Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2020, 01:06:47 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 ... 426 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated  (Read 1050072 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.
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:42:23 PM
 #6941

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1600866407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600866407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600866407
Reply with quote  #2

1600866407
Report to moderator
1600866407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600866407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600866407
Reply with quote  #2

1600866407
Report to moderator
1600866407
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600866407

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600866407
Reply with quote  #2

1600866407
Report to moderator
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:46:26 PM
 #6942

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.
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 12:57:08 PM
 #6943

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.

It is just an idea. Not final at all. Just to keep that in mind while designing the whole system.
Constant rate increase looks good until 1 say satoshi reached. Or maybe 10. But later it possible create problems with the exchange with constant increase of "reserve" for future conversions up to enormous amount. It greatly depends on unpredictable conversion demand changing over time.

We need to keep this obvious flaw of this proposal in mind. I can't  even imagine what distribution law applicable to that conversion-rate scheme. Completelly no idea ATM. It prevents me from predicting any demand in conversion with the reasonable rate change approach. Linear 20% a week increase is just for illustrative purpose - no rational behind this figure.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 01:01:15 PM
Last edit: July 25, 2017, 09:46:42 PM by weisoq
 #6944

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.
I don't agree but share the frustration.

Quote
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).
It may not reward holders but it wouldn't reward those that contributed nothing. Otherwise that's not generally correct. There are definitely many issues with share allocations/concentrations but shares actually function(ed) as a pseudo measure of difficulty.

We know that:
$ value of share = DVC per share * DVC/BTC * BTC/USD

Just rearranged = DVC/BTC = $ share value/(DVC per share * (BTC/USD))

Therefore the more shares, the higher DVC price. This has always been the biggest issue. The early period of highest prices was an outlier because the few participants were believers rather than participants in a sustainable project.

What's perhaps debatable is whether price leads shares or vice-versa (I think price leads shares) but if you plot the two you'll see they track. What should have happened was an adjustment to dynamic supply where generation is inverse to dvc per share. Or something like that.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 25, 2017, 01:12:18 PM
 #6945

It is just an idea. Not final at all. Just to keep that in mind while designing the whole system.
Constant rate increase looks good until 1 say satoshi reached. Or maybe 10. But later it possible create problems with the exchange with constant increase of "reserve" for future conversions up to enormous amount. It greatly depends on unpredictable conversion demand changing over time.

We need to keep this obvious flaw of this proposal in mind. I can't  even imagine what distribution law applicable to that conversion-rate scheme. Completelly no idea ATM. It prevents me from predicting any demand in conversion with the reasonable rate change approach. Linear 20% a week increase is just for illustrative purpose - no rational behind this figure.
I get where you're coming from. But pragmatically (whatever my own preference) in event of a fork a choice has to be made between best interests of the old vs the new.
Each has potential to hugely undermine the other, so a fix or new is necessary imo. Not something in between.
HHWlife
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 27, 2017, 06:46:20 AM
Last edit: July 27, 2017, 06:56:40 AM by HHWlife
 #6946

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.
I don't agree but share the frustration.

dont just say you dont agree without substantiating. please tell us why you dont agree.
HHWlife
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 27, 2017, 06:50:44 AM
 #6947

Quote
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).

It may not reward holders but it wouldn't reward those that contributed nothing.

what do you mean it wouldnt reward those that contributed 'nothing.' the fact that ppl believed in the project and actually took risk and bought dvc is not doing nothing. all ppl w/ dvc should be rewarded one way another bc they "contributed" by buying the coin!! hello? they are called passive investors. think community, together, in-this-together, inclusive, teamwork, etc. even as i write this im contributing to the betterment of dvc's future.

weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 27, 2017, 08:52:42 AM
Last edit: July 27, 2017, 09:11:37 AM by weisoq
 #6948

dont just say you dont agree without substantiating. please tell us why you dont agree.
I explained why in previous posts.

Edit: Main change motivation seems to be lower/limited supply and/or deflation. It doesn't therefore seem logical to convert existing supply (particularly a method with perpetual optionality) and expect a changed outcome.

Quote
what do you mean it wouldnt reward those that contributed 'nothing.' the fact that ppl believed in the project and actually took risk and bought dvc is not doing nothing. all ppl w/ dvc should be rewarded one way another bc they "contributed" by buying the coin!! hello? they are called passive investors. think community, together, in-this-together, inclusive, teamwork, etc. even as i write this im contributing to the betterment of dvc's future.
The past is over. Gone. Those that contributed nothing by definition wouldn't be further rewarded because they have no skin in the game.

