[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[markm]

Is share counting done on a word to word basis or in batches of 1k? For example, say I have one article of 1,200 words and another for 200. Would my total be 1,400 or 1.4 share or just 1 share for the 1k article?

Another question, is there a limit to the size of the individual articles?

It is done in blocks of 1k. There are no decimal shares. Though 1.8k words will give you 2 shares. It is a total word count of all articles that round, so if you have 1 for 1.2k and another for .6k then you have 1.8k which rounds to 2 shares.

Chad

Actually I think it is a total wordcount since forever, minus the shares already paid since forever, so for example if you later edit an article down in size by 1000 words after having already been paid for it, then next round post a new 1000 words or edit an existing article upwards in size by 1000 words, the grand total since forever will still not have increased.

So it is not simply how much you posted in a given round it is how much your grand total of words that are still there has increased.

Then too there is now a quality factor. So if someone had been paid for a lot of words whose poor quality had not yet been reflected in their quality factor, then some reviewers looked at it and rated it as poor quality, the new total shares it would evaluate them as having earned would be lower so there would be a shortfall to make up - more words wanted - before their total actually paid out was exceeded again by the total earned.

They get paid any shares outstanding in excess of what they have in total been paid already, using the latest rules and quality-ratings to determine how much such work of theirs as is still present that round is nowadays calculated to be worth.

(Which unfortunately would complicate any change of how many shares people ought to be paid, since right now it is based on words still present now not on during which rate of pay's era the words were written. If we did decide authors should get 1/5 of a share per 1000 words for example oops that would be retro-active. Trying to track which words were present during which payscale era could get very hard... People would suddenly have a huge backlog to make up just to appear as having earned what they already got. I guess maybe though that could be kludged by simply reducing by 1/5 their purported grand total already paid. Hmm yeah maybe its not so hard afterall... just would need a kludge like that which then accountants and so on might go hmm at until the kludge is explained to them.)

-MarkM-

[1715536617]

1715536617

[1715536617]

1715536617

[1715536617]

1715536617

[1715536617]

1715536617

[1715536617]

1715536617

[sidhujag]

Doge is now doubling devcoin and 10x the volume, cmon guys stop dumping lets get it up just like she said.

[smeagol]

Doge is now doubling devcoin and 10x the volume, cmon guys stop dumping lets get it up just like she said.

doge to the moon!
and devcoin too!

[dalamar96]

Actually I think it is a total wordcount since forever, minus the shares already paid since forever, so for example if you later edit an article down in size by 1000 words after having already been paid for it, then next round post a new 1000 words or edit an existing article upwards in size by 1000 words, the grand total since forever will still not have increased.

So it is not simply how much you posted in a given round it is how much your grand total of words that are still there has increased.

Then too there is now a quality factor. So if someone had been paid for a lot of words whose poor quality had not yet been reflected in their quality factor, then some reviewers looked at it and rated it as poor quality, the new total shares it would evaluate them as having earned would be lower so there would be a shortfall to make up - more words wanted - before their total actually paid out was exceeded again by the total earned.

They get paid any shares outstanding in excess of what they have in total been paid already, using the latest rules and quality-ratings to determine how much such work of theirs as is still present that round is nowadays calculated to be worth.

(Which unfortunately would complicate any change of how many shares people ought to be paid, since right now it is based on words still present now not on during which rate of pay's era the words were written. If we did decide authors should get 1/5 of a share per 1000 words for example oops that would be retro-active. Trying to track which words were present during which payscale era could get very hard... People would suddenly have a huge backlog to make up just to appear as having earned what they already got. I guess maybe though that could be kludged by simply reducing by 1/5 their purported grand total already paid. Hmm yeah maybe its not so hard afterall... just would need a kludge like that which then accountants and so on might go hmm at until the kludge is explained to them.)

-MarkM-

Wow. I just read that once, and have been drinking and couldn't quite wrap my head around it!   I will read it again and comment a little more on that one!

[giftculturewriting]

Quick question to each of you DevCoin earners out there:
 
What would DevCoin earners want to regularly spend their DevCoin on?

If someone has already mention your idea please repeat it so I can get some idea of numbers...

Responses will be collated and reported back to this thread.

Maybe you will get your wish.   

P.S. If there is a better way of doing this please point me to it.

