[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[Shattienator]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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!

[HHWlife]

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]

----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]

----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]

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]

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

[doremi]

I am surprised not to see a devcoin clone yet, without the devoin legacy  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]

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.

[Shattienator]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[develCuy]

New Devcoin (nDVC) and the Devcoin Renewal Service (DRS)

Thanks everyone for your feedback! We clearly have two options here:

1. Starting anew (airdrop or ICO)
2. Allow to convert old DVC into new DVC (consider old DVC as pre-mined)

Each option has pros and cons, but somebody has to make a decision when there is not general agreement, otherwise we'll never move forward.

My decision is to go for option #2. I know it will take more effort and that some people is holding big amounts of old DVC for doing almost "nothing", but there is an "easy" fix for that: Pump nDVC quite high against old DVC!

Devcoin Renewal Service (DRS) and its Exchange Rate

What is a fair exchange rate for DVC/nDVC? I need help with that! My proposal is 1:1000000 (1 nDVC for every 1,000,000.00 old DVC). Please propose your own exchange rate stating why you consider it fair!

Of course, there should be some boundaries for this, because old DVC will still be generated by old miners. The day nDVC is released, we should also announce the date when DRS will be available and the date when it will shut down, so that no more conversion will be possible.

We have two very important questions here:

1. What is a fair exchange rate for converting DVC to nDVC?
2. For how long should the Devcoin Renewal Service be available? weeks? months? years?

Please give some light to this discussion

[weisoq]

I'd start from what you want Devcoin to be that it isn't now, and mechanics of how, and work backwards. Not vice versa.
The answer to renew vs not (and relative interests of current vs future holders) will become apparent in the process.