[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[markm]

Another thing I start wondering:

I have seen that the devcoin wallet looks different than most other coin wallets, because the creator of the devcoin wallet deliberately ommited the usage of the QT library, because it is proprietary.
Well, atleast that's my reasoning why the wallet looks the way it does, or am I just paranoid?

Now let's analyze how incredibly self sabotaging this would be if I was to create free music without using any proprietary  piece of hardware or software.  

Because then I can surrender and abandon my ambition for creating free music for devcoin-network immediately.

Are my fears justified?  

The music I create will be free, because I decide so. But the means to create my music are certainly not free. (over the years I spend a few thousand dollars on music software alone, how much money I put in music hardware and instruments I will not tell you because you would cry.)

That is what we are trying to save other people from having to go through!

Yes, back in the dark ages before music software was free and open source, when music hardware was not free open source hardware you could print yourself using your home 3-D printer, and instruments were not free open source software or free open source instructions for free open source 3-D printers to print, you suffered horrible expense.

No one should have to go through that! This project is all about trying to ensure future generations will not have to go through that!

-MarkM-

[1713295772]

1713295772

[1713295772]

1713295772

[georgem]

For writing, think about fonts.

We do not care what font is used at display time to display an article, we are free to use any font we choose to use.

Oh I absolutely care. There are classical pieces that sound divine when played with a harpsichord, but sound terribly inappropriate when played with a piano.  

To get a free open source Mona Lisa we would need to discover what brushes and paints were used, how, and in what sequence, to produce that painting.

We would then be free to see what the Mona Lisa would have looked like if it were performed using different brushes, different paints, different sequences.

You assume that every creation process is quantizable into things like strokes, movements, pressure points, whatever... this sure is true for code or text.

But much like some music instruments can't be controlled and reproduced by MIDI, many artforms have myriads of such miniscule subprocesses (the artist is often not even aware of) that you would need hypothetical scifi devices to be able to "catch" what happens during the creation process. (Earlier I heard you mention star trek replicators replicating a violin. I don't think wishful thinking about future developments will help us make good decisions about devcoins present.)

[markm]

if I create free music, it means I provide the sample materials (WAV files), the midi files, and descriptions about the devices (hardware, software) I used to create that specific sound.
How I distributed the sound on say 8 channels, and what panning, eq and dynamics I used in the mixing. Now THAT does make sense and can be considered open source.

But how do I describe the 10'000 hours I spend training my skills to be able to create the music in the first place?

If "open source" means a person can learn how to reproduce my work, doesn't this mean that he has to learn how to be a professional musician first?
So there is a line that can't be crossed. Open source with music means I explain every step I did, but how do I transmit an explanation for how I moved my vocal chords to create the sound?

Please watch Star Trek: the new generation enough to observe at least one episode in which someone says "computer, some musicians, please" and presto, the computer creates some professional musicians. Maybe even simulations/emulations of specific musicians.

That is where we are aiming.

We ultimately want/need to be able to say "computer, show me Sinatra singing that. Hmm no, start over but lets try having Madonna sing it. Hmm, better, okay give me Blondie singing it..." and so on.

-MarkM-

[georgem]

Please watch Star Trek...

I watch star trek all the time.

I like scifi, but don't let it influence my judgment when it comes to science, especially physics.

 

[markm]

@georgem: No site exists like devtome for music, so nobody has earned DVC from it.    There are not enough admins for a music site.

It's not just that. For art and music in particular, free is not the same as open-source or at least the scale of licensing matters a lot. Open-source means being relinquishing the 'source'. Markm wrote about this in the past, that such forms might amount to the core or stepped design process as well as the finished article. So yes that requires people and expertise, but is also requires artists being willing to release the model, layers, components - source. To be able to broadly utilise open-source people have to be ablt to tweak it, change it, adjust it without necessarily going back to the originator. You can't do that with a complied or locked finality without having all the constituent bits that make up the ends.

Yes ok, but wait a minute. If I were to be a voice artist, willing to create copyright free (creative commons) voice samples , does open source in the broader sense mean that I have to give the world access to my vocal chords, so they can tweak my voice the way they like?

At what point does this argument sound completely ridiculous?

I think a devtome for musicians would have to be about free music, meaning the artist has agreed to give the music away for free (well not really, he hopes to earn some DVC) and if available free transcriptions of the notes played (if composition, etc) but open source is not really valid at all with an artform like music, because the musician himself is the source, and he is not going to be able to share his body and spirit not even if he wanted to.