Thanks

Groceries. Either through gift cards to retailers like Wholefoods (or an option to buy gift cards for smaller retailers).

[dalamar96]

Quick question to each of you DevCoin earners out there:
 
What would DevCoin earners want to regularly spend their DevCoin on?

If someone has already mention your idea please repeat it so I can get some idea of numbers...

Responses will be collated and reported back to this thread.

Maybe you will get your wish.   

P.S. If there is a better way of doing this please point me to it.

Thanks

Beer and Coffee! As a developer mostly Coffee or JOlt or something. And e-cig juice.

[markm]

Doge is now doubling devcoin and 10x the volume, cmon guys stop dumping lets get it up just like she said.

This requires that you take the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever that you sell your devcoins for and use them to place buy offers, offering to buy back your devcoins for less than you sold them for.

One or more large holders of DOGE are doing that with DOGE. Basically each time a bunch of suckers buy DOGE at high prices, almost all the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever they buy them for are put back onto the buy-offers side of the order book, which is the side that most of the profitability sites and such look at. (Though probably they really should be looking at the 24 hour volume-weighted moving average or something like that, which I haven't so far seen available anywhere.)

On Vircurex I have been trying to do this for DeVCoin, piling up so many buy offers that so far the effective floor on price might now be closer to 50 Satoshis than to 30 Satoshis. Last cycle I did not have enough offers piled up in the under fifty Satoshis price-range to keep the price at 30 or more Satoshis; it fell under 30 for a while. This time though it didn't fall much under fifty before seeming to show signs that it might be going back up, and I have piled even more buy offers down in that range to hopefully provide even more resistance next time around.

But it is going to take a larger and larger pile of offers under fifty to support moving the floor any higher; basically in order to double the buy offer that is sitting at fifty is going to require doubling the buy offers sitting at each Satoshi of price lower than that. Or more even since it seems to make sense to have the resistance (aka the size of the buy order at a given price) climb much faster than the price lowers so that each Satoshi lowering of price will take way the heck more dumping than the previous Satoshi of price did.

So lets try to get five or six billion DVC of buy offers at one Satoshi per DVC price so we can support having two and a half or three billion DVC of buy offers at two Satoshis per DVC of price so that we can support 1.66 to 2 billion DVC of buy offers at three Satoshis per DVC of price and so on, gradually building up the level of the price floor.

(Actually if we can manage enough buy offers to be offering to buy every DVC that exists plus all those to be minted over the next few hours or days, that whole offer could serve as a floor without needing more offers lower under it to support it. But until we get there building a pyramid of offers seems more effective so instead of one big wall at one price, that someone with more coins than the wall offers to buy could smash through, we instead make it take more and more and more coins to smash through each satoshi of price of resistance.)

In essence the person or persons supporting the DOGE price is evidently of larger pockets or larger desire/intent of actually supporting his her or their currency than DeVCoin receivers in the aggregate seem to be. They pump it to move it higher on the mining-profitability charts so that it attracts more miners and buyers, which raises it on those charts so it attracts more and so on. As long as the largest receivers of DeVCoins do not bother to do similarly but prefer to just dump the more DOGE can be expected to do better than DeVCoin.

DOGE is of course going to drop back down after its peak of this cycle. I wonder how strong a pile of buy offers they will have waiting at and under 50 Satoshis per coin to prevent it going even lower next time than it went this time?

Are they even building a floor that has a drop dead solid foundation, or mostly just pumping, putting offers to buy up high but without back-fill solidly beneath it such that each Satoshi lower of price has more buy offer waiting than the price above it does?

I have been choosing how large a buy offer to place at each Satoshi starting from one Satoshi by dividing the offer at one Satoshi by the price in Satoshis, so that I am offering to buy half as many at two than I am at one, and a third as many at three as I am at one, and a quarter as many at four as I am at one, all the way up to a fiftieth as many at 50 as I am at one...

Even that might be too smooth though since it really says I am willing to spend at each Satoshi of price the same number of bitcoins.

I suspect that better would be to be offering to spend more bitcoins per price as the price offered goes down.

Like maybe offer to buy a quarter as many at two than at one, a sixth as many at three than at one, an eighth as many at four than at one, a tenth as many at five then at one, all the way up through a hundredth as many at 50 than at one...

