[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[markm]

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-

[1714249922]

1714249922

[1714249922]

1714249922

[1714249922]

1714249922

[1714249922]

1714249922

[Wekkel]

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) 

[Shattienator]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wekkel]

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

[sidhujag]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
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]

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
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]

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]

Day T is not set.
It depents on patience and greed
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.

[ranlo]

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.

I am actually 100% on board with the method provided whereby they'd convert for very little and after a year or two would be worth full value and keep going higher. This does two things: as you stated, it would keep the dumping from happening in the beginning, and at the same time would offer a PoS-like setup for existing users that rewards the longer-term holders.

[weisoq]

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

I think the rate increase idea would be a fundamental mistake. Not sure how else to explain why so will leave it at that.