So maybe we shouldn't be so fixed on this definition of open source, because some artforms will simply not work with that definition anyway.

We would need a voice, and instructions about what it should say or do.

If your voice sounds different from some other voice, we ought at least have some generic modifiable voices or categories of voice, so we can categorise your voice as being either a voice of a certain category or a voice such as one might get using a certain set of filters/modifiers as input to a voice simulator.

Basically if voice synthesisers cannot yet produce a voice such as yours they need improving, and we want the open source version of such a voice-synthesiser.

We do not want a recording of you singing the song with your closed source human voice, we want the instructions as to how a voice is to be used to sing the song, maybe with some hints as to what kind of voice might perform it best for what kind of audience. (Maybe some audiences would prefer to hear it in a gruff voice, others in a soprano voice, others in a male voice, others in a female voice, others in a unisex or robotic voice and so on and so on.)

We want source code for how to go about singing such a song.

-MarkM-

[KeyserSozeMC]

Hello. If you'd like me to promote DEV coin feel free to PM me.

This is my twitter account where I do giveaways each day: https://twitter.com/ThisWeeksCoin

The more followers I get, the better. If I see there's a interest about DEV coin I'll start promoting it ASAP.

[georgem]

The music I create will be free, because I decide so. But the means to create my music are certainly not free. (over the years I spend a few thousand dollars on music software alone, how much money I put in music hardware and instruments I will not tell you because you would cry.)

That is what we are trying to save other people from having to go through!

Yes, back in the dark ages before music software was free and open source, when music hardware was not free open source hardware you could print yourself using your home 3-D printer, and instruments were not free open source software or free open source instructions for free open source 3-D printers to print, you suffered horrible expense.

No one should have to go through that! This project is all about trying to ensure future generations will not have to go through that!

-MarkM-

Maybe you misread me. I don't regret one penny I invested in musical hardware and instruments. My older instrument I even consider a valuable asset. I enjoy it every time I sit in front of it.
I was just saying that some people might find what I invested a really big amount of money. Amounts they normally associate with the purchase of a new car, etc...

There are old instruments, hundreds of years old. You surely heard of the stradivari violin. I for one like harpsichords, and any harpsichord fan will tell you that only the real thing has that special sound.

No reproduction whatsoever comes even near to a real harpsichord. (I know I have tested every single harpsichord simulation that came out in the last 15 years)

So please forgive me, but I have to chuckle when I hear you propose 3-D printers (that don't even exist yet aside from very basic prototypes) that will recreate whole instruments. Oh and how much will a hypothetical 3-D printer cost, that can here and now recreate a musical instrument will all it's nuances? Wait, they don't exist yet. I see...  

I try to live in the here and now (what you call "dark ages"), and won't let dreams about a hypothetical future cloud my judgment.

Sorry, but you start to sound like those guys from the zeitgeist movement.

[georgem]

We would need a voice, and instructions about what it should say or do.

If your voice sounds different from some other voice, we ought at least have some generic modifiable voices or categories of voice, so we can categorise your voice as being either a voice of a certain category or a voice such as one might get using a certain set of filters/modifiers as input to a voice simulator.

Basically if voice synthesisers cannot yet produce a voice such as yours they need improving, and we want the open source version of such a voice-synthesiser.

We do not want a recording of you singing the song with your closed source human voice, we want the instructions as to how a voice is to be used to sing the song, maybe with some hints as to what kind of voice might perform it best for what kind of audience. (Maybe some audiences would prefer to hear it in a gruff voice, others in a soproano voice, others in a male voice, others in a femail voice, others in a unisex or roboti voice and so on and so on.)

We want source code for how to go about singing such a song.

-MarkM-

I wonder do you want any participation of real artists in the devcoin project?

You just said you would prefer an open source voice synthesizer instead of those closed source singers.  

I installed some of the open source voice synthesizers some months ago on a linux server.... they all sound horribly unrealistic, but I'll admit that they are hilarious and nonetheless funny to play with. lol

I hope your opinion is not representative of the devcoin community?

[markm]

if I create free music, it means I provide the sample materials (WAV files), the midi files, and descriptions about the devices (hardware, software) I used to create that specific sound.
How I distributed the sound on say 8 channels, and what panning, eq and dynamics I used in the mixing. Now THAT does make sense and can be considered open source.

But how do I describe the 10'000 hours I spend training my skills to be able to create the music in the first place?

