Devcoin(DVC) Source Code Updated to Bitcoin 0.8.x

[sidhujag]

DeVCoin is an ethically inspired project based on the Bitcoin cryptocurrency and was created to help fund open source projects created by writers, artists, and software developers.

Participants in the DeVCoin economy earn DeVCoins in proportion to their project development. Writers earn devcoins by writing, developers earn bitcoins by developing, Marketers earn devcoins by marketing, and Administrators earn devcoins by applying their time and effort to help organize the DevCoin project.

Hopefully DeVCoin will eventually fund all types of developers including hardware developers, graphic artists, musicians, and filmmakers.

Devcoin is merge mined with Bitcoin and it is based off of an old version of BTC source (0.3) which had many issues that were not resolved after the fork was done to create Devcoin(DVC).

The need is for Devcoin (similar to I0Coin) to be updated to the latest version of bitcoin source(0.8.5) which supports merged mining. I know I0Coin was updated recently and is working so we need the same work done for DVC and hopefully its not too bad because it was already done with another coin!
link(i0coin updates): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124316.0

There is urgency in completing however because MCXNOW.COM developer RealSolid has said that it will be delisted because of multi-threading and other issues which cause devcoind to crash and cause maintenance nightmares.

The email from RealSolid:
"Sorry the node for devcoin is too unreliable (crashes fairly often, has multithreading bugs). It doesn't meet my criteria for a stable enough chain."

I will work out a plan with RealSolid to try to keep the coin as it is a top notch exchange growing exponentially. I truly believe this exchange will help DVC see the light and the project to finally rise off of its feet.

I will contact RS as soon as we find a developer.

Part of the job is to create the official binary releases (Windows/Mac/Linux) based on the new source code update.

RS has not agreed to keep it on the exchange but we are going ahead with the bounty for the fixes anyway. It is in the hopes that he will agree, and I will work with him on that part. I will keep this thread updated with new developments in this regard.

Bounty Offered:
3-shares
sidhujag 1 million DVC
weisoq 1 million DVC PAID
matt608 1 million DVC
shakezula 1 million DVC
notabot 1 million DVC

Edit:

cryptojournal 1 million DVC
FinShaggy    500,000 DVC
eeh 500,000 DVC
best_btc 1 million dvc

Edit:

Done! I uploaded the source to github: https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin

Windows 32-bit QT and Daemon for testing: https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin/tree/master/dist

Note that to access files over 10 MB you have to check out the repository. So I suggest you download the github application and checkout the repository to get access to the QT installer (or the java installer see below)

Edit: Added a java cross platform installer (works on windows/linux/osx).. I created placeholders for files for osx/linux 64/32bit and windows 64 bit for now but the installer will auto detect your OS and give you the option to install the right files. This should be the installer we distribute to the customer. Otherwise we have to create seperate installers for every OS. There is only 1 file here and it is built every time we update the source for every OS.

I think the original bounty for windows installer may need revision to use a cross platform installer like this, and the person taking care of the installation should probably be the same person building the code.


To Do:
1) Testing, merged-mining, sending/receiving (multiple and single address at a time), sanity UI testing
2) Create images to replace bitcoin/i0coin images. Done! V1.0.2 has these.

3) Make builds for:
   a) windows 64
   b) Linux 32 and 64
   c) FreeBSD 32 and 64
   d) Fedora 32 and 64
   e) Mac osx

4) For windows build, use the NSIS installer that comes with the src code, integrate with new devcoin installer graphics.

Jag

[1714814166]

1714814166

[1714814166]

1714814166

[1714814166]

1714814166

[1714814166]

1714814166

[cryptojournal]

Pledging 1 million DVC.

CJ

[clock27]

I hope this gets fixed i had alot of fun with DVC good luck to everyone involved here

[aa]

.

[sidhujag]

...was created to help fund open source projects created by writers, artists, and software developers.

Where is the list of projects that have already been funded? Where can I apply for a grant?

That is out of the scope of this thread, please post this question to the main DVC thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=233997.

The bounty system is described here: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_bounty.. you can apply to get your bounty added to that list if Devcoin isn't of sufficient market cap for your project.