-MarkM-

[dalamar96]

Doge is now doubling devcoin and 10x the volume, cmon guys stop dumping lets get it up just like she said.

This requires that you take the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever that you sell your devcoins for and use them to place buy offers, offering to buy back your devcoins for less than you sold them for.

One or more large holders of DOGE are doing that with DOGE. Basically each time a bunch of suckers buy DOGE at high prices, almost all the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever they buy them for are put back onto the buy-offers side of the order book, which is the side that most of the profitability sites and such look at. (Though probably they really should be looking at the 24 hour volume-weighted moving average or something like that, which I haven't so far seen available anywhere.)

On Vircurex I have been trying to do this for DeVCoin, piling up so many buy offers that so far the effective floor on price might now be closer to 50 Satoshis than to 30 Satoshis. Last cycle I did not have enough offers piled up in the under fifty Satoshis price-range to keep the price at 30 or more Satoshis; it fell under 30 for a while. This time though it didn't fall much under fifty before seeming to show signs that it might be going back up, and I have piled even more buy offers down in that range to hopefully provide even more resistance next time around.

But it is going to take a larger and larger pile of offers under fifty to support moving the floor any higher; basically in order to double the buy offer that is sitting at fifty is going to require doubling the buy offers sitting at each Satoshi of price lower than that. Or more even since it seems to make sense to have the resistance (aka the size of the buy order at a given price) climb much faster than the price lowers so that each Satoshi lowering of price will take way the heck more dumping than the previous Satoshi of price did.

So lets try to get five or six billion DVC of buy offers at one Satoshi per DVC price so we can support having two and a half or three billion DVC of buy offers at two Satoshis per DVC of price so that we can support 1.66 to 2 billion DVC of buy offers at three Satoshis per DVC of price and so on, gradually building up the level of the price floor.

(Actually if we can manage enough buy offers to be offering to buy every DVC that exists plus all those to be minted over the next few hours or days, that whole offer could serve as a floor without needing more offers lower under it to support it. But until we get there building a pyramid of offers seems more effective so instead of one big wall at one price, that someone with more coins than the wall offers to buy could smash through, we instead make it take more and more and more coins to smash through each satoshi of price of resistance.)

In essence the person or persons supporting the DOGE price is evidently of larger pockets or larger desire/intent of actually supporting his her or their currency than DeVCoin receivers in the aggregate seem to be. They pump it to move it higher on the mining-profitability charts so that it attracts more miners and buyers, which raises it on those charts so it attracts more and so on. As long as the largest receivers of DeVCoins do not bother to do similarly but prefer to just dump the more DOGE can be expected to do better than DeVCoin.

DOGE is of course going to drop back down after its peak of this cycle. I wonder how strong a pile of buy offers they will have waiting at and under 50 Satoshis per coin to prevent it going even lower next time than it went this time?

Are they even building a floor that has a drop dead solid foundation, or mostly just pumping, putting offers to buy up high but without back-fill solidly beneath it such that each Satoshi lower of price has more buy offer waiting than the price above it does?

-MarkM-

Your thought pattern and speech impress the hell out of me!

Anyhow on the subject. I have about 100k to play with at the moment and all are selling over 75 satoshis (at steps of 5), I have about 50k in buy starting at 50 (going down in steps of 2) satoshis. Nothing is moving today, must be the holiday But I am keeping up with it as long as I can! Love your outlook and insight, keep it coming!

[markm]

Well bear in mind that bots, being always-on 24/7, probably imagine they can afford to not actually place their low offers until the price actually gets low.

Also they are foreced toward that at least somewhat on Vircurex by their limited number of offers they are allowed to have on file at any given moment, whereas we web-browser uses can have thousands upon thousands of offers on file waiting for the bots to get around to them.

So bots let people re-cycle their capital faster, needing/using less total capital to in practice effectively cover more range of price with less capital than we who must place all our offers ahead of time so we can afford to nap once in a while.

The capital the bot has is its limitation though. Anyone with more capital can blow right on past the bots to reach our long-standing highball and lowball offers that, when they do get reached, make us much more percentage profit per offer than the bots get playing within just the gap between our lowest remaining highball offers and our highest remaining lowball offers.

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Doge is now doubling devcoin and 10x the volume, cmon guys stop dumping lets get it up just like she said.

