[DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated

[georgem]

so I heard some people here are actively thinking about reducing the block reward in some upcoming potential fork?

I think it's a bad idea... you should never change a coin to "satisfy the market"....

Numbers are completely arbitrary anyway... what if we have 10 million or 10 billion coins, it's just a question of decimal place.

[1714058513]

1714058513

[sidhujag]

so I heard some people here are actively thinking about reducing the block reward in some upcoming potential fork?

I think it's a bad idea... you should never change a coin to "satisfy the market"....

Numbers are completely arbitrary anyway... what if we have 10 million or 10 billion coins, it's just a question of decimal place.

We will probably vote for it manually on a thread on coinzen.. Its not
about satisfying market its about trying to bring in some sort of scarcity which is scalable to not
choke the system when more people enter it. The number of coins is fine when therr are sufficient people onboard but with so little people getting all the coins its not good imo.. Anyways its something we can agree or disagree as a community.

[georgem]

so I heard some people here are actively thinking about reducing the block reward in some upcoming potential fork?

I think it's a bad idea... you should never change a coin to "satisfy the market"....

Numbers are completely arbitrary anyway... what if we have 10 million or 10 billion coins, it's just a question of decimal place.

We will probably vote for it manually on a thread on coinzen.. Its not
about satisfying market its about trying to bring in some sort of scarcity which is scalable to not
choke the system when more people enter it. The number of coins is fine when therr are sufficient people onboard but with so little people getting all the coins its not good imo.. Anyways its something we can agree or disagree as a community.

But scarcity in this case is purely mathematical, and is a relative factor anyway?

Meaning it's exactly the same to have 1000 coins (of 1 billion) being valued 1$ each, or to have 1 coin (of 1 million) being valued 1000 $.
The amount of coins has nothing to do with its price discovery.
Having fewer coins will not suddenly make devcoin overall more valuable, will it? The marketcap will not change at all.

[profitofthegods]

so I heard some people here are actively thinking about reducing the block reward in some upcoming potential fork?

I think it's a bad idea... you should never change a coin to "satisfy the market"....

Numbers are completely arbitrary anyway... what if we have 10 million or 10 billion coins, it's just a question of decimal place.

We will probably vote for it manually on a thread on coinzen.. Its not
about satisfying market its about trying to bring in some sort of scarcity which is scalable to not
choke the system when more people enter it. The number of coins is fine when therr are sufficient people onboard but with so little people getting all the coins its not good imo.. Anyways its something we can agree or disagree as a community.

But scarcity in this case is purely mathematical, and is a relative factor anyway?

Meaning it's exactly the same to have 1000 coins (of 1 billion) being valued 1$ each, or to have 1 coin (of 1 million) being valued 1000 $.
The amount of coins has nothing to do with its price discovery.
Having fewer coins will not suddenly make devcoin overall more valuable, will it? The marketcap will not change at all.

Isn't it the amount being created compared to the amount already existing which the block reward changes and which does influence price, rather than the total number of coins which exist at any given point?

[georgem]

Isn't it the amount being created compared to the amount already existing which the block reward changes and which does influence price, rather than the total number of coins which exist at any given point?

There are much more factors, and who knows how traders psychology is going to make them act.

Are they going to dump, do they like to hold, etc...

I think it's completely wrong to try and see a formula for success when all is pretty much psychology.

I wouldn't mess with the coin block reward AT ALL.

[smeagol]

...
I wouldn't mess with the coin block reward AT ALL.

If we do reduce block reward, I think we should make a staggered decline, maybe 1% per week until it reaches our target amount.

Anyway, since the coin is worth so little, we should try to experiment and see what works.

[sidhujag]

so I heard some people here are actively thinking about reducing the block reward in some upcoming potential fork?

I think it's a bad idea... you should never change a coin to "satisfy the market"....

Numbers are completely arbitrary anyway... what if we have 10 million or 10 billion coins, it's just a question of decimal place.

We will probably vote for it manually on a thread on coinzen.. Its not
about satisfying market its about trying to bring in some sort of scarcity which is scalable to not
choke the system when more people enter it. The number of coins is fine when therr are sufficient people onboard but with so little people getting all the coins its not good imo.. Anyways its something we can agree or disagree as a community.

But scarcity in this case is purely mathematical, and is a relative factor anyway?

Meaning it's exactly the same to have 1000 coins (of 1 billion) being valued 1$ each, or to have 1 coin (of 1 million) being valued 1000 $.
The amount of coins has nothing to do with its price discovery.
Having fewer coins will not suddenly make devcoin overall more valuable, will it? The marketcap will not change at all.

Not immediately but over time is may have a higher marketcap because at low
blockrewards there is incentive to hold or
buy which there isnt currently as we see in any rise. As we saw
with shares increasing with the price rises we saw dumping As a result because the people earning the coins valued their work so little ($20 per share).. this wont rise until there is more incentive.

