[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[markm]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles.

It is not sustainable, as there are only at absolute maximum four thousand shares per round, because each block is one share and a round is four thousand blocks.

Fifty people each getting 80 shares would blow it out, no shares left for admins, programmers, or anything else, every coin would be going toward paying for devtome articles.

So I think what we need to do is figure out what fraction of the entire devcoin shebang devtome should max out at.

Also bear in mind that payouts get more and more "unfair" the closer we come to actually having 4000 shares in one round, UNLESS the number of shares divides evenly into 4000.

If we happen to have 4000 or 2000 shares exactly in a round, each share gets one block's or two blocks' yield of coins.

If we have 3999 shares in a round, one share gets two blocks' yield of coins all the others only get one block's yield.

If we have 39 shares in a round, one share gets eleven blocks' yield of coins, all the others get only ten blocks' yield.

See how the "unfairness" gets less as the number of times the shares for the round divide into 4000 gets larger?

So unless we force each round's total number of shares to divide exactly into 4000, which would arguably offer the "fairest" shares, less shares per round is better than more shares per round.

So for example if the max an author makes used to be 80 shares, we can make the shares much more fair by calling that eight shares and scaling everything else proportionately.

For example instead of 80k words yielding 80 shares, it would yield 8, and instead of 10k words yielding ten shares it would yield one.

If everything were scaled that way, the number of actual coins each share actually received each round would not change, except for any "unfairness" caused by the number of shares not dividing exactly into four thousand would be less, so those who had been short some before would be short less as compared to those who happened to be the lucky lines of the receivers file that got used (sent coins) one more time than other lines did. It would simply decrease the actual size in coins of that "unfairness factor".

If authors are to get (up to) 80 shares each, we have to have less than 50 authors, since 80 multiplied by 50 is four thousand. To have fifty authors all writing as much as they can earn for would consume every coin every round. That just is not practical.

All of this is devcoin concerns though not devtome concerns. Devtome can still give authors 80 shares OF WHAT DEVTOME GETS each round, no problem with that. But devcoin needs to have some limit on how many receiver lines in the receiver files devtome itself in total can get...

Then devtome can have scripts of its own to divvy up its devcoins among its authors however it wants to.

EDIT: For example maybe it would make sense to say that devtome as a whole will get a maximum of eighty shares a round, if it manages to get authors to write 80k or more words, less if the total words it manages to get authors to write is less; then have devtome take care of dividing up the coins it gets in a given round among its authors. Even giving such a huge amount (80) of shares to one project (devtome) would still be way out of scale with every other project though.

-MarkM-

[1713915264]

1713915264

[1713915264]

1713915264

[1713915264]

1713915264

[1713915264]

1713915264

[FinShaggy]

But "naturally" means at least some of the people need to develop ideas with at least some of the money they earn from Devtome.

Business is a natural part of any economy.

And I do think that is happening already.  People are putting up online stores and coming up with other interesting business ideas and taking steps to bring those ideas to reality, and they're using their Devtome earnings to do so.

Even if in the beginning your mentality was to just get paid and not worry about the well being of Devcoins, well, after you get paid for a few rounds, you start to think, gee, it would sure be nice if this cash cow could last forever.  And you notice that what you can get for your DVC on the exchange isn't getting any better.  Then you start to think about what would need to be done to add value to this coin.  Then you start to think about what you might be able to do to help out...

I agree, most people can take a while to come around. I am just trying to push them into the realization a little faster.

And it IS happening already (Perfect Example is Smeagol's store, I am happy to come back to that) but I just wish there was more of it happening, and more open planning so that people can come up with their own ideas when they hear some good ideas.

[FinShaggy]

Mail time, Mail time MAIL TIME!!!!

[weisoq]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles ...

This. Mark summarised the issues quite well on the devtome specific thread. Nothing really needs to change with devtome except that a 'devtome share' refers to a subshare of the devtome allocation of the total dvc per month - i.e. devtome itself is assessed as one project of many - which in fact is true - and as a project has a capped allocation of total.

Again, broadly as mark explained, if another comprehensive project requiring coders, servers, development, expertise, time etc is allocated say a max of 12 shares per month, then maybe that should in turn be the max for devtome and all other devcoin projects (those relative sums could also be adjusted to percentages of total for ease of allocation). So a 'share' would be share of those 12 and not of the total (I just used the number 12 because it was in the original example, but I think it might actually be about right as an indication of how skewed devcoin is towards devtome vs all/any other projects).

Those who view this as unfair to new writers seem to be missing the point that 1) if you, as someone interested in devtome aren't buying dvc because of devtome then who is? 2) there's likely to be less selling pressure so perhaps the price would rise.

[FinShaggy]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles ...