This requires that you take the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever that you sell your devcoins for and use them to place buy offers, offering to buy back your devcoins for less than you sold them for.

One or more large holders of DOGE are doing that with DOGE. Basically each time a bunch of suckers buy DOGE at high prices, almost all the bitcoins or litecoins or whatever they buy them for are put back onto the buy-offers side of the order book, which is the side that most of the profitability sites and such look at. (Though probably they really should be looking at the 24 hour volume-weighted moving average or something like that, which I haven't so far seen available anywhere.)

On Vircurex I have been trying to do this for DeVCoin, piling up so many buy offers that so far the effective floor on price might now be closer to 50 Satoshis than to 30 Satoshis. Last cycle I did not have enough offers piled up in the under fifty Satoshis price-range to keep the price at 30 or more Satoshis; it fell under 30 for a while. This time though it didn't fall much under fifty before seeming to show signs that it might be going back up, and I have piled even more buy offers down in that range to hopefully provide even more resistance next time around.

But it is going to take a larger and larger pile of offers under fifty to support moving the floor any higher; basically in order to double the buy offer that is sitting at fifty is going to require doubling the buy offers sitting at each Satoshi of price lower than that. Or more even since it seems to make sense to have the resistance (aka the size of the buy order at a given price) climb much faster than the price lowers so that each Satoshi lowering of price will take way the heck more dumping than the previous Satoshi of price did.

So lets try to get five or six billion DVC of buy offers at one Satoshi per DVC price so we can support having two and a half or three billion DVC of buy offers at two Satoshis per DVC of price so that we can support 1.66 to 2 billion DVC of buy offers at three Satoshis per DVC of price and so on, gradually building up the level of the price floor.

(Actually if we can manage enough buy offers to be offering to buy every DVC that exists plus all those to be minted over the next few hours or days, that whole offer could serve as a floor without needing more offers lower under it to support it. But until we get there building a pyramid of offers seems more effective so instead of one big wall at one price, that someone with more coins than the wall offers to buy could smash through, we instead make it take more and more and more coins to smash through each satoshi of price of resistance.)

In essence the person or persons supporting the DOGE price is evidently of larger pockets or larger desire/intent of actually supporting his her or their currency than DeVCoin receivers in the aggregate seem to be. They pump it to move it higher on the mining-profitability charts so that it attracts more miners and buyers, which raises it on those charts so it attracts more and so on. As long as the largest receivers of DeVCoins do not bother to do similarly but prefer to just dump the more DOGE can be expected to do better than DeVCoin.

DOGE is of course going to drop back down after its peak of this cycle. I wonder how strong a pile of buy offers they will have waiting at and under 50 Satoshis per coin to prevent it going even lower next time than it went this time?

Are they even building a floor that has a drop dead solid foundation, or mostly just pumping, putting offers to buy up high but without back-fill solidly beneath it such that each Satoshi lower of price has more buy offer waiting than the price above it does?

I have been choosing how large a buy offer to place at each Satoshi starting from one Satoshi by dividing the offer at one Satoshi by the price in Satoshis, so that I am offering to buy half as many at two than I am at one, and a third as many at three as I am at one, and a quarter as many at four as I am at one, all the way up to a fiftieth as many at 50 as I am at one...

Even that might be too smooth though since it really says I am willing to spend at each Satoshi of price the same number of bitcoins.

I suspect that better would be to be offering to spend more bitcoins per price as the price offered goes down.

Like maybe offer to buy a quarter as many at two than at one, a sixth as many at three than at one, an eighth as many at four than at one, a tenth as many at five then at one, all the way up through a hundredth as many at 50 than at one...

-MarkM-

I think there being so many doge coins its really speculation on if people are holding or if they are just looking to make a quick profit. Since there is a max of 100 billion but it is inflation controlled per minute (diff adjustement) then it is limited supply vs demand problem that will drive price. Volume is high enough it looks like to justify higher prices here, aslong as there is a seller there is a buyer in a transaction. However 6-10 billion are already mined so someone is sitting on a big chunk(s) waiting to dump and then the floor is going to be tested.

