news to me. I thought such things were being reviewed?

Who actually admins those lists nowadays?

All this talk of screwing things around is bad, just make yourself a different coin if you do not like DeVCoin.

This thing has been running many years and is a unit of account for a lot of stuff.

There is way more DeVCoin-denominated debt than all the DeVCoins that have so far been minted nor will BE minted at the current rate for many years to come.

By all means lets go over every recipient on the receivers list to make sure they are still doing what they are being paid to do, and review whether things that actually cost out of pocket money, such as hosting, ae being paid enough to keep them online. Though also I think we might need to review what some are actually paying for hosting as it seems to me some of the begging I have seen from Devtome over they years seemed to want more money than hosting for it ought really to be costing?

Our biggest problem probably has been not having an exchange of our own, we have probably not beeing giving out enough shares for development of free open source exchange software, as far as I know there is still no such software out there, I would have run an exchange myself by now if there was. I have ended up starting to move toward using the HORIZON platform but then that too lost its exchange. We could really use good reliable exchange software so we can set up an exchange of our own that supports the merged-mined (alongside BiTCoin) coins and HORIZON.

A big problem with exchanges, in addition to lack of free open source code for running them, has been that they all seem to focus on volume, because that generates their fees. We need exchanges that are actually invested in the coins, exchanges where what is important is not VOLUME but, rather, LIQUIDITY. If you can at any time buy or sell a huge fraction of the total number of a given coin, that is what is important for determining its value and for whatever occassional actual settling-up needs to take place on an exchange. Maybe that bears repeating: WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS NOT HOW MUCH VOLUME ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE ON EXCHANGES, BUT SIMPLY THE CAPACITY (LIQUIDITY; NUMBER OF COINS AVAILABLE TO BUY OR SELL) WHETHER OR NOT THEY ACTUALLY DO GET BOUGHT OR SOLD ANY GIVEN YEAR OR MONTH OR DAY OR DECADE.  An exchange needs to just sit there year after year after year allowing a relative price to be discovered, that is all. Given the current prices, folks can trade privately or between Corps or Nations or Guilds etc etc etc. That is why we ended up simply putting a list of current rates online at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/latestrates.inc though of course the more places offing such rates-charts the better, and the eisier it is for people to actually find folks to trade with at prices close to those shown on such tables the better. Note that we display those rates in terms of DeVCoins (that is, DeVCoins end up being shown as 1.00000000); that is not only because DeVCoin has usually been the cheapest coin thus providing the smallest granularity for measuring values, but also because there is so much DeVCoin-denominated debt out there that needs such tables in order to figure out how many of various other things it will take to pay their debts, given that there are never enough DeVCoins on the market to pay all that debt so they mostly end up using other things to pay it.

Remember that a lot of book-keeping only hits exchanges when there is an imbalance of trade; if two nations are trading and at the end of every year or few years or whatever of trading it turns out they have balanced trade, there is no settling-up needed that time around; if one has bought more goods than it has sold to the other then one big payment suffices to settle up for another years or few years or whatever. The need for an exchange is simply to determine what the actual current rate of exchange is between the two currencies. These balancing payments do not themselves even hit the exchanges.

Actually maybe to an extent the exchanges have served not only to figure out the relative values of currencies but also to manipulate the relative values, for example the fact that the amount of debt denominated in DeVCoins far far exceeds the number of DeVCoins in existence means there are a lot of debtors out there who always like to see a low price for DeVCoins so they can make their debt payments as inexpensively as possible. Some debts have been paid off completely in the last few years that were intended originally to run for at least another decade!

Look at General Financial Corp, its total assets currently show as 2031390503860.48024691 dDVC. Most of that is DVC-denominated debt. More than 2000 billions of DeVCoins! How many DeVCoins have been minted so far? Less than 20 billion still, is it?

Lets find out how much it is going to cost to get the merged-mined (alongside BiTCoin) coins, including DeVCoin, onto an exchange alongside HORIZON, and to get reliable, robust free open-source exchange software developed so we can run our own exchange if need be. Our problem is not with our coin but with exchanges constantly failing to reliably year after year provide the array of coins we need and, according to a recent post here, with who-ever is supposed to be keeping track of receivers not keeping track of them properly apparently. (?)