The current bounties available can be found here: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_bounty_now, again you can apply to get yours on the list, just post about it on the main thread and an admin will help you out.

Thanks,
Jag

[matt608]

Anyone else have any DVC to offer for the bounty?

[best_btc]

I am in with 1,000,000 DVC too.
who else? lets prove the doubters wrong about DVC!

[ahmed_bodi]

if anyone has a link to the original devcoin repo where the changes were first made i can try

[sidhujag]

if anyone has a link to the original devcoin repo where the changes were first made i can try

Plz see https://gitorious.org/devcoin/devcoin/source/4e23c180945785c49bbab682b7f6c6e1eda29b05:

Probably the best way is to look at the diff between the original btc src and this devcoin src and apply the same patches to the I0coin latest code base. I0coin is the other one which was done and is merge mined so its more than a copy and paste. Also the reciever file reading is using libcurl so thats extra.. you must make sure libcurl is thread safe and ensure it works on 64 bit snd 32 bit systems...

Im not sure if we need 32 vs 64 bit releases as I dont know how big that change is for bitcoin src so that is out of scope im guessing.. Libcurl just needs to be tested and pick the most stable version.. maybe wrap it in a critical section or something if need be.

To summarize the workflow is:

1) diff of devcoim to bitcoin original (0.3 i
think.. you must confirm)
2) apply diff to I0coin
3) test and run unit tests
4) report the tests to us and make available new version running on a test net
5) integerate in public

[Habeler876]

good luck! i have no dvc to offer unfortunately, but i wish you all the best of luck, as i very much would like to see devcoin, as an ethical crypto, succeed!!

[matt608]

How is this going, is anyone working on it at the moment?

[sidhujag]

How is this going, is anyone working on it at the moment?

Hi Guys,

Heres an update:


I have had a few responses of interested developers, including myself if no one decided to want to do it. The developer that updated I0Coin to its current state told me he would do it which is great because he was my first choice. I0Coin was updated to the latest code base and it will almost be an identical job to do devcoin. Only thing that would need to be added is the reciever stuff and then small details regarding the 1000x coin numbers over btc.

I will try to find as much material that would be helpful as possible for rsnel, I'm just waiting for him to confirm and then he can start. For example, Unthinkingbit created a nice writeup on the technical side of the work that was done to evolve btc to devcoin which is great. rsnel already can start from I0Coin and apply these changes and hes done. However, I'm sure there have been things added that are not talked about in that wiki: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin. So he will have to do the diff from old btc source to current devcoin to find out the exact changes and apply the relevant ones to I0Coin. It can get tricky but I think if anyone can do it in a timely manor he can.

On the other side, I haven't been able to get through to RS, I tried to ask him on chat no response and sent an email with no response yet. I will continue to try to get a hold of him and if rsnel agrees to start then I will have some new information that he might like to hear and change his mind about the delisting.

Thanks,
Jag

[matt608]

How is this going, is anyone working on it at the moment?

Hi Guys,

Heres an update:


I have had a few responses of interested developers, including myself if no one decided to want to do it. The developer that updated I0Coin to its current state told me he would do it which is great because he was my first choice. I0Coin was updated to the latest code base and it will almost be an identical job to do devcoin. Only thing that would need to be added is the reciever stuff and then small details regarding the 1000x coin numbers over btc.

I will try to find as much material that would be helpful as possible for rsnel, I'm just waiting for him to confirm and then he can start. For example, Unthinkingbit created a nice writeup on the technical side of the work that was done to evolve btc to devcoin which is great. rsnel already can start from I0Coin and apply these changes and hes done. However, I'm sure there have been things added that are not talked about in that wiki: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin. So he will have to do the diff from old btc source to current devcoin to find out the exact changes and apply the relevant ones to I0Coin. It can get tricky but I think if anyone can do it in a timely manor he can.

On the other side, I haven't been able to get through to RS, I tried to ask him on chat no response and sent an email with no response yet. I will continue to try to get a hold of him and if rsnel agrees to start then I will have some new information that he might like to hear and change his mind about the delisting.

Thanks,
Jag

Great, thanks sidhujag! 