Problem with creating floors in devcoin is that yea statistically your likely to keep price from falling below 1 or 2 satoshi's in your example but not mathematically since there is no supply cap. You have to innovate to drive price up truely... which is what I am trying to do instead of simply selling and then buying again. I will bet that since everyone is trying now to do the same thing you are that the cycle will break sooner rather than later, IF and only IF we get a business going that will start to drive in profits (bringing in some solid speculators, to set a new floor). Once devtome gets some real competition we will start seeing rises in marketcap and bigger projects/businesses being funded. Then the people putting floors at 1 or 2 sat's will be kicking themselves for selling because the cycle doesn't repeat,  but it rhymes and it didnt get low enough to capture your bids again. It makes sense in your case as you already have a large enough stash on the side so you won't be kicking yourself but in most of our cases we would be as we would be playing with our entire stashes to do anything meaningful.

[markm]

Yeah for sure. But I have less than a billion DeVCoins, out of several billion. That is a lot of bitcoins someone(s) got if they already sold the billions, with which just as many billions could be bought back cheaper than they were sold for if only they would use those bitcoins to "back" the currency.

Sure the floor they could sustain would drop and drop as more coins are minted, but at least some floor could be sustained.

Take a look at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

All the currencies on those tables and plots that are worth way the heck more than bitcoin - every one of them - did it by actually backing their currency instead of just dumping it.

That is, each coin they sold they kept the vast majority of what it was sold for to use as "reserves" with which to buy it back.

Bitcoin should never have dropped lower in price than those, they all expected bitcoin would skyrocket. But no, too many miners dumped their bitcoins it seems without holding the majority of what they sold them for as "reserves" with which to buy them back (albeit a little cheaper than they sold them).

So it kind of looks like the answer to "why are some of those currencies worth lots of bitcoins per coin" is "because they actually stand behind their currency with their 'reserves' instead of just dumping it".

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Yeah for sure. But I have less than a billion DeVCoins, out of several billion. That is a lot of bitcoins someone(s) got if they already sold the billions, with which just as many billions could be bought back cheaper than they were sold for if only they would use those bitcoins to "back" the currency.

Sure the floor they could sustain would drop and drop as more coins are minted, but at least some floor could be sustained.

Take a look at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

All the currencies on those tables and plots that are worth way the heck more than bitcoin - every one of them - did it by actually backing their currency instead of just dumping it.

That is, each coin they sold they kept the vast majority of what it was sold for to use as "reserves" with which to buy it back.

Bitcoin should never have dropped lower in price than those, they all expected bitcoin would skyrocket. But no, too many miners dumped their bitcoins it seems without holding the majority of what they sold them for as "reserves" with which to buy them back (albeit a little cheaper than they sold them).

So it kind of looks like the answer to "why are some of those currencies worth lots of bitcoins per coin" is "because they actually stand behind their currency with their 'reserves' instead of just dumping it".

-MarkM-

Ofcourse it would make sense that price would skyrocket if everyone simply had intentions of buying back if they sold and even having that mindset allows for bullish behavior in a market. For example, if I earn a few million for writing code with original intentions of paying rent in fiat then if I now have intentions of paying rent but recycling the rest as reserves for a rainy day in the market then as before I would have probably just said heck with it I will just sell all of my coins and have a little extra spending money, or just leave the coins on the side not doing anything. It actually will help raise price I agree.

However since writers earn a heck more per hour than anyone else and seems the value for work is not there to allow for rising prices, then any rise the writers will quickly take profits and have that "extra spending money" instead of intentions of "recycling".

I think this will only change if they see a reason to have intentions of recycling instead of dumping... the change in mentality is a big one as in one your dumping for "whatever you can get" essentially equating the price to garbage or 0, and in the other you are saying "I would like to keep my devcoins" in some form or another. The reasons may come from new ways to spend that are actually interesting enough for them to change their mind. We have shares why not spend them to do such a thing? By not doing so we are essentially letting the price drop in the same way that not "recycling" doesnt create a base level to work off of for future price rises.

[dalamar96]

Ofcourse it would make sense that price would skyrocket if everyone simply had intentions of buying back if they sold and even having that mindset allows for bullish behavior in a market. For example, if I earn a few million for writing code with original intentions of paying rent in fiat then if I now have intentions of paying rent but recycling the rest as reserves for a rainy day in the market then as before I would have probably just said heck with it I will just sell all of my coins and have a little extra spending money, or just leave the coins on the side not doing anything. It actually will help raise price I agree.