If "open source" means a person can learn how to reproduce my work, doesn't this mean that he has to learn how to be a professional musician first?
So there is a line that can't be crossed. Open source with music means I explain every step I did, but how do I transmit an explanation for how I moved my vocal chords to create the sound?

Please watch Star Trek: the new generation enough to observe at least one episode in which someone says "computer, some musicians, please" and presto, the computer creates some professional musicians. Maybe even simulations/emulations of specific musicians.

That is where we are aiming.

We ultimately want/need to be able to say "computer, show me Sinatra singing that. Hmm no, start over but lets try having Madonna sing it. Hmm, better, okay give me Blondie singing it..." and so on.

-MarkM-

[markm]

@georgem: No site exists like devtome for music, so nobody has earned DVC from it.    There are not enough admins for a music site.

It's not just that. For art and music in particular, free is not the same as open-source or at least the scale of licensing matters a lot. Open-source means being relinquishing the 'source'. Markm wrote about this in the past, that such forms might amount to the core or stepped design process as well as the finished article. So yes that requires people and expertise, but is also requires artists being willing to release the model, layers, components - source. To be able to broadly utilise open-source people have to be ablt to tweak it, change it, adjust it without necessarily going back to the originator. You can't do that with a complied or locked finality without having all the constituent bits that make up the ends.

Yes ok, but wait a minute. If I were to be a voice artist, willing to create copyright free (creative commons) voice samples , does open source in the broader sense mean that I have to give the world access to my vocal chords, so they can tweak my voice the way they like?

At what point does this argument sound completely ridiculous?

I think a devtome for musicians would have to be about free music, meaning the artist has agreed to give the music away for free (well not really, he hopes to earn some DVC) and if available free transcriptions of the notes played (if composition, etc) but open source is not really valid at all with an artform like music, because the musician himself is the source, and he is not going to be able to share his body and spirit not even if he wanted to.

So maybe we shouldn't be so fixed on this definition of open source, because some artforms will simply not work with that definition anyway.

Most artforms that will not work that way are basically one-frame or one possible sequence of execution things, very often deliberately cheating us out of having access to the source because our current society forces people to have to come up with make-work programmes to ensure their future access to "replicator rations" both in the sense of access to food clothing and shelter and in the sense of breeding-rights, the ability to and/or permission to breed.

Basically artists keep trying to hold back the actual how it is or was done to try to force people to have to come back to them all the time. They try to conceal the actual source code - the actual how such things are done or were done. In other words they try to hold back the source code and/or the source data.

Just like in the case of text we want the actual sequence of heiroglyphs, letters, or punctuation rather than a scan (partly because a scan has extraneous information in the form of what font the copy that was scanned happened to be using), for everything in general we want the what to use in what manner and sequence.

Individual paintings are merely examples of the output of a painter.

We want painters, so we can then re-create any of the paintings that particular painting-object or that particular painting-program has painted or could paint.

The source: the that which it takes to produce the sample output and which can also produce oodles more stuff simply by tweaking it, adjusting it, having it do its routines in a different order or with different brushes and so on.

One single static image is just like a scan of an article printed in a particular font.

We should be wanting the actual "content" of the article, so we can then tweak for ourselves which font we'd like to see it in, and we can correct any spelling errors if we choose, or introduce spelling errors that we happen to like such as changing English spelling to American spelling or vice-versa.

We want the equivalent of a wiki-for-music, that is a site where anyone can edit any piece of music, any of the instruments used to play it and so on, not just some historical snapshot of what one of the many many many permutations of the components of that piece happened to look like between some edit/change and some other edit/change.

A composer site maybe and a paint site, along with models of all kinds of objects so one can tell it "okay now put in Einstein leaning over the piano... no, give him a bow tie like Doctor Who's bow tie... okay now lets have Marilyn Monroe leaning seductively over him but with her hand in the piano player's pocket... good, good, now make the piano player be Chopin... nice, nice, now lets put Mozart in the audience..." and so on....

-MarkM-

[smeagol]

I hope your opinion is not representative of the devcoin community?

markm was one of the original developers of devcoin, I believe, so his opinion carries a lot of weight.

The means to create the music should be open to everyone is what it means to be open source.

[Unthinkingbit]

Worldinacoin has given up on signing up new writers. I want Dinkleberg to be an admin, and he chose signing up new writers, so he will handle new writers whose name starts with P-Z.

If any new writer sent a message to Worldinacoin and didn't get a reply, please contact Dinkleberg.