I did say "It may not reward holders".
develCuy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 415
Merit: 266


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2017, 09:10:32 PM
 #6949

dont just say you dont agree without substantiating. please tell us why you dont agree.
I explained why in previous posts.

Edit: Main change motivation seems to be lower/limited supply and/or deflation. It doesn't therefore seem logical to convert existing supply (particularly a method with perpetual optionality) and expect a changed outcome.

Quote
what do you mean it wouldnt reward those that contributed 'nothing.' the fact that ppl believed in the project and actually took risk and bought dvc is not doing nothing. all ppl w/ dvc should be rewarded one way another bc they "contributed" by buying the coin!! hello? they are called passive investors. think community, together, in-this-together, inclusive, teamwork, etc. even as i write this im contributing to the betterment of dvc's future.
The past is over. Gone. Those that contributed nothing by definition wouldn't be further rewarded because they have no skin in the game.

I did say "It may not reward holders".

Gentlemen, please focus your energies on what is best for Devcoin as a whole.

There is not a perfect solution, not a perfectly fair one, yet all we want is to fix Devcoin and put it back on track.

I would like see more thoughts from the community regarding converting old to new. Also, if we should keep forking Bitcoin or maybe move away into another i.e: STEEM, Ethereum, ...

Thanks a lot for the insights so far! Please keep going!

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

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 28, 2017, 12:48:14 AM
 #6950

I did say "It may not reward holders".

----we should always reward holders 100%. never abandon ppl who initially supported dvc. they spent money on the coin so if they still have them they should be allowed to swap for new coins if that happens.



 "I would like see more thoughts from the community regarding converting old to new. Also, if we should keep forking Bitcoin or maybe move away into another i.e: STEEM, Ethereum, ...
Thanks a lot for the insights so far! Please keep going!"


-----i like either ethereum or waves. not steem. steem founders mindset is 'me me me first." watch some videos on steem being called scam coin (even tho i disagree, steem is all about enriching the founders way too much).
how about ERC20 tokens on waves platform or ethereum blockchain. we can swap dvc coins for new erc20 tokens. this will make everything easier and simpler.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 28, 2017, 11:05:45 AM
 #6951

----we should always reward holders 100%. never abandon ppl who initially supported dvc. they spent money on the coin so if they still have them they should be allowed to swap for new coins if that happens.
100% of what? I don't think there is a fair way way to do it while maintaining apparent aims, but that's what needs defining and justifying.
HHWlife
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 29, 2017, 02:02:14 AM
 #6952

----we should always reward holders 100%. never abandon ppl who initially supported dvc. they spent money on the coin so if they still have them they should be allowed to swap for new coins if that happens.
100% of what? I don't think there is a fair way way to do it while maintaining apparent aims, but that's what needs defining and justifying.

100% support them. not maybe or maybe not support them. thats what i meant. support them 100%
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 29, 2017, 07:18:39 AM
 #6953

100% support them. not maybe or maybe not support them. thats what i meant. support them 100%
Ok. I guess you're presupposing that a new coin deletes the old irrespective of wider opinion? I agree that would be a problem.

The rationale for Devcoin was to 'give money to open source developers for their work in as fair a manner as possible'.

This purpose via associated generation/mechanics never lent itself to passive interests. This is now self-evident, even if it wasn't before. Whether that's due to any or all of distribution errors, naivety, greed, quality, concentration, oversupply etc is debateable.

But on your statement - why should you or I be 100% supported for doing basically nothing for X years beyond waiting and hoping? It particularly doesn't make sense to address apparent oversupply (I don't necessarily agree that's the core problem) by incorporating a supply swap.

That's the only aspect I'm referring to. However I don't actually know your opinion on new-coin, and you may be justifying interests in other changes for other reasons. As do I.
qgmurugan007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 29, 2017, 07:40:00 AM
 #6954

I am surprised not to see a devcoin clone yet, without the devoin legacy  Shocked It will come in due time hopefully.
doremi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 654
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 29, 2017, 09:28:05 AM
 #6955

I am surprised not to see a devcoin clone yet, without the devoin legacy  Shocked It will come in due time hopefully.

this is a failed project due to a reason that most of you don`t know about it,they taxed up to 90% to their miners since begining and may be until now if i remember it right
R-J-F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 310


AKA RJF - Member since '13


View Profile
July 30, 2017, 06:56:43 PM
 #6956

On the subject of who gets what and where the value is held, if a new Devcoin is created I offer this:

It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that.