[sidhujag]

Update..

Rsnel messaged me back and says he will do it but he is working on other projects for this week atleast. He may be available to start the work in a week or so. I will continue to bug him until he gives me definitive dates or does the code.

Jag

[ANiceJewishBoy]

Hopefully this gets done soon.

[MAbtc]

Update..

Rsnel messaged me back and says he will do it but he is working on other projects for this week atleast. He may be available to start the work in a week or so. I will continue to bug him until he gives me definitive dates or does the code.

Jag

Good news, at least that's an approximate start date.  Thanks for the update, much appreciated.

[Sustainable]

Bumping this thread because I'm pretty sure alot of investors like me weren't aware of problems. Lets get this fixed.

[sidhujag]

Bumping this thread because I'm pretty sure alot of investors like me weren't aware of problems. Lets get this fixed.

RS hasn't really complained on mcx about it crashing since there were patches along the way that were made, but it is still better to have a fresh base for devcoin going forward. RSNEL is a busy guy but looks like he is committed to doing it, now it is just a question of timing.

[sidhujag]

Rsnel has given me a time table he will reply with more info shortly.

Jag

[jiefangqian]

good news.

[Sustainable]

Rsnel has given me a time table he will reply with more info shortly.

Jag

Excellent news thank you! Thanks go out to Rsnel as well

[meta.p02]

I would work on this project, however I am currently trying to hack together Blakecoin p2pool. Besides, I need to figure out how I can dual-boot my com with linux, since it doesn't support virtualisation, and its partitions are arranged in a... rather unique fashion.

Pledging 25 thousand DVC (for now... my shares are still generating).

[rsnel]

Hi people,

I told sidhujag I can do it over the christmas holidays. So I noone else does it before that, I will take a shot.

Greetings,

Rik.

[smeagol]

Hi people,

I told sidhujag I can do it over the christmas holidays. So I noone else does it before that, I will take a shot.

Greetings,

Rik.

Thank you!

[Unthinkingbit]

Hi people,

I told sidhujag I can do it over the christmas holidays. So I noone else does it before that, I will take a shot.

Greetings,

Rik.

Great! You'd also get 48 shares plus another 6 million devcoins from me:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_bounty_now#low_memory_devcoin

[sidhujag]

So ive been working on this and got it the daemon compiled with 0.8.5 with devcoin changes...

The testnet checkpoints werent put in so I disabled the testnet chechpoint checks yet it seems that my merge mine proxy cant connect to my testnet nodes? hmm

I follow this writeup to test:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50741.25;wap2

All I see is the proxy saying cant connect to 127.0.0.1:17002 and the node accepts then drops connection right away. What gives? Anyway need to debug more.

Running on the real network port 52333 it doesnt accept blocks because the version has changed so the miners dont even bother. Any ideas how else I can test?

When we release it I will set a block in the future where all miners need to switch by because its a hard fork.

The protocol and version changed means hard fork.. need to confirm this.

[sidhujag]

Good news got the merge mining proxy working and testnet is functional! Now to try to mine some blocks.

Minor glitch i created a test net reciever file with 5 testnet dvc addresses but the reciever functiom only reads the first address for some reason.

[smeagol]

Bounty Offered:
48-shares
sidhujag 1 million DVC
weisoq 1 million DVC
matt608 1 million DVC
shakezula 1 million DVC
notabot 1 million DVC
cryptojournal 1 million DVC
FinShaggy    500,000 DVC
eeh 500,000 DVC
best_btc 1 million dvc
Unthinkingbit 6 million dvc

new updates to the bounty offered

[sidhujag]

So Im mining blocks on a local testnet and its working as expected.. not really sure how the coins are awarded properly to the recievers but its doing the samr thing as live version..

Next question is what happens with old wallets? I tried to copy over the new daemon over the installed version and then it converts the wallet but when I do a getinfo on it its saying 0 blocks... not sure how bitcoin handles forks in terms of user migration..

after I get those answers I will upload binaries and source for you guys to test.. this is just for the daemon.