EDIT: If you really feel we need to mint less coins, we can simply allocate shares to a coin-destroying facility. No need to mess with the actual minting process. Also, note that holders of DeVCoin-denominated debt have a vested interest in increasing/upholding the value of DeVCoins so that the debt payments they receive from their debtors are more valuable, so you could consider favouring such folks when assigning shares, having reasonable confidence they will tend to try not to lower the value of the coin. Heck it is in their interest to simply hoard it. Smiley

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603424088
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603424088

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603424088
Reply with quote  #2

1603424088
Report to moderator
1603424088
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603424088

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603424088
Reply with quote  #2

1603424088
Report to moderator
1603424088
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603424088

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603424088
Reply with quote  #2

1603424088
Report to moderator
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 12:27:57 PM
 #6922

I have two ideas in mind...
I think you should first settle on how exactly ongoing distribution/reward will change. This proved difficult in the past because DVC rationale and goals differed.

As Ranlo's example intimated, DVC is merge-mined and therefore the floor on DVC value = minimum effort to acquire or earn them. If that effort can amount to zero, price trends to zero. This was debated some time ago and I hope now more clear.

Either DVC rewards OS development & effort (and demands more honest appraisal/compensation of contribution). Or it doesn't and joins a very long list of price-speculative alts. Or the new exists alongside the old... etc.

Given likely concentration of existing holdings, I doubt there's a universally fair way to covert old to new. But frankly, whilst important I think generation is secondary to distribution mechanics. There's not necessarily any correlation between coin supply and price or ubiquity (e.g. Ripple, Doge, Nem).

To answer your question though - I think you already know my preference, but I also think achieving non-zero price stability where implied value (average or lower bound on effort to attain them) is dynamic requires dynamic supply.
markm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2618
Merit: 1038



View Profile WWW
July 22, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
Last edit: July 23, 2017, 06:25:04 PM by markm
 #6923

The coin works fine, there is a tiny change needed to make it compile against boost 1.58+ instead of 1.54 for those who got Ubuntu 16.04 fresh rather than upgrading 14.04 to 6.04 (and thus retaining old Boost 1.54 libs), but other than that it works.

Do not mess with the code, what we need is to get the receiver file folks cleaned up maybe. I see on http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_human_resources for example that I am listed as hosting a full node, actually I was hosting five full nodes, one in town house, one in country-house, and three on third party dedicated server machines. Now I am down to only two third party server machines so am only currently hosting three full nodes. I would like to go back to three third party dedicated servers, I lost the old ones as the hosting company screwed me over but the new company sems to work well and I get a very powerful server for only $70+ USD per month, I would like to get another two dedicated servers.

Please stop talking about hard forks, the coin is fine.

We just need to allocate shares more intelligently / effectively.

-MarkM-

Browser-launched Crossfire client now online (select CrossCiv server for Galactic  Milieu)
Free website hosting with PHP, MySQL etc: http://hosting.knotwork.com/
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1272


yes


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 06:35:58 PM
 #6924



We just need to allocate shares more intelligently / effectively.


I agree that talk of a HF is only in question once the allocation of coins (shares) has been discussed thoroughly. If the Devoin software is the issue, one could also just start a new Devcoin (with a fancy name)  Grin

           ▀██▄ ▄██▀
            ▐█████▌
           ▄███▀███▄
         ▄████▄  ▀███▄
       ▄███▀ ▀██▄  ▀███▄
     ▄███▀  ▄█████▄  ▀███▄
   ▄███▀  ▄███▀ ▀███▄  ▀███▄
  ███▀  ▄████▌   ▐████▄  ▀███
 ███   ██▀  ██▄ ▄██  ▀██   ███
███   ███  ███   ███  ███   ███
███   ███   ███████   ███   ███
 ███   ███▄▄       ▄▄███   ███
  ███▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄███
   ▀████▄▄           ▄▄████▀
      ▀▀███████████████▀▀
DeepOnion
.Anonymous and Untraceable.
ANN  Whitepaper  Facebook  Twitter  Telegram  Discord 





      ▄▄██████████▄▄
    ▄███▀▀      ▀▀█▀   ▄▄
   ███▀              ▄███
  ███              ▄███▀   ▄▄
 ███▌  ▄▄▄▄      ▄███▀   ▄███
▐███  ██████   ▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███  ███▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███   ████▀   ▄███▀
███▌  ███   █▀   ▄███▀  ███
▐███   ███     ▄███▀   ███
 ███▌   ███  ▄███▀     ███
  ███    ██████▀      ███
   ███▄             ▄███
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████████▀▀
.
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
 #6925

DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE OF DEVCOIN
...We are not starting from scratch.
...need a fair system that ensures we are rewarding people that are actually serving the purpose of Devcoin...
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.