This. Mark summarised the issues quite well on the devtome specific thread. Nothing really needs to change with devtome except that a 'devtome share' refers to a subshare of the devtome allocation of the total dvc per month - i.e. devtome itself is assessed as one project of many - which in fact is true - and as a project has a capped allocation of total.

Again, broadly as mark explained, if another comprehensive project requiring coders, servers, development, expertise, time etc is allocated say a max of 12 shares per month, then maybe that should in turn be the max for devtome and all other devcoin projects (those relative sums could also be adjusted to percentages of total for ease of allocation). So a 'share' would be share of those 12 and not of the total (I just used the number 12 because it was in the original example, but I think it might actually be about right as an indication of how skewed devcoin is towards devtome vs all/any other projects).

Those who view this as unfair to new writers seem to be missing the point that 1) if you, as someone interested in devtome aren't buying dvc because of devtome then who is? 2) there's likely to be less selling pressure so perhaps the price would rise.

I think lowering the cap is a better idea than equally funding projects that don't work as hard for the good of Devcoin.

Devtome, at the very least, draws Google traffic and Bitcointalkers. How many new coders do we get a month from the coding projects? And how many new things do they add to Devcoin/Devtome?

[sidhujag]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles ...

This. Mark summarised the issues quite well on the devtome specific thread. Nothing really needs to change with devtome except that a 'devtome share' refers to a subshare of the devtome allocation of the total dvc per month - i.e. devtome itself is assessed as one project of many - which in fact is true - and as a project has a capped allocation of total.

Again, broadly as mark explained, if another comprehensive project requiring coders, servers, development, expertise, time etc is allocated say a max of 12 shares per month, then maybe that should in turn be the max for devtome and all other devcoin projects (those relative sums could also be adjusted to percentages of total for ease of allocation). So a 'share' would be share of those 12 and not of the total (I just used the number 12 because it was in the original example, but I think it might actually be about right as an indication of how skewed devcoin is towards devtome vs all/any other projects).

Those who view this as unfair to new writers seem to be missing the point that 1) if you, as someone interested in devtome aren't buying dvc because of devtome then who is? 2) there's likely to be less selling pressure so perhaps the price would rise.

Yup hence why I said there has to be more incentive to hold/buy coins rather than write a crapload and dump. By reducing share for writing you are essentially making the coin more precious to those who write because they work harder to get the same coins, so maybe they will start thinking twice before dumping them all.

[FinShaggy]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles ...

This. Mark summarised the issues quite well on the devtome specific thread. Nothing really needs to change with devtome except that a 'devtome share' refers to a subshare of the devtome allocation of the total dvc per month - i.e. devtome itself is assessed as one project of many - which in fact is true - and as a project has a capped allocation of total.

Again, broadly as mark explained, if another comprehensive project requiring coders, servers, development, expertise, time etc is allocated say a max of 12 shares per month, then maybe that should in turn be the max for devtome and all other devcoin projects (those relative sums could also be adjusted to percentages of total for ease of allocation). So a 'share' would be share of those 12 and not of the total (I just used the number 12 because it was in the original example, but I think it might actually be about right as an indication of how skewed devcoin is towards devtome vs all/any other projects).

Those who view this as unfair to new writers seem to be missing the point that 1) if you, as someone interested in devtome aren't buying dvc because of devtome then who is? 2) there's likely to be less selling pressure so perhaps the price would rise.

Yup hence why I said there has to be more incentive to hold/buy coins rather than write a crapload and dump. By reducing share for writing you are essentially making the coin more precious to those who write because they work harder to get the same coins, so maybe they will start thinking twice before dumping them all.

HOLDING COINS DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE VALUABLE
You are going to kill Devcoin slowly, like cigarettes. "Oh, it's fine. It's fine. It helps me cope with stress." BAM- Cancer.

[sidhujag]

It is not really devtome by itself per se that has a problem, it is the whole devcoin thing that is suffering from such insanely high amounts of shares being offered for devtome articles ...

This. Mark summarised the issues quite well on the devtome specific thread. Nothing really needs to change with devtome except that a 'devtome share' refers to a subshare of the devtome allocation of the total dvc per month - i.e. devtome itself is assessed as one project of many - which in fact is true - and as a project has a capped allocation of total.

Again, broadly as mark explained, if another comprehensive project requiring coders, servers, development, expertise, time etc is allocated say a max of 12 shares per month, then maybe that should in turn be the max for devtome and all other devcoin projects (those relative sums could also be adjusted to percentages of total for ease of allocation). So a 'share' would be share of those 12 and not of the total (I just used the number 12 because it was in the original example, but I think it might actually be about right as an indication of how skewed devcoin is towards devtome vs all/any other projects).