[FrictionlessCoin]

Bounty Offered:
48-shares
sidhujag 1 million DVC
weisoq 1 million DVC
matt608 1 million DVC
shakezula 1 million DVC
notabot 1 million DVC
cryptojournal 1 million DVC
FinShaggy    500,000 DVC
eeh 500,000 DVC
best_btc 1 million dvc
Unthinkingbit 6 million dvc

new updates to the bounty offered

Here is what I don't understand.  I thought that with DVC, 95% of all coins go to the developers.  So who are these developers and why aren't they coming up with the funds to do this?

[sidhujag]

Bounty Offered:
48-shares
sidhujag 1 million DVC
weisoq 1 million DVC
matt608 1 million DVC
shakezula 1 million DVC
notabot 1 million DVC
cryptojournal 1 million DVC
FinShaggy    500,000 DVC
eeh 500,000 DVC
best_btc 1 million dvc
Unthinkingbit 6 million dvc

new updates to the bounty offered

Here is what I don't understand.  I thought that with DVC, 95% of all coins go to the developers.  So who are these developers and why aren't they coming up with the funds to do this?

Lol some are on bitcoin share list because they get paid for work on bitcoin (can later import their wallets to collect their devcoin) and some are devs for this project but didnt have the time to do this. Frankly im surprised we didnt hear from them here or they didnt add to the
bounty since im sure most of them knew. But I like to think its karma...

Anyways I wanted to learn the source code and devcoin at the same time so its good I got a chance to do it. I think now I can develop further to make new features that dont exist for other coins.

But first lets get this one working..

Jag

Ps the devs dont pay usually.. the shares are there for that reason to pay devs.. and consider me a dev now..

In the end the top 10k developers will be on the list and we will have a thriving community making great things.

[sidhujag]

Great news Ive got the new daemon downloading the blockchain so its going smoothly... I tested mining using setgenerate and got a few blocks from a testnet. I will include this local testnet on github.. I couldnt test merge mining so we will have to test this with real nodes.

So I am building w32 and we will need someone to build all the platforms from the src:

1) windows 64
2) Linux 32 and 64
3) FreeBSD 32 and 64
4) Fedora 32 and 64
5) Mac osx

All compiles should be using latest version of OS. Someone please help and take up one of these to build. You will need the dependencies. I will try to update the makefiles but I am basing them off my makefile.mingw for windows.

Now I will work on building the qt.. I will upload src to github as well but please respond to what you can build.

[sidhujag]

Done, please see OP for download links

[markm]

Here is what I don't understand.  I thought that with DVC, 95% of all coins go to the developers.  So who are these developers and why aren't they coming up with the funds to do this?

Darn it we have to improve the wording on all docs and ads and marketing copy and so on, tons of people seem to keep thinking the 90% of the coins, the coins sent out to artists, musicians, coders, authors, hardware designers, rocket scientists (once market cap is high enough) and so on and so on and so on who work on (aka "develop") free open source hardware, music, art, literature, programs, spaceships (when our market cap is high enough) somehow means the coders who coded devcoin get 90% of the coins.

That is a totally bogus perception, and maybe totally eradicating the use of the word "developer" in all the text/ads/etc might be required, but however we do it we need to somehow make absolutely clear that 90% of the coins go to people who work on various free open source projects, hopefully not just projects like a free open source spaceship you can print with a 3d printer, not even just projects like that and a free open source printer to print it with, not even just projects like that and free open source formulae and production techniques for making the "inks" used by such printers, but also cool projects such as trying to make the "autodoc" described in Larry Niven's "Ringworld" milieu, that would be an awesome project, if you aren't familiar with Ringworld then maybe you have seen the Stargate series, an "autodoc" is similar to the "sarcophagus" the bad guys use except that the autodoc tries also to keep people sane instead of trying to turn them into megalomaniac sociopathic psychopaths...

Also, it is 90%, not 95%.

It was planned to change to 95% upon merged mining becoming a reality, but miners are so greedy and so filled with a sense of "entitlement" that we left it at 90% even when we did implement merged mining. (Maybe miners use sarcophagi instead of autodocs? If so, all the more need to get our market cap up so we can start financing autodocs as well as spaceships (and, of course, holodecks, gotta have holodecks...))