I have two ideas in mind:

1. Start anew radically, everything from scratch, kill the old DVC, people should SELL all their current DVC stock to preserve a bit of their money
2. Make a hard cut. Implement a DVC RENEWAL SERVICE (DRS) where people can "submit" their current DVC so that it gets converted into the new DVC

#2 makes more sense for me. BUT we should set a conversion rate that pumps the new DVC up. For example a relation of 10,000 to 1. For every 10 thousand OLD DVC sent to DRS, you get 1 NEW DVC back. Maybe it should be 100K or 1 million, I'm open to proposals!

Lets say that DRS is implemented. On every round the new DVC Rewards Distribution System (RDS) should pay to the following FUNDS:

1. Fund to Convert OLD DVC into NEW DVC
2. Fund for Open Source Projects and Assets (Devtome?)
3. Fund to pay the staff (core team, mirrors, nodes)
4. Fund to pay miners

Then we have to figure out the Inflation Rate Strategy (IRS), how much DVC should be generated on every round? Should it be static or variable like STEEM?

Why do you need to keep old DVC alive? Currently there are no possibilities to sell DVC say for amount of 1 BTC - whole Coinsource have no such buy support on DVC pairs.
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?

Just keep in mind that it will be much more easy to build a new coin from a scratch then to try keep old coin alive.

So, in general, there only one option - to kill old coin (not kill, actually, but not to try give it a new birth - with merged mining it will be alive for some time in any case) and start a new one.

Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 08:58:18 PM
Last edit: July 24, 2017, 05:24:24 AM by Shattienator
 #6926


We just need to allocate shares more intelligently / effectively.

-MarkM-

Shares reward generates strong sell side without any generation of a buy side for Devcoin.
That is the problem of a Devcoin - constant sell side generation forces Devcoin receivers to sell them as fast as possible because any new block will generate more and more coins going on sale. All the time. So keeping any coins will reduce its value without any chance to increase.

The reward distribution should be designed to provide the reason to keep the coins for some time (or for a long time). It meas that the Deflation strategy should be implemented. Bitcoin have reduction of coins generated. Devcoin should have the same to succeed. Say reduction of generation rate by 0.1% each 144 blocks (once a day) - it will give roughly 30% reduction annually. 50000 coins per block will become 35000 coins per block in one year. From 36K to 24K - for the next year etc.
Just for example.
ATM the sell side generation is about 220M a month. To keep the DVC price at 1 satoshi there shoud be a 2.2 BTC buy side support each month. It can not just come out of thin air.
So any reward receiver forced to sell its share immediatelly once any buy side appears. Even at 1 satoshi per DVC. Coingather right now have buy support for only 64K DVC at 1 satoshi.
Any generation reduction will give (small) possibility that coin will increase in nearest distant future. And possible reduce the sell side generation a bit. Possible for significant amount.
So Deflation strategy should be discussed, not Inflation one.
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 23, 2017, 10:21:55 PM
 #6927


We just need to allocate shares more intelligently / effectively.

-MarkM-

Shares reward generates strong sell side without any generation of a buy side for Devcoin.
That is the problem of a Devcoin - constant sell side generation forces Devcoin receivers to sell them as fast as possible because any new block will generate more and more coins going on sale. All the time. So keeping any coins will reduce its value without any chance to increase.

The reward distribution should be designed to provide the reason to keep the coins for some time (or for a long time). It meas that the Deflation strategy should be implemented. Bitcoin have reduction of coins generated. Devcoin should have the same to succeed. Say reduction of generation rate by 0.1% each 144 blocks (once a day) - it will give roughly 30% reduction annually. 50000 coins per block will become 35000 coins per block in one year. From 36K to 24K - for the next year etc.
Just for example.
ATM the sell side generation is about 220M a month. To keep the DVC price at 1 satoshi there shoud be a 2.2 BTC buy side support each month. It can not just come out of thin air.
So any reward receiver forced to sell its share immediatelly once any buy side appears. Even at 1 satoshi per DVC. Coinsource right now have buy support for only 64K DVC at 1 satoshi.
Any generation reduction will give (small) possibility that coin will increase in nearest distant future. And possible reduce the sell side generation a bit. Possible for significant amount.
So Deflation strategy should be discussed, not Inflation one.