However since writers earn a heck more per hour than anyone else and seems the value for work is not there to allow for rising prices, then any rise the writers will quickly take profits and have that "extra spending money" instead of intentions of "recycling".

I think this will only change if they see a reason to have intentions of recycling instead of dumping... the change in mentality is a big one as in one your dumping for "whatever you can get" essentially equating the price to garbage or 0, and in the other you are saying "I would like to keep my devcoins" in some form or another. The reasons may come from new ways to spend that are actually interesting enough for them to change their mind. We have shares why not spend them to do such a thing? By not doing so we are essentially letting the price drop in the same way that not "recycling" doesnt create a base level to work off of for future price rises.

Ok, I am drunk and a little sick of people putting all this crap on the writers.

Everything here is based on the writers just taking what they get and dumping it at market. The people that are writing at the moment, at least most of them, are not just dumping at market. They know the price has been upwards of 300 satoshis and will not dump all their earnings at 50 just because that is what it was at when they recieved. I am writing as well, and yes it is different then most of what I have seen on the wiki, but still, i am also doing the day trading thing like Mark is. That is the only thing I plan on doing with my DVC. I don't dump at market and I do buy back. Just pisses me off to see the anti-writer thing going on over the past weekend. Sorry for the rant.

[markm]

(Re post before last):

Well doesn't that work out to "I prefer to have no devcoins left but with them having a value of X than to have half my devcoins left and them have a value of two times X" ?

Or "I prefer to have no devcoins left and have them be worth X than to have 90% of my devcoins still so that they are worth 10 times X" ?

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Ofcourse it would make sense that price would skyrocket if everyone simply had intentions of buying back if they sold and even having that mindset allows for bullish behavior in a market. For example, if I earn a few million for writing code with original intentions of paying rent in fiat then if I now have intentions of paying rent but recycling the rest as reserves for a rainy day in the market then as before I would have probably just said heck with it I will just sell all of my coins and have a little extra spending money, or just leave the coins on the side not doing anything. It actually will help raise price I agree.

However since writers earn a heck more per hour than anyone else and seems the value for work is not there to allow for rising prices, then any rise the writers will quickly take profits and have that "extra spending money" instead of intentions of "recycling".

I think this will only change if they see a reason to have intentions of recycling instead of dumping... the change in mentality is a big one as in one your dumping for "whatever you can get" essentially equating the price to garbage or 0, and in the other you are saying "I would like to keep my devcoins" in some form or another. The reasons may come from new ways to spend that are actually interesting enough for them to change their mind. We have shares why not spend them to do such a thing? By not doing so we are essentially letting the price drop in the same way that not "recycling" doesnt create a base level to work off of for future price rises.

Ok, I am drunk and a little sick of people putting all this crap on the writers.

Everything here is based on the writers just taking what they get and dumping it at market. The people that are writing at the moment, at least most of them, are not just dumping at market. They know the price has been upwards of 300 satoshis and will not dump all their earnings at 50 just because that is what it was at when they recieved. I am writing as well, and yes it is different then most of what I have seen on the wiki, but still, i am also doing the day trading thing like Mark is. That is the only thing I plan on doing with my DVC. I don't dump at market and I do buy back. Just pisses me off to see the anti-writer thing going on over the past weekend. Sorry for the rant.

Seems awfully strange that when a round ends and payments begin that there are large dumps every time. Maybe not you but in general. There were not really many bounties before so we ruled out developers as noone even bothered developing when you can write yourself a share per hour and in a week have yourself more shares than a months worth of developement and testing, having to worry about bugs/redevelopment/retesting cycle that takes usually much longer.

Maybe you haven't been here for long enough to see it, but I am generalizing based on what I have experienced and it is a shared point of view.

[dalamar96]

Seems awfully strange that when a round ends and payments begin that there are large dumps every time. Maybe not you but in general. There were not really many bounties before so we ruled out developers as noone even bothered developing when you can write yourself a share per hour and in a week have yourself more shares than a months worth of developement and testing.