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Markm I sensed a real negative connation in your recent posts so i suggest you revert back to your old self you were very helped and instrumental to noobs who were learning the ropes.

This guy like the rest were are frusterated by the amouny that devs get without evidence of work.. I tend to agree devcoin should pay via bounties to only the verified sources of work. Btc shares are another story. He is just saying Hey I thought we had devs we paid millions for so where are they? I asked the same q And got the same answer but in the end I will perservere and defeat those who dont believe in the cause. Those who give more time to projects they reward risk more
for will yet get paid dvc while they do it will have whats coming to them. In the end like notabot they will be revealed as fakes and the project will reward the true early adopters who dont sell.

[emfox]

Great news Ive got the new daemon downloading the blockchain so its going smoothly... I tested mining using setgenerate and got a few blocks from a testnet. I will include this local testnet on github.. I couldnt test merge mining so we will have to test this with real nodes.

So I am building w32 and we will need someone to build all the platforms from the src:

1) windows 64
2) Linux 32 and 64
3) FreeBSD 32 and 64
4) Fedora 32 and 64
5) Mac osx

All compiles should be using latest version of OS. Someone please help and take up one of these to build. You will need the dependencies. I will try to update the makefiles but I am basing them off my makefile.mingw for windows.

Now I will work on building the qt.. I will upload src to github as well but please respond to what you can build.

Is the build file ok? I'd like to build linux 32 bitcoind first.

[sidhujag]

Great news Ive got the new daemon downloading the blockchain so its going smoothly... I tested mining using setgenerate and got a few blocks from a testnet. I will include this local testnet on github.. I couldnt test merge mining so we will have to test this with real nodes.

So I am building w32 and we will need someone to build all the platforms from the src:

1) windows 64
2) Linux 32 and 64
3) FreeBSD 32 and 64
4) Fedora 32 and 64
5) Mac osx

All compiles should be using latest version of OS. Someone please help and take up one of these to build. You will need the dependencies. I will try to update the makefiles but I am basing them off my makefile.mingw for windows.

Now I will work on building the qt.. I will upload src to github as well but please respond to what you can build.

Is the build file ok? I'd like to build linux 32 bitcoind first.

i built off of mingw and didnt touch the linux
mingw makefil you will have to add libcurl and multithreading and static options. So its not hard just do it.

[markm]

Markm I sensed a real negative connation in your recent posts so i suggest you revert back to your old self you were very helped and instrumental to noobs who were learning the ropes.

This guy like the rest were are frusterated by the amouny that devs get without evidence of work.. I tend to agree devcoin should pay via bounties to only the verified sources of work. Btc shares are another story. He is just saying Hey I thought we had devs we paid millions for so where are they? I asked the same q And got the same answer but in the end I will perservere and defeat those who dont believe in the cause. Those who give more time to projects they reward risk more
for will yet get paid dvc while they do it will have whats coming to them. In the end like notabot they will be revealed as fakes and the project will reward the true early adopters who dont sell.

To get one share as a programmer you have to do ten hours of work.

To get one share pasting stuff into devtome you only have to paste 1000 words (admittedly ones you wrote yourself.)

So I guess some day when some programmer happens to have typed 1000 words that happen to result in a shiny new client maybe they will chose to paste them into the source code instead of into devtome.

But y'know, they'd make as much money just pasting them into devtome and letting someone else take care of copying them from devtome into the source code and compiling and updating the git repositories and packaging binaries and so on and so on.

Does it really take ten hours to come up with 1000 words to post to devtome? I think as long as it is quicker/easier to come up with 1000 words to paste than it is to debug / create code for ten hours it might even be in the economically rational person sense "stupid" to waste time programming that would be more profitably spent writing 1000's of words of excuses for not programming...

-MarkM-

[Wekkel]

I will test the Windows client and let you know the outcome.

[sidhujag]

Markm I sensed a real negative connation in your recent posts so i suggest you revert back to your old self you were very helped and instrumental to noobs who were learning the ropes.