I could not agree more. It's one of the issues I've had with the coin. Back when they were worth 120 sat each, it would have required 180 BTC/month in buys just to keep that stable. Even halving that would require only 90. Then 45, etc.

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

Activity: 417
Merit: 270


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2017, 07:28:33 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2017, 11:33:29 PM by mprep
 #6928

Do not mess with the code

With all respect you deserve. Devcoin is Free/Libre Open Source Software, anyone can mess with the code and do whatever they want.

That said, I announced the hard fork already, no way back.



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

Indeed! If we just let Devcoin die, its remaining value is lost forever. I believe in the power of the existing community, otherwise I would start a new coin project rather than hardforking.

To answer your question let me comment on what @Shattienator just said:

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?

YES! We don't need to stick to the old source code, we can fork another coin that is better suited for the purpose of Devcoin and the needs of the existing market. We keep the name: Devcoin, because everyone holding the old Devcoin will have a chance to get the new Devcoin through DRS, which should have a good RDS and IRS.

This is what will happen in this proposed scenario:

1. new Devcoin releases with a new blockchain (new genesis block)
2. old Devcoin stays alive
3. Devcoin Renewal Service launches to convert old to new
4. Market switches from old Devcoin to new Devcoin progressively

We should not worry about the old blockchain and coins, because the market will bet for the new Devcoin IF we make it a better option. I strongly believe that Coingather, the only Exchange willing to support Devcoin will contribute to the success of this hardfork.

Regarding ICO / Airdrop and the like. There is enough people holding Devcoin already, no need to make more marketing.

And... there is something after the hardfork: Devtome needs love! and we could build more assets that will contribute economic value to the new Devcoin market. That creation of value should be measured and considered into IRS.


develCuy's posts at steemitDevcoin on Telegram  |  Devcoin - from the many, one. From one, the source
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1272


yes


View Profile
July 24, 2017, 07:49:41 PM
 #6929

develCuy, do you have more details on what the Devcoin -new characteristics would be?

           ▀██▄ ▄██▀
            ▐█████▌
           ▄███▀███▄
         ▄████▄  ▀███▄
       ▄███▀ ▀██▄  ▀███▄
     ▄███▀  ▄█████▄  ▀███▄
   ▄███▀  ▄███▀ ▀███▄  ▀███▄
  ███▀  ▄████▌   ▐████▄  ▀███
 ███   ██▀  ██▄ ▄██  ▀██   ███
███   ███  ███   ███  ███   ███
███   ███   ███████   ███   ███
 ███   ███▄▄       ▄▄███   ███
  ███▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄███
   ▀████▄▄           ▄▄████▀
      ▀▀███████████████▀▀
DeepOnion
.Anonymous and Untraceable.
ANN  Whitepaper  Facebook  Twitter  Telegram  Discord 





      ▄▄██████████▄▄
    ▄███▀▀      ▀▀█▀   ▄▄
   ███▀              ▄███
  ███              ▄███▀   ▄▄
 ███▌  ▄▄▄▄      ▄███▀   ▄███
▐███  ██████   ▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███  ███▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███   ████▀   ▄███▀
███▌  ███   █▀   ▄███▀  ███
▐███   ███     ▄███▀   ███
 ███▌   ███  ▄███▀     ███
  ███    ██████▀      ███
   ███▄             ▄███
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████████▀▀
.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1004


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 02:02:14 AM
 #6930

consider masternodes for a better receiver system, current one sucks and is centralized. The innovation you need to do is do figure out how to vote out masternodes for non-performance.
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 10:41:02 AM
Last edit: July 25, 2017, 11:33:42 PM by mprep
 #6931

3. Devcoin Renewal Service launches to convert old to new
Devcoin was launched on July 22, 2011. For six years there are nearly 16 billion of Devcoins.
In order to renew old Devcoins at the rate of 1 satoshi it will require about 160 BTC or about USD500K.
This is just for conversion/renewal alone.

What we need to do to avoid DVC flood for DRS?
Lets make conversion rate to rise gradually over time. It means the later you apply for a  conversion - the better conversion rate you have.

For example 1000 DVC to be converted to New DVC (nDVC) at the rate 1000 DVC for nDVC equal to one satoshi.
For a first week. Then increase the rate by 20% - 800 DVC for satishi.
In 32 weeks it will reach current rate of 1 DVC for 1 satoshi. And 10 times increase (to 1 DVC for 10 satoshi) in one year.