Those who view this as unfair to new writers seem to be missing the point that 1) if you, as someone interested in devtome aren't buying dvc because of devtome then who is? 2) there's likely to be less selling pressure so perhaps the price would rise.

Yup hence why I said there has to be more incentive to hold/buy coins rather than write a crapload and dump. By reducing share for writing you are essentially making the coin more precious to those who write because they work harder to get the same coins, so maybe they will start thinking twice before dumping them all.

HOLDING COINS DOES NOT MAKE THEM MORE VALUABLE
You are going to kill Devcoin slowly, like cigarettes.

At this point it will make them more valuable... as there will be less selling pressure... there are already people buying using cash because of the low value... but it is offset with the constant selling every round. Maybe in the long run when a marketplace pops up then yes you don't want to hold you want velocity of money but as of now holding better than selling.

[FinShaggy]

At this point it will make them more valuable... as there will be less selling pressure... there are already people buying using cash because of the low value... but it is offset with the constant selling every round. Maybe in the long run when a marketplace pops up then yes you don't want to hold you want velocity of money but as of now holding better than selling.

Ok, but you are acting like "the Market" is where Devcoin belongs. And you are acting like for some reason, if we all hold coins, someone is going to buy all the cheap coins (BUT NONE OF US WILL BE MAKING MONEY, SO WHO THE FUCK BUYS THEM AND WHY?) :

1. It can't really be considered DEV (Development) coin, it's just another alt-coin if we stomp on development and ask people not to use their coins to build other programs.

2. Won't ever get anywhere, and eventually new people will stop coming. The INFINITE NUMBER OF COINS will continue to be produced, and your wallets will become worthless, and you will get blamed (since a small number of people are holding all the coins) for being the only ones profiting at the tops of the pyramid (and that's only if the coin doesn't die quickly), even though you won't really be making anything. You'll just be cashing out like Enron.

[FinShaggy]

Think about this like the "Trickle Down Effect". Don't be the guys at the top holding everything, and sending your piss down.


You have to stimulate the economy. You have to pay the people under you (which right now is mainly writers), and you have to allow them to be capitalists as well. You can't call something "The Ethical Coin" and "Development coin" and tell people that they need to be hoarders to be a part of it, and they need to not sell coins to try to start their own business, because it might hurt the price of the coin... If the price goes down... BUY SOME COINS. Duh.

[sidhujag]

At this point it will make them more valuable... as there will be less selling pressure... there are already people buying using cash because of the low value... but it is offset with the constant selling every round. Maybe in the long run when a marketplace pops up then yes you don't want to hold you want velocity of money but as of now holding better than selling.

Ok, but you are acting like "the Market" is where Devcoin belongs. And you are acting like for some reason, if we all hold coins, someone is going to buy all the cheap coins (BUT NONE OF US WILL BE MAKING MONEY, SO WHO THE FUCK BUYS THEM AND WHY?) :

1. It can't really be considered DEV (Development) coin, it's just another alt-coin if we stomp on development and ask people not to use their coins to build other programs.

2. Won't ever get anywhere, and eventually new people will stop coming. The INFINITE NUMBER OF COINS will continue to be produced, and your wallets will become worthless, and you will get blamed (since a small number of people are holding all the coins) for being the only ones profiting at the tops of the pyramid (and that's only if the coin doesn't die quickly), even though you won't really be making anything. You'll just be cashing out like Enron.

Do YOU know what incentive means? Apply it in context and don't think that you are forced to hold your coins.. by applying incentive you are nudging people to hold which means for now you want people to stop putting selling pressure. So you're saying that majority of the dumpers are going back to cash to support the community somehow? give me a break! There are people like I said who see that the value is very low and are putting cash into dvc to acquire and hold... now that if price begins to rise we all benefit. As the cap increases the community can start to work on the bigger projects it needs to really start the ball rolling and its more of liek an exponential effect. There will be not development if you don't give the right incentive and at this time that is to hold, ofcourse they are not obliged to hold they can cash out (especially for those that are going back to cash so they can support the project future LOL only a select few doing that im sure).

There is a speculative market in cryptocurrencies you know? Which is the major driver for every crypto out there today. Not sure how you missed that. The amount of coins matters but its weighted with the price that is so low and oversold.

Might hurt the price of the coin haha have you looked at the chart? Which hurts more the dumping of writers which looks like the trickling effect you are talking about? or say a new rule that will try to fix the situation. Either way aren't we like 38 satoishi's above 0 which is like the lowest it can go anyway???

[FinShaggy]

Do YOU know what incentive means?

Do YOU know what incentive means? We need a place to buy SILVER for DVC, we need a place to buy COMPUTERS for DVC, we need a place to buy GAMES with DVC, we need a place to buy BOOKS with DVC.