This guy like the rest were are frusterated by the amouny that devs get without evidence of work.. I tend to agree devcoin should pay via bounties to only the verified sources of work. Btc shares are another story. He is just saying Hey I thought we had devs we paid millions for so where are they? I asked the same q And got the same answer but in the end I will perservere and defeat those who dont believe in the cause. Those who give more time to projects they reward risk more
for will yet get paid dvc while they do it will have whats coming to them. In the end like notabot they will be revealed as fakes and the project will reward the true early adopters who dont sell.

To get one share as a programmer you have to do ten hours of work.

To get one share pasting stuff into devtome you only have to pasteip 1000 words (admittedly ones you wrote yourself.)

So I guess some day when some programmer happens to have typed 1000 words that happen to result in a shiny new client maybe they will chose to paste them into the source code instead of into devtome.

But y'know, they'd make as much money just pasting them into devtome and letting someone else take care of copying them from devtome into the source code and compiling and updating the git repositories and packaging binaries and so on and so on.

Does it really take ten hours to come up with 1000 words to post to devtome? I think as long as it is quicker/easier to come up with 1000 words to paste than it is to debug / create code for ten hours it might even be in the economically rational person sense "stupid" to waste time programming that would be more profitably spent writing 1000's of words of excuses for not programming...

-MarkM-

I agrer that devs should get their fair share of pie and I gave a proposal to unthinkingbit on how to do so. Its up to him but we can talk about the model all we want.. end of day I wrote the code which took 3 weeks and I
get paid for writing like a week lol its ok as long as ppl see whats important.. im not selling they are.. Are u selling???

[meta.p02]

I downloaded the devcoin client in the OP.

Overall, it seems okay so far (indexing the ~118K blocks will take much more time). However, there are some minor cosmetic errors:

1. The taskbar logo, the window icon and the "About Devcoin" logo are I0Coin.
2. In "Sign/Verify Message", the "Devcoin addresses" are actually I0Coin addresses.
3. "Pay To" says "Enter a Bitcoin address".

Other than that, I don't see any major problems. I'll wait further until the reindex is complete to update this post.

[FrictionlessCoin]

a couple other questions....

who administers the DVC distribution?

how do you actually get yourself in the distribution?

[sidhujag]

a couple other questions....

who administers the DVC distribution?

how do you actually get yourself in the distribution?

If your a bitcoin dev or can do devcoin dev than maybe ur on list for now..

alot of ppl forget we r eArly adopters fyi...

[FrictionlessCoin]

a couple other questions....

who administers the DVC distribution?

how do you actually get yourself in the distribution?

If your a bitcoin dev or can do devcoin dev than maybe ur on list for now..

alot of ppl forget we r eArly adopters fyi...

Are you on the list?   How did you get on the list?

I did the same work you did, but for IXC.

IXC had not been updated for 2 1/2 years.  So I made the effort to port it to the 0.8.6 code base.

However, I had to beg for funds here and I continue to have to beg for funds.

For some crazy reason, all these early adopters believe that they can do nothing and the the coin they bought would magically rise in value.   Well,  there are other coins out there that have more aggressive development and marketing budgets.   Some even focus their efforts to ensure the trading goes there way (see FTC and QRK).   

I mean, I couldn't even get funds from the original developer.

Talk about ridiculous.

[sidhujag]

a couple other questions....

who administers the DVC distribution?

how do you actually get yourself in the distribution?

If your a bitcoin dev or can do devcoin dev than maybe ur on list for now..

alot of ppl forget we r eArly adopters fyi...

Are you on the list?   How did you get on the list?

I did the same work you did, but for IXC.

IXC had not been updated for 2 1/2 years.  So I made the effort to port it to the 0.8.6 code base.

However, I had to beg for funds here and I continue to have to beg for funds.

For some crazy reason, all these early adopters believe that they can do nothing and the the coin they bought would magically rise in value.   Well,  there are other coins out there that have more aggressive development and marketing budgets.   Some even focus their efforts to ensure the trading goes there way (see FTC and QRK).   

I mean, I couldn't even get funds from the original developer.

Talk about ridiculous.

Im not on list and well by def u should be i think.. if you can dev for devcoin..

Supposidely if u dev for bitcoin ur on the list.

[meta.p02]

I downloaded the devcoin client in the OP.