[georgem]

I hope your opinion is not representative of the devcoin community?

markm was one of the original developers of devcoin, I believe, so his opinion carries a lot of weight.

The means to create the music should be open to everyone is what it means to be open source.

I don't question his programming skills.

But much like I can't advice him on how to create a cryptocoin, he shouldn't advice musicians how to create music.

Then the only advice I strongly want to give to the admins is that devcoin should remove its current advertizing slogans.

Devcoin does NOT desire to help artists create stuff and get payed for their work .
Instead (after this discussion) I conclude that the goal of devcoin is to create artificial substitutions for every human artform that exists, subsequently rendering those same artists obsolete by aiming to create algorithms and technics that will supposedly imitate every aspect of art so well that the illusion of human art will emerge without the need for a real human artist.

You gotta be kidding me.  

Please, this all must be a misunderstanding, right?

[giftculturewriting]

@georgem: No site exists like devtome for music, so nobody has earned DVC from it.    There are not enough admins for a music site.

It's not just that. For art and music in particular, free is not the same as open-source or at least the scale of licensing matters a lot. Open-source means being relinquishing the 'source'. Markm wrote about this in the past, that such forms might amount to the core or stepped design process as well as the finished article. So yes that requires people and expertise, but is also requires artists being willing to release the model, layers, components - source. To be able to broadly utilise open-source people have to be ablt to tweak it, change it, adjust it without necessarily going back to the originator. You can't do that with a complied or locked finality without having all the constituent bits that make up the ends.

Yes ok, but wait a minute. If I were to be a voice artist, willing to create copyright free (creative commons) voice samples , does open source in the broader sense mean that I have to give the world access to my vocal chords, so they can tweak my voice the way they like?

At what point does this argument sound completely ridiculous?

I think a devtome for musicians would have to be about free music, meaning the artist has agreed to give the music away for free (well not really, he hopes to earn some DVC) and if available free transcriptions of the notes played (if composition, etc) but open source is not really valid at all with an artform like music, because the musician himself is the source, and he is not going to be able to share his body and spirit not even if he wanted to.

So maybe we shouldn't be so fixed on this definition of open source, because some artforms will simply not work with that definition anyway.

We would need a voice, and instructions about what it should say or do.

If your voice sounds different from some other voice, we ought at least have some generic modifiable voices or categories of voice, so we can categorise your voice as being either a voice of a certain category or a voice such as one might get using a certain set of filters/modifiers as input to a voice simulator.

Basically if voice synthesisers cannot yet produce a voice such as yours they need improving, and we want the open source version of such a voice-synthesiser.

We do not want a recording of you singing the song with your closed source human voice, we want the instructions as to how a voice is to be used to sing the song, maybe with some hints as to what kind of voice might perform it best for what kind of audience. (Maybe some audiences would prefer to hear it in a gruff voice, others in a soproano voice, others in a male voice, others in a femail voice, others in a unisex or roboti voice and so on and so on.)

We want source code for how to go about singing such a song.

-MarkM-

I'm kind of confused by why this project would exclude a musical equivalent of Devtome. The equivalent of what you're describing for writing would be an AI that can output readable and uniquely stylistic prose, but that's not what Devtome asks for. It relies on human generated content and the ability to share and remix that content. How are people going to crawl into my closed source brain to see how I think of topics, conceptualize storylines, and string sentences together? Would there be a category that said, "I want a low-sci-fi voice tagged first-person and dark humor vs an academic voice tagged archaic english lexicon?" (Definitely an interesting concept that I wouldn't have thought of without this discussion). It seems more practical to put the writing up, and also put explain the writing process if there's enough interest for it.

I think the CC BY-SA license and opensource are highly compatible concepts, but they're not strictly the same thing. There might be a demand for open-source voice synthesizers and that is a very different project than human generated content that is not locked away by copyright. Both are valid, and the degree of their implementation will depend on the demand.

[smeagol]

Here are some bounty updates:

...
Hypersire, you are now a web admin, and get paid accordingly as long as you maintain the web site:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin#administration

In a few weeks, after you've incorporated what people generally want, please post that the web site is complete, and you'll get the final 36 share payment.

Once the website is complete, Hypersire will get 36 shares.

For anyone with Windows, please test this installer, the first informative post (at least 50 words) gets 2 shares, and the second 1 share. Once someone posts that they used the installer successfully, Shakezula will get the bounty.

Today we can afford more, so I suggest the bounty be boosted to 12 shares, also Shakezula would get 1 share ongoing as long as he maintains the installer upon future releases and fixes any problems that come up. Any objections, or should something be changed?