If we had these things (and they will only be made by people making a good amount of shares, selling coins to gain capital) DVC would THRIVE.

Imagine if we could say:

Come write for Devtome, (and instead of saying: You can sell the coins for BTC or hold them and HOPE) write to earn Devcoins, which can be exchanged for:
Amazon Gift Cards
Books
Silver
Video Games
Computer Parts
Computers

PEOPLE WOULDN'T DUMP ANY MORE

[FinShaggy]

These stores do not and can not get started by people who are not selling coins. (unless they already have money)

[sidhujag]

Do YOU know what incentive means?

Do YOU know what incentive means? We need a place to buy SILVER for DVC, we need a place to buy COMPUTERS for DVC, we need a place to buy GAMES with DVC, we need a place to buy BOOKS with DVC.

If we had these things (and they will only be made by people making a good amount of shares, selling coins to gain capital) DVC would THRIVE.

Imagine if we could say:

Come write for Devtome, (and instead of saying: You can sell the coins for BTC or hold them and HOPE) write to earn Devcoins, which can be exchanged for:
Amazon Gift Cards
Books
Silver
Video Games
Computer Parts
Computers

PEOPLE WOULDN'T DUMP ANY MORE

Ofcourse they wold not dump but how are these things coming into to existance? Surely through the bounty program? Isn't that tied to the CAP which seems to dwindle because of the writers selling off? You're probably one of few who are selling devcoin to try to save up to do some kind of supporting venture for devcoin itself... don't count yourself in the batch of average crypto users who need to see a reason to create such ventures with their own money. By offering a bounty that is what gets these thigns done. Its a cycle that you don't see. Maybe I can't explain it to you someone else should try to get through to you.

[markm]

2. Won't ever get anywhere, and eventually new people will stop coming. The INFINITE NUMBER OF COINS will continue to be produced, and your wallets will become worthless, and you will get blamed (since a small number of people are holding all the coins) for being the only ones profiting at the tops of the pyramid (and that's only if the coin doesn't die quickly), even though you won't really be making anything. You'll just be cashing out like Enron.

If the largest number of people - the authors (who also are the richest, the massively higher earning upper class) - dump their coins, then of course there will be only a (relatively) small number of people holding the coins.

By dumping your coins, that is, by not holding coins, you are decreasing the number of people holding coins.

So it is the fault of the dumpers - the people who do not hold their coins - that there are only a few people holding coins; it is not the fault of the few who do actually hold the few that they get.

Remember the authors get massively, insanely more coins than anyone else. They are the fat cats, the rich, the people raking in massive, insanely massive, paycheques.

The entire bitcoin development team makes like maybe 1/20th as much between the lot of them as one author who dumps 80k of his childhood writings or collates 240k of wikipedia articles into articles for devtome.

Similarly for the entire Open Transactions team.

So you, one of the stinking-rich, are the rich pig who is screwing all the small folk by dumping your rubles for imperialist capitalist bernankenpaper fiat!

-MarkM-

[FinShaggy]

Ofcourse they wold not dump but how are these things coming into to existance? Surely through the bounty program?

NO. I am starting the Book store AND the Silver store.

And I am someone who writes a lot, and in the past (one round I wrote in EVER) I sold my coins.

And I will need to sell more this round if I plan on starting a silver and book store.

[FinShaggy]

So it is the fault of the dumpers - the people who do not hold their coins - that there are only a few people holding coins; it is not the fault of the few who do actually hold the few that they get.

I am not blaming you of anything. I am simply stating that if you FORCE people to hold coins, then that small group of holders will REMAIN the only people with coins, because NO ONE WILL JOIN.

Then Devcoin will DIE.

[markm]

These stores do not and can not get started by people who are not selling coins. (unless they already have money)

Bullshit, you can start as a mail-order type of store, placing free ads on Kijiji, Craig's list, maybe even e-bay on days when they have make a free auction promotions. You don't need to rent a storefront aka website etc until you are making enough sales to justify such expenses.

When someone sends you money for something, you buy that something at your supplier of that something and ship it to them, or have your supplier ship it to them (which is known as drop-shipping.)

-MarkM-

[FinShaggy]

I simply stated that you WOULD get blamed for being a form of elite, as you were forced to sell out, and everyone else got shares that were no longer worth anything.

This is not a NOW thing, this is a "if".

[sidhujag]

So it is the fault of the dumpers - the people who do not hold their coins - that there are only a few people holding coins; it is not the fault of the few who do actually hold the few that they get.

I am not blaming you of anything. I am simply stating that if you FORCE people to hold coins, then that small group of holders will REMAIN the only people with coins, because NO ONE WILL JOIN.

Then Devcoin will DIE.

U still don't understand what incentive is lol try to google it. noone said anythign about force.