Overall, it seems okay so far (indexing the ~118K blocks will take much more time). However, there are some minor cosmetic errors:

1. The taskbar logo, the window icon and the "About Devcoin" logo are I0Coin.
2. In "Sign/Verify Message", the "Devcoin addresses" are actually I0Coin addresses.
3. "Pay To" says "Enter a Bitcoin address".

Other than that, I don't see any major problems. I'll wait further until the reindex is complete to update this post.

I had to restart the client after reindex was completed to get the new blocks to show up. Other than that, things seem to be working fine.

Code:

18:28:44

getinfo


18:28:45

{
"version" : 80501,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 10500,
"balance" : 45000.00000000,
"blocks" : 118801,
"timeoffset" : 2,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 468145620.50036091,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1378797514,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 1.00000000,
"errors" : "This is a pre-release test build - use at your own risk - do not use for mining or merchant applications"
}

Code:

Memory usage
New: 59.6 MB
Old: 224.1 MB

[rsnel]

@FrictionLessCoin & @sidhujag

I'm glad you two took the task of upgrading DVC and IXC.

Small remark about generating binaries, for I0coin I use the official bitcoin-way of building, documented in 'release-process.md'.

[Wekkel]

Tested the Windows client on Windows 8.1 64 bit.

It works fine, downloads the missing blocks and is able to receive DVC. Will try sending coins later after which I will make a small post at Devtome about this beta client.

I understand it will have an installer when ready?

[FrictionlessCoin]

@FrictionLessCoin & @sidhujag

I'm glad you two took the task of upgrading DVC and IXC.

Small remark about generating binaries, for I0coin I use the official bitcoin-way of building, documented in 'release-process.md'.

I did not do the DVC port.

But anyway,  let me read the bitcoin-way.   Thanks for the heads up.   

We definitely want from iXcoin a very well structured process for releasing code.   Right now its a bit haphazard.

[emfox]

Does your src exactly based on bitcoin 0.8.5 ? I see some files missing, e.g. src/leveldb/Makefile is in bitcoin 0.8.5, but not in your devcoin source, and that prevent me from build on linux.

Edit: after add src/leveldb/Makefile from original bitcoin 0.8.5, and add line '-l curl' in LIBS in makefile.unix, I could build devcoind properly on my debian box.

I suggest change the captical D to d, 'cause it not so normal that we use $HOME/.Devcoin and Devcoin.conf file.

[Wekkel]

Ok, tested the Windows client on Windows 8.1 64 bit. Sending and receiving coins works. Screenshots here.

[sidhujag]

Does your src exactly based on bitcoin 0.8.5 ? I see some files missing, e.g. src/leveldb/Makefile is in bitcoin 0.8.5, but not in your devcoin source, and that prevent me from build on linux.

Edit: after add src/leveldb/Makefile from original bitcoin 0.8.5, and add line '-l curl' in LIBS in makefile.unix, I could build devcoind properly on my debian box.

I suggest change the captical D to d, 'cause it not so normal that we use $HOME/.Devcoin and Devcoin.conf file.

Taken from i0coin which was based on btc 0.8.5... I can add that makefile I will get it from 0.8.5 thanks...

Once you can build please share the makefile so I can update it. We are still testing so the official binaries will come after we are done testing. But can I rely on you to make the linux builds? Can you do 64 and 32 bit?

About the lowercase 'd' thing... fixed in 1.0.1, can you retest for this?

Thanks
Jag

[sidhujag]

@FrictionLessCoin & @sidhujag

I'm glad you two took the task of upgrading DVC and IXC.

Small remark about generating binaries, for I0coin I use the official bitcoin-way of building, documented in 'release-process.md'.

I did not do the DVC port.

But anyway,  let me read the bitcoin-way.   Thanks for the heads up.   

We definitely want from iXcoin a very well structured process for releasing code.   Right now its a bit haphazard.

I agree, I did not look at the bitcoin way because I think it wouldn't build devcoin (different naming) and more dependencies were added like libcurl etc so for now its a manual process until we figure out how to make it work for official builds which would be a nice - to - have.