We have seen time and time again that as the price rises
a bit more people join up to get in and a few people tske the time to understand devcoin and realize the potential and stick around. However those same people are leaving because there is no price incentive to hold their coins.. Even as I started the auction site not many people came and
bid i think they would rather wait until the price rises to make profit than to spend their coins.. something that didnt happen. The marketcap doesnt affect the increase of new receivers as much as the price rising did at times of pumps.


It would be fine if more receivers were
lining up because shares offer so many coins now but it isnt happening we are seeing them leave for reasons im guessing that the ones who wished to hold dont see anything materializing in terms of price. Every pump is met with a bigger dump becsuse of the implied value being so much lower. If we continue down this path we will have less and less people willing to support the receivers again no incentive to do so.

Check out diedcars writeup about creating the incentive via
hoarding although im offering a more general solution than writers:
http://devtome.com/doku.php?id=ponzify_devtome

[smeagol]

Questions:

What's the ETA on the new version?

How will the block reward be cut? (gradual or immediate decline)

Will the coin be 'new'? (DVC2, or will the chain remain the same?)

If immediate, will there be an exchange?  (e.g. 1000 DVC for 100 DVC2)

Finally, will there be any sort of DVC2 IPO?

[sidhujag]

Questions:

What's the ETA on the new version?

How will the block reward be cut? (gradual or immediate decline)

Will the coin be 'new'? (DVC2, or will the chain remain the same?)

If immediate, will there be an exchange?  (e.g. 1000 DVC for 100 DVC2)

Finally, will there be any sort of DVC2 IPO?

It will remain the same.. it will only change if community agrees on a consensus.

No ipo it will help all devcoiners in the longrun i think. Im updating code to newest bitcoin (done) now testing it.

I want to do a testnet to test features and I want to think about any new features like voting etc see if its possible or even if we should do it. Once we agree on what the next version should look like (few weeks) then we can implement and test.

[georgem]

A long time ago I printed out this devtome graph (don't know who created it)...
I laminated the paper, so that I can have it on my desk at all times, grab it and look at it whenever I want to dream about the future of devcoin...  



Everything about this coin is well balanced already.
All this would change, if we start messing with the block reward.

Devcoin is already fine, total available amount of coins will even in 500 years (lol) stay in the hundreds of billions, and converge towards a very stable 3% inflation.
hundreds of billions is what the marketcap of a very large company is like, so this makes sense for devcoin who strives to become an alternative way of financing creativity and development...

All this makes total sense.

This baby isn't even fully born yet.... I can only see the head and half of the torso... this is not the best time to change anything in the specifics.

Sure, let's update the version and fix problems, but the coin specifics are PERFECT the way they are now.

[georgem]

If you want to make people less eager to dump their coins, give them a reason to hold them.
Or wait for the free market (services, products) to provide a reason for the traders/miners to convert the devcoins into something usefull without having them dump it and negatively influence the DVC/BTC rate.

Am I the only one who is HAPPY AS A PIG IN SHIT that all those miners are dumping their DVC for basically nothing?

We are young (well, admitedly ALL cryptos are, lol), but devcoin today is like bitcoin was in 2011.... I say let's continue accumulating and be damn happy about this opportunity.

[georgem]

No ipo it will help all devcoiners in the longrun i think. Im updating code to newest bitcoin (done) now testing it.

Can you name me another coin that got more valuable AFTER the block reward was reduced?
I know of none that was successful...
mazacoin for example... they did a fork recently (1-2 months ago or so), reducing the reward to 20% and it did NOTHING to stop the decline of the value.

Because those two things have nothing to do with each other.
Let's be strictly scientific about this thing and only apply an adjustment if we can show a 100% correlation between cause and effect.

[sidhujag]

Hi Georgem,

I agree with your posts but what I proposed wasnt really a full scale
block rewards change but more like a filter that gets applied when we have stagnant activity (less reciever entries).. so it merely attempts to add incentives to get the ball rolling. I know those graphics and fully agree on long term projections but we cant lift off without some incentives in place (minor tweaks) that will add what it was missing and turn it into a great alternative for currency.

Really if we apply some sort of formula and top out at 50k then in terms of being used globally the affect of the filter will tend towards 0 because it wont be even applied if there are alot of receiver entries and there is innovation happening all over the place. If we have tons of writers there is bound to be great material that will drive up ad revenue or bring awareness to devcoin.. likewise for developers. Musicians are the same if we have the right incentives in place for when things are at a standstill it may kickstart it to get going because as is it seems we are not progressing.

I propose a filter such that if there are less than x recievers it cause a tightening of supply to avoid abundance of supply that does not reflect the demand. When supply is too big and there is no reason to buy investors wont buy to support because they will fear the dumping and recievers arent growing.. that is
the worsed case scenario.