10% rate increase give us 1 DVC to 1 satoshi in about 66 weeks. 1 DVC to 10 satoshi - in 88 weeks. etc.

This is just an example - the rate can be made flexible and the rate change over time can be flexible as well. Maybe I'm not good at math Smiley But in any case this is an idea to implement DRS without flash sales at the beginning.

It will be completelly not wise to dump existion bitcoins almost for nothing. All existing DVC for 0,16 BTC at the start of DRS. Or keep it for a one year and get current rate (Coingather sometimes have some buy support at this rate, but in general it is impossible to sell even few million devcoins at this rate, for DVC/LTC pair it will be about 0.6 of satoshi for DVC, DVC/DOGE at about 0.4).

Yes, I undestand that this sounds like a Ponzi scheme, but this is reasonable limitation for a renewal service if we want to keep old devcoin, not just dump it.

The conversion rate increase should be made publicly available, rate change should be clear and predictable.



Regarding Receivers. I think it will be better to implement Smart Contracts to New DVC.
Will possibility to "invest" or "directly" donate open source projects within blockchain.
Maybe with GitHub intergation.
Make Master Smart Contract which will deal with charity/donations on regular basis.

Yes, it will require some coding work. Surely it will require serious changes to blockchain itself. Etherium as the base or something like this.



Block reward distribution thoughts:
10% to miners (in case of merged mining) or 25% for standalone mining.

60% of the rest for Receivers (55% of total for merged and 45% for standalone mining).
And the last portion for Devcoin development/promotion.

Say for the first year with quarterly review of this scheme.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 11:01:57 AM
 #6932

Devcoin was launched on July 22, 2011. For six years there are nearly 16 billion of Devcoins.
In order to renew old Devcoins at the rate of 1 satoshi it will require about 160 BTC or about USD500K.
This is just for conversion/renewal alone.

What we need to do to avoid DVC flood for DRS?
Lets make conversion rate to rise gradually over time. It means the later you apply for a  conversion - the better conversion rate you have...
Way too complicated and will work counter to your objective.

DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.

Either just apply distributional changes to existing, or move on to fundamentally new.
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 11:15:57 AM
 #6933

DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.
You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?
Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.

I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.

New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.

But, if new Devcoin team will reach an agreement that old devcoins need to be converted to new one - then we have to think about convertion mechanism which will help us to avoid huge dump of old devcoins through Renewal/Conversion system.
New coin will be burried alive if 16 billion of devcoin (OK, even if 10% of existing devcoins) will be "immediatelly" converted and dumped.
6 years of generation produced too much coins. Even a portion of it will kill new one once conversion system will be in place.

So the possible solution is to offer unfair conversion rate at the start of the conversion system offering much better rates for patient holders.

But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 11:33:02 AM
 #6934

You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?
Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.

I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions...
I'm saying that if you increasingly reward holdouts, rational holders will obviously just dump all coins at the last possible moment instead.
And at a better rate, which would undermine above objectives (deflation, price etc) far more.

(this is just about what's been discussed, not necessarily my own opinion where I agree it should just be a new project).
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 11:37:38 AM
 #6935

You want to force devcoin holders to dump all coins at the beginning of new coin?
Then there should be an enormous source of new coins for conversion of old devcoin to new ones.

I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions...
I'm saying that if you increasingly reward holdouts, rational holders will obviously just dump all coins at the last possible moment instead.
And at a better rate, which would undermine above objectives (deflation, price etc) far more.

(this is just about what's been discussed, not necessarily my own opinion where I agree it should just be a new project).

Yes. Exactly. Dump later not now.
It new coin will not succeed - then better rate never become a reality, but if we put good conversion from the beginning - there will be no future at all.
And rational holders should be rewarded a bit, doesnt it?

Just give a new coin some time to breathe and gain strength. Do not "premine" or give any other possibilities to dump coins just from the beginning.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:03:08 PM
 #6936

Yes. Exactly. Dump later not now.
It new coin will not succeed - then better rate never become a reality, but if we put good conversion from the beginning - there will be no future at all.
And rational holders should be rewarded a bit, doesnt it?

Just give a new coin some time to breathe and gain strength. Do not "premine" or give any other possibilities to dump coins just from the beginning.
Ok but in practice, for example:

Day 1: New coin, deflation/limited generation.
Day 1: Option to convert at 1000:1 sat equivalent - no thanks.
Day 8: Option to convert at 800:1 sat - no thanks.
...
Day T: Option to convert at 1:1 sat. Equivalent of 16 billion old coins (160 btc) dumped into existence.