There is a 1 share bounty left for informative posts > 50 words (please correct me if I'm wrong).  Shakezula will get the 12 shares if there is no objection to it.

Thanks for the chart! You get the 18 share award, the remaining award is 9 shares. The round 31 bounties are at:
https://raw.github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/master/bounty_31.csv

A 9 share award is still available for another chart.

Thanks for your post about Open Transactions, you get 4 shares, the next informative poster will get 3 shares.

For a post >50 words about OT, a three share bounty is available.

Tagbond: 9 shares for devcoin integration
Sidhujag: 6 shares for working with Mark to get devcoin onto tag bonds exchange
EEh: 3 for tagbond site http://devcoin.tagbond.com/

@sidhujag, is mark the markm, or some other Mark?

If there are no objections this will be the final share division.

You will get 2/5 of a share as long as you maintain the node.

You can still get 2/5 share for being a seed node.

I agree that it would be great to place a spread of orders. If someone finds an API call that does this, or finds a bot that already can do this I suggest 4 shares. If it turns out you need to modify or develop a bot to do this, 24 shares for coding. Any objections, or should something be changed?

A new bounty from today.  If there are no objections, it will go into effect in four days.

I would like someone, besides the programmer who created the new devcoin, to go through all the code changes to create the new devcoin and compare it to the documentation at:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin#technical

and point out if the documentation or new devcoin client is missing anything. I suggest 8 shares for the first programmer to go through that and make a report, and 4 for the second. It would have to be someone who has already received a coding bounty or is on the bitcoin share list or devcoin share list.

Another new bounty.  It is only open to people who have received a coding bounty.  If you have received a bounty for web development, your eligibility may be negotiable.

Y not create more bounties the new wallet needs testing? Any immediate work? The new pr work im doing is going to be good shit I suggest it be worth more than 12 shares its going
to wider audience and I will adhere to higher standards ( up to quality admins to judge before release)

I would like to propose a bounty for qt images and new icons.  8 shares for the images and icons used in the qt, 4 shares for the second best set of icons.

Any objections, or should anything be changed??

A third new bounty.  It will go into effect in four days if there are no objections.

...1/5 of a share [award remains].

A bounty still remains for a button similar to the "bitcoin accepted here" button

Well, if anyone can suggest a bounty then I will to!

I propose a 12 share bounty for a devcoin exchange and marketplace, sort of like bitmit except you can deposit bitcoin or litecoin and trade them for devcoin.

I agree, if there's no objections in four days this will go into force. I think it's going to be a bit harder than a 12 share bounty, so I suggest 18 shares, then 9 for the second one.

Finally, a bounty still remains for a marketplace.

[giftculturewriting]

I hope your opinion is not representative of the devcoin community?

markm was one of the original developers of devcoin, I believe, so his opinion carries a lot of weight.

The means to create the music should be open to everyone is what it means to be open source.

I don't question his programming skills.

But much like I can't advice him on how to create a cryptocoin, he shouldn't advice musicians how to create music.

Then the only advice I strongly want to give to the admins is that devcoin should remove its current advertizing slogans.

Devcoin does NOT desire to help artists create stuff and get payed for their work .
Instead (after this discussion) I conclude that the goal of devcoin is to create artificial substitutions for every human artform that exists, subsequently rendering those same artists obsolete by aiming to create algorithms and technics that will supposedly imitate every aspect of art so well that the illusion of human art will emerge without the need for a real human artist.

You gotta be kidding me.  

Please, this all must be a misunderstanding, right?

Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but this discussion seems to be escalating and I don't know if that's productive. This is just a discussion on a forum thread-- brainstorming, opinions, et cetera. What's actually implemented is a system that pays creators for creating, currently limited to writing. Personally I'd look at how the project has actually manifested as opposed to unmanifested ideas.

The limitations and challenges of expanding the system to include other content such as music have already been outlined. They will take time and people-power to implement, and that's just a logistical reality at this point.

[markm]

I think it's important to understand that in contrast to pieces of text, music has to be listened to (meaning with your ears) to be able to review and judge its quality.

lol   Bravo on that insight. :p

But I know what you mean, they'll have to be admins to listen to the tracks, which will be time consuming.  At least until there are enough listeners who can rate the tracks in an automated way like imdb.  I would really enjoy rating music, and even giving feedback being primarily a musician myself.  This whole idea of devtome moving into music is really exciting, I have a bunch of tracks I'd love to put up on this.