Once we pass the hurdle then technically the filter is not applied and we are back to normal supply schedule. So it simply reduce rewards when development is at a standstill.

Other coins apply rewards that affect the coin forever which shouldnt be thr case
since you Assume devcoin is used on a global scale which means enough reciever entries to saturate the rewards.

There is no other coin like devcoin thus you cannot apply that theory with this especially since its acting as a filter. You applied a cause and effect which doesnt correlate in this case either imo.

[georgem]

I propose a filter such that if there are less than x recievers it cause a tightening of supply to avoid abundance of supply that does not reflect the demand.

Isn't this a temporary problem that will go away anyway once devcoin has more adoption?

So why fix a problem that only exists because of low participation, instead of working on just making more people participate?

That is like giving a wheelchair to a guy who broke his leg... that's just wrong.
You don't give wheelchairs to guys whose leg will heal eventually... you give wheelchairs to paraplegics (who have no chance of recovery).

Also: if you integrate this "wheelchair" into devcoin, aren't you in a way taking the bonus away from devoted people who still stay on the devcoin ship?
Shouldn't those people be rewarded more, since they are like the last men standing?

Isn't this a mechanism that helps attract more people since more devcoins can now be earned? This is a good feedback loop although nobody can guarantee it works when most people have an altcoin fatigue anyway...

Really all those tactics I see people want to apply (I see it with Quark, Mazacoin, etc...) it's like they want to put a baby into a wheelchair so that it can move around faster, instead of patiently wait a little longer so the baby learns to walk... 

In the meantime: Devcoin too low priced for you? Well GRAB THEM!  

[sidhujag]

I propose a filter such that if there are less than x recievers it cause a tightening of supply to avoid abundance of supply that does not reflect the demand.

Isn't this a temporary problem that will go away anyway once devcoin has more adoption?

So why fix a problem that only exists because of low participation, instead of working on just making more people participate?

That is like giving a wheelchair to a guy who broke his leg... that's just wrong.
You don't give wheelchairs to guys whose leg will heal eventually... you give wheelchairs to paraplegics (who have no chance of recovery).

Also: if you integrate this "wheelchair" into devcoin, aren't you in a way taking the bonus away from devoted people who still stay on the devcoin ship?
Shouldn't those people be rewarded more, since they are like the last men standing?

Isn't this a mechanism that helps attract more people since more devcoins can now be earned? This is a good feedback loop although nobody can guarantee it works when most people have an altcoin fatigue anyway...

Really all those tactics I see people want to apply (I see it with Quark, Mazacoin, etc...) it's like they want to put a baby into a wheelchair so that it can move around faster, instead of patiently wait a little longer so the baby learns to walk... 

In the meantime: Devcoin too low priced for you? Well GRAB THEM!  

Its not a patch its the way it should have been because they couldnt foresee it becoming an issue it wasnt done. Adoption is not taking hold look at last times it rose.. there were new people which is good but the feet kept getting kicked from under it as dumping continued and the equilibrium was met again where the neediest dumper finally gets outweighed by buyers.. but you see at these prices that people arent coming they are leaving... so to create incentive (buyers market) so that not only will recievers hold but investors will buy knowing there is a chance they can make money and supporting open src at the same time.

[BitcoinNational]

does dev have a personalized coin now?

ags ?

[sidhujag]

Vote for block rewards change before next release http://coinzen.org/index.php/topic,1032.msg34586.html#msg34586

[matt608]

Hey all, I haven't been around here for a while so excuse me if this has been discussed but I was just taking a look at the Devtome traffic analytics and I noticed the huge increase in traffic that occurred in round 35.  You'll see in the rounds before round 35 the traffic was at roughly 200k pageviews, then it jumps to around 600k.  I'm just wondering, what caused this?  Where is all this new traffic coming from?

Here's the traffic analytics page:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devtome_analytics

Thanks.

[sidhujag]

Hey all, I haven't been around here for a while so excuse me if this has been discussed but I was just taking a look at the Devtome traffic analytics and I noticed the huge increase in traffic that occurred in round 35.  You'll see in the rounds before round 35 the traffic was at roughly 200k pageviews, then it jumps to around 600k.  I'm just wondering, what caused this?  Where is all this new traffic coming from?

Here's the traffic analytics page:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devtome_analytics

Thanks.

Maybe something to do with devcoinauction.com? I have been actively promoting it and maybe people end up going to devtome from it? Might be bots too only 8 second before they leave... and each session goes to 5 pages on average.

[georgem]

Vote for block rewards change before next release http://coinzen.org/index.php/topic,1032.msg34586.html#msg34586

Damn, am I the only one who voted no? I must start an anti-reward-change campaign...