I don't want to get in an argument about it right now as I am not thinking exactly straight. But, from what i have seen of the bounties here with the "months worth of work and testing" for things isn't quite there. The main thing I have seen for development is lets get an idea and throw code at it without thinking about it. I am not saying that the writing is of par either, there are a LOT of article I wouldn't have given 1/5th a share to that got 10, but the coding isn't on par either with the bounties that have been given out that i have seen. I am sure there are a few that have been worth it, just like some of the writing. Just as an example the way the auction bounty has been discussed (and now dropped it seems) was handled. Not interested in working on it at all, and do not think it would be worth the proposed bounty were it to come to light in the current form.

[sidhujag]

(Re post before last):

Well doesn't that work out to "I prefer to have no devcoins left but with them having a value of X than to have half my devcoins left and them have a value of two times X" ?

Or "I prefer to have no devcoins left and have them be worth X than to have 90% of my devcoins still so that they are worth 10 times X" ?

-MarkM-

No devcoins left at value X aka dumping at market? Anti-thesis of: Keeping some on the table for 2X while paying rent today?

Another factor you have to consider is IF price will ever let you recover your coins + profit. Like with any strategy that is probably the risk.

[dalamar96]

(Re post before last):

Well doesn't that work out to "I prefer to have no devcoins left but with them having a value of X than to have half my devcoins left and them have a value of two times X" ?

Or "I prefer to have no devcoins left and have them be worth X than to have 90% of my devcoins still so that they are worth 10 times X" ?

-MarkM-

No devcoins left at value X aka dumping at market? Anti-thesis of: Keeping some on the table for 2X while paying rent today?

Another factor you have to consider is IF price will ever let you recover your coins + profit. Like with any strategy that is probably the risk.

Agreed.

[sidhujag]

Seems awfully strange that when a round ends and payments begin that there are large dumps every time. Maybe not you but in general. There were not really many bounties before so we ruled out developers as noone even bothered developing when you can write yourself a share per hour and in a week have yourself more shares than a months worth of developement and testing.

I don't want to get in an argument about it right now as I am not thinking exactly straight. But, from what i have seen of the bounties here with the "months worth of work and testing" for things isn't quite there. The main thing I have seen for development is lets get an idea and throw code at it without thinking about it. I am not saying that the writing is of par either, there are a LOT of article I wouldn't have given 1/5th a share to that got 10, but the coding isn't on par either with the bounties that have been given out that i have seen. I am sure there are a few that have been worth it, just like some of the writing. Just as an example the way the auction bounty has been discussed (and now dropped it seems) was handled. Not interested in working on it at all, and do not think it would be worth the proposed bounty were it to come to light in the current form.

But bounties are one-offs unless you think the mistakes are being repeated, then bring it up to the bounty admin and we should review how much a bounty should be worth. But at the same time we shoudl review how much each word is worth with bounties in mind as well?

I think the auction bounty of 50 shares is fine, its probably more alot more if we have to create it from scratch, I think 50 is good for starting from a template adding coin payments, setting up initial share offerings etc, all the ad banners and marketing. Its not just 1 person unless noone wants to do it. The benefits also outweigh the bounty as you have to think long term that if the business ends up being profitable that it will help anyone who holds the coins. Likewise with any business that we can come up with that would be funded via shares in some form or another.

[markm]

With crapcoins like all (save maybe, possibly, litecoin) of the scrypt coins and all the non merged mined SHA256 coins trying to buy them back is, or is going some day to be, the proverbial "catching a falling knife": someday they will dive and never go back up to the price you bought them at.

But with all eight merged mined coins (BTC, NMC, DVC, GRP, IXC, I0C, CLC and XGG) you are looking at long term investment coins that most likely are going to be diving to a higher floor on each dive than they dove to on the previous dive. So for those you have the opposite problem: once you sell, will you ever get a chance to buy them back for less than you sold them for?

Luckily for us, right now we are still in a period in which even the merged mined coins still do go through up and down cycles, so as long as you sell at the peak instead of the trough you still have a good chance of being able to buy back lower than you sold at.

But this is why I say to put a huge spread of offers. That way you buy all the way down and sell all the way up, plus I also place my high offers way the heck higher than I expect them to go because it is the peaks that I don't expect that make me the majority of my profits. So I try to have "insanely" high offers out there ready to catch those.

Even luckier for we DeVCoin folk, we can actually earn coins. So even if we cannot buy back, we can write more articles.

Plus, of course, bear in mind again that I have been at this a couple of years or so: all my stuff on exchanges is pure profit, I already took home everything I started with plus lots of profit.

-MarkM-