Supposedly a lot of "real musicans" could "hear" a piece by reading the score.

So it might be more effective use of people's time to have such musicians check the scores first before even bothering to impose some particular performance of a score using some particular voices and/or instruments and/or sound-effects upon the ears of people who cannot random-access the thing but must instead proceed serially through it, and maybe are not even able to listen to it in fast-forward to get a quick grok of it before delving down into nanosecond by nanosecond or second by second or minute by minute laborious executions of the score.

If the piece is good, but could be played in a way that would not sound so good, maybe the reviewers could also provide helpful hints such as approximately what range of instruments it should not sound too awful on, what kinds of speeds one could execute it at without losing its "artistic flavour" or "emotional appeal" and so on.

Like for example "assuming you'd normally play it on a 33-RPM turntable, this piece would make reasonable elevator music, but at 45-RPM it is much more stimulating, possibly not useful as background music, and at 78-RPM it would probably be more useful for cartoon soundtracks than for romantic background music for a candlelight dinner; By the way if you turn up the drum track and use this type of drum, you might find it affects more people in thus and such a way, whereas if you substitute piccolos for the oboes you might find it tends rather to suit X type of game-scenario" and so on.

Or "best suited for playing using husky female vocalist-instrument, if you go with a bass male voice you might also want to adjust this and that instrument in that and that way".

Or "recommended to be played in a minor key, however it also sounds very nice when played in the key of E flat" etc.

-MarkM-

[georgem]

The equivalent of what you're describing for writing would be an AI that can output readable and uniquely stylistic prose, but that's not what Devtome asks for.

It relies on human generated content and the ability to share and remix that content. How are people going to crawl into my closed source brain to see how I think of topics, conceptualize storylines, and string sentences together? Would there be a category that said, "I want a low-sci-fi voice tagged first-person and dark humor vs an academic voice tagged archaic english lexicon?" (Definitely an interesting concept that I wouldn't have thought of without this discussion). It seems more practical to put the writing up, and also put explain the writing process if there's enough interest for it.

Perfect example. Thank you very much!

But hey, after this discussion I would conclude that this is exactly what devtome secretly wants to achieve: to substitute the writer with an algorithm.

I think the CC BY-SA license and opensource are highly compatible concepts, but they're not strictly the same thing. There might be a demand for open-source voice synthesizers and that is a very different project than human generated content that is not locked away by copyright. Both are valid, and the degree of their implementation will depend on the demand.

I agree.

Hey I like artificial intelligence. I would love nothing more than to one day have conversations with an android like data.

Devcoin should absolutely have a big section about artificial intelligence. But it shouldn't interfere or impose on the human intelligence of any participant that wants to contribute.

[georgem]

Supposedly a lot of "real musicans" could "hear" a piece by reading the score.

Yes, but only after having listened to music for many decades.

Much like a blind person can't really have a concept of colors, a musician who never heard music will not be able to hear music by simply reading the score.

[georgem]

I hope your opinion is not representative of the devcoin community?

markm was one of the original developers of devcoin, I believe, so his opinion carries a lot of weight.

The means to create the music should be open to everyone is what it means to be open source.

I don't question his programming skills.

But much like I can't advice him on how to create a cryptocoin, he shouldn't advice musicians how to create music.

Then the only advice I strongly want to give to the admins is that devcoin should remove its current advertizing slogans.

Devcoin does NOT desire to help artists create stuff and get payed for their work .
Instead (after this discussion) I conclude that the goal of devcoin is to create artificial substitutions for every human artform that exists, subsequently rendering those same artists obsolete by aiming to create algorithms and technics that will supposedly imitate every aspect of art so well that the illusion of human art will emerge without the need for a real human artist.

You gotta be kidding me.  

Please, this all must be a misunderstanding, right?

Maybe I'm just being sensitive, but this discussion seems to be escalating and I don't know if that's productive. This is just a discussion on a forum thread-- brainstorming, opinions, et cetera. What's actually implemented is a system that pays creators for creating, currently limited to writing. Personally I'd look at how the project has actually manifested as opposed to unmanifested ideas.

The limitations and challenges of expanding the system to include other content such as music have already been outlined. They will take time and people-power to implement, and that's just a logistical reality at this point.

I am sorry for the big fonts I used. No escalation was intended.

I just think that a few very fundamental questions about devcoin have now surfaced, that in my opinion don't reflect what I thought devcoin stands for.

I need clarification.