Makes little sense. Price today is the knowable discounted future value. People are not stupid. If I know it's coming on future day T that will affect my choices today. Even more undermining if I know that conversion optionality can be exercised at any time - i.e. the option is perpetual.
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:08:37 PM
 #6937

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed Smiley
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.

Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:21:02 PM
 #6938

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed Smiley
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.

Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
It doesn't matter whether day T is set. The issue is the scale of existing optionality.

Devcoin's basic problem is already patience/greed vs. 'reward os dev'. People are people and doesn't seem much point starting anew to immediately rely on a different result from that trade-off.

"Once conversion to new coin.." - that's my point. I don't know what the solution is but would certainly be better to force all conversion at 1000:1 on day 1 (0.16 btc equiv) than 1:1 on day T (160 btc equiv).
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:23:28 PM
 #6939

DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.

New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.

...

But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.

The WORST thing you can do for long-term DVC members/contributors is not reward for existing holding. You would essentially be saying "So you contributed to DVC? Cool. You held your coins instead of dumping them because you believed in the project? Well, you should have just tanked it with the others because now you get nothing at all! Oh, by the way, interested in joining us on a new project?" Anyone that did this would end up with no reason NOT to continually dump at that point, because you'd be showing that it's the "right" thing to do.

You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:26:38 PM
Last edit: July 25, 2017, 11:34:01 PM by mprep
 #6940

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed Smiley
So Day T will be distributed over some time, possible years.
It can help to aviod appearence of Day T on day 1. Even on day 100, 200 etc.
Take a look at Coingather - there are hundred of millions ready to dump. But there are no buy side - no possibilities to dump now.

Once conversion to new coin will be in place - all these hundred of millions will be dumped ruining the exchange rate of new coin to virtually zero.
It doesn't matter whether day T is set. The issue is the scale of existing optionality.

Devcoin's basic problem is already patience/greed vs. 'reward os dev'. People are people and doesn't seem much point starting anew to immediately rely on a different result from that trade-off.

"Once conversion to new coin.." - that's my point. I don't know what the solution is but would certainly be better to force all conversion at 1000:1 on day 1 (0.16 btc equiv) than 1:1 on day T (160 btc equiv).

Day T is not set at all. That is a idea.

The rate increase is set, not target date.

1 satoshi is not a final target - it is not even a target, it is just an ordinary exchange rate somewhere in future. Next week will give 1.2 satoshi. Another week - another 20% increase etc.

1, 10, 100, 1000 satoshis per DVC to be a reached someday with gradual exchange rate increase. But without any deadlines. Rate increase can be slowed down over the time



DVC distribution likely very concentrated and biggest holders those with the greatest power yet reluctance to change things. If you think current form doesn't work why [increasingly] reward holdouts? (that may include me btw). I don't get the point of conversion, but if anything the rate should get increasingly worse, not better.
I'm personally against any conversion/renewal actions.

New coin should be the new one without any "premining" heritage from old coin.

...

But, again, I'm strictly against any conversions for old devcoin. Just let it die and do not try to dig out its corpse.

The WORST thing you can do for long-term DVC members/contributors is not reward for existing holding. You would essentially be saying "So you contributed to DVC? Cool. You held your coins instead of dumping them because you believed in the project? Well, you should have just tanked it with the others because now you get nothing at all! Oh, by the way, interested in joining us on a new project?" Anyone that did this would end up with no reason NOT to continually dump at that point, because you'd be showing that it's the "right" thing to do.

You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).
I have contributed a lot. And have a lot of DVC. They are worthless now. If there will be no conversion to a new coin in the future - no problem. No changes to my DVC wallet - zero stays zero.




You would literally be rewarding those that contributed nothing and continually dumped their free coins on the market, which is at least part of what caused this anyways (price was MUCH higher, 120+ satoshis, before a huge influx of people started getting added to the receivers. As more people were added, the more dumps occurred, which can be seen by just following its history).

Just take a look at the price chart:
https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/devcoin/

DVC was dumped all the time. Just from the beginning.
And it will be repeated with the new coin unless significant changes to reward distribution system. Even small fraction of existing devcoins converted to a new one will ruin new coin in days. I'm trying to develop reasonable way to sort it out with not devcoin holders left behind.

It will be very hard task.
Pages: « 1 ... 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 [347] 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 ... 427 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!