If I hold a bar of gold, it is still a bar of gold and worth the market price if I choose to use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick, it still has the same value and it is still negotiable. Doesn't matter if new gold "bars" are shaped like spheres with little points, my bar still has the same value, once for ounce, as the new one.

I well understand we are not talking about hard assets but, digital ones. Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.


"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin
Shattienator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 30, 2017, 07:31:41 PM
 #6957

On the subject of who gets what and where the value is held, if a new Devcoin is created I offer this:

It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that.

If I hold a bar of gold, it is still a bar of gold and worth the market price if I choose to use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick, it still has the same value and it is still negotiable. Doesn't matter if new gold "bars" are shaped like spheres with little points, my bar still has the same value, once for ounce, as the new one.

I well understand we are not talking about hard assets but, digital ones. Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.


Cryptocurrency is not a gold bar. It even does not exist - you can not "use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick".
There are enormous number of cryptos with zero value. Look at any exchange - you can see a lot of cryptos for sale for a minimum possible price (NYC at coingather, for example). All these coins have zero value just from the beginning. If you buy nothing why are you waiting that nothing one day will become something?
Devcoin a bit different - the good idea was in place.
But it ended up the same way as all other "coins".
I have some wallets with millions and millions of all kind of these "shitcoins". Long forgotten ones. I wonder if all these "coins being held" should be honored at all. Dead is dead - end of story.
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 30, 2017, 08:12:05 PM
 #6958

It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that ... Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.
Putting that into practice conflicts with assertions that coin supply is the problem. Seems that needs settling first.
Otherwise fair compensation for ~zero value is ~zero.
zrataj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 20
Merit: 10


View Profile
July 31, 2017, 08:47:42 AM
 #6959

Just a quick question. If DVC is so worthless, why build a coin on top of it? Why not make a new (alt)coin? And when the newDVC becomes worthless what then? A newnewDVC?

The biggest problem I see with DVC is the huge supply and that it got abandoned by the devs. It's still one of the oldest and most known coins, it just got abandoned. That said, I see a huge potential in DVC as it is, but with some minor tweaks (supply, code update, ...).

That's just my personal opinion.
R-J-F
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 310


AKA RJF - Member since '13


View Profile
July 31, 2017, 02:28:21 PM
Last edit: July 31, 2017, 02:40:04 PM by R-J-F
 #6960

On the subject of who gets what and where the value is held, if a new Devcoin is created I offer this:

It doesn't matter one single bit WHY someone is holding Devcoin or, how they got it, or what they intend to do with it, they should be fairly compensated for their holdings if a new Devcoin is generated and old one losses value do to that.

If I hold a bar of gold, it is still a bar of gold and worth the market price if I choose to use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick, it still has the same value and it is still negotiable. Doesn't matter if new gold "bars" are shaped like spheres with little points, my bar still has the same value, once for ounce, as the new one.

I well understand we are not talking about hard assets but, digital ones. Still say old coins for new coins, at fair market, possibly with adjusted quantities if needed, but the coins being held must be honored.


Cryptocurrency is not a gold bar. It even does not exist - you can not "use it as a door stop or, place it in a safe deposit box or paint it red and pretend it's brick".
There are enormous number of cryptos with zero value. Look at any exchange - you can see a lot of cryptos for sale for a minimum possible price (NYC at coingather, for example). All these coins have zero value just from the beginning. If you buy nothing why are you waiting that nothing one day will become something?
Devcoin a bit different - the good idea was in place.
But it ended up the same way as all other "coins".
I have some wallets with millions and millions of all kind of these "shitcoins". Long forgotten ones. I wonder if all these "coins being held" should be honored at all. Dead is dead - end of story.


Ah, yea, you repeated what I said, it was an analogy idiot, ever hear of that? So, what's your point? Dead is not permanent in crypto, nothing is truly dead here. I was around for the birth of this coin and I do not want to see it transformed into something it is not. Better check your "wallets", lots of those old projects are being revived.

PS: Thanks for your contributions to the project, really, no sarcasm intended.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 ... 426 »
  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!