[sidhujag]

user weisoq sent me: "On your new build, not sure if fees are working correctly. I sent wekkel 10 dvc to test his install (which subtracts the flat 1dvc from my balance, so 11 dvc sent). He seems to have sent me back 10, but I've received 9.5 (so I assume the client has subtacted the fee from the send amount rather than balance, and not sure why it's 0.5 dvc rather than 1?)

It may have something to do with those 10dvc being the only coins in his new wallet, but even then why 0.5, so thought you might want to check."

 noticed that in the official repository for the old devcoin that GetMinFee doesn't uncomment the section where fAllowFree resets the fee's for transactions less than 27k coins. However on the wiki http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin where UnthinkingBit wrote that GetMinFee() was changed by removing the fAllowFree code... this doesn't actually exist in the official source... however I did just make this change so please retest the transactions.

I updated the binaries to v1.0.1.. its a manual process until we can actually figure out how to use the proper release process (which we are not ready for yet anyway until testing is complete)...

[Wekkel]

user weisoq sent me: "On your new build, not sure if fees are working correctly. I sent wekkel 10 dvc to test his install (which subtracts the flat 1dvc from my balance, so 11 dvc sent). He seems to have sent me back 10, but I've received 9.5 (so I assume the client has subtacted the fee from the send amount rather than balance, and not sure why it's 0.5 dvc rather than 1?)

It may have something to do with those 10dvc being the only coins in his new wallet, but even then why 0.5, so thought you might want to check."

I got 10 DVC from you and had no other balance. I have no voluntary payment fee configured for the client. The client demanded a minimum 0.5 DVC fee for the return payment. Hence, 9.5 DVC available and 0.5 as payment fee. See details of the payment here

[sidhujag]

user weisoq sent me: "On your new build, not sure if fees are working correctly. I sent wekkel 10 dvc to test his install (which subtracts the flat 1dvc from my balance, so 11 dvc sent). He seems to have sent me back 10, but I've received 9.5 (so I assume the client has subtacted the fee from the send amount rather than balance, and not sure why it's 0.5 dvc rather than 1?)

It may have something to do with those 10dvc being the only coins in his new wallet, but even then why 0.5, so thought you might want to check."

I got 10 DVC from you and had no other balance. I have no voluntary payment fee configured for the client. The client demanded a minimum 0.5 DVC fee for the return payment. Hence, 9.5 DVC available and 0.5 as payment fee. See details of the payment here

Well either way for tx amount above 27k we would never see an issue, but I think tx's below that may not have been right according to the wiki... so I commented out the fAllowFree code which resets fee's for transactions below 27000 coins, so fees aren't reset back to 0 now...

Let's try it again and make sure its right according tot he original spec.

[weisoq]

user weisoq sent me: "On your new build, not sure if fees are working correctly. I sent wekkel 10 dvc to test his install (which subtracts the flat 1dvc from my balance, so 11 dvc sent). He seems to have sent me back 10, but I've received 9.5 (so I assume the client has subtacted the fee from the send amount rather than balance, and not sure why it's 0.5 dvc rather than 1?)

It may have something to do with those 10dvc being the only coins in his new wallet, but even then why 0.5, so thought you might want to check."

I got 10 DVC from you and had no other balance. I have no voluntary payment fee configured for the client. The client demanded a minimum 0.5 DVC fee for the return payment. Hence, 9.5 DVC available and 0.5 as payment fee. See details of the payment here

Just about the test wekkel, not the dvc. It should have said something like 'you don't have the funds, change the send amount'. Let me know when you have the newest update and I'll try sending again.

[sidhujag]

user weisoq sent me: "On your new build, not sure if fees are working correctly. I sent wekkel 10 dvc to test his install (which subtracts the flat 1dvc from my balance, so 11 dvc sent). He seems to have sent me back 10, but I've received 9.5 (so I assume the client has subtacted the fee from the send amount rather than balance, and not sure why it's 0.5 dvc rather than 1?)

It may have something to do with those 10dvc being the only coins in his new wallet, but even then why 0.5, so thought you might want to check."

I got 10 DVC from you and had no other balance. I have no voluntary payment fee configured for the client. The client demanded a minimum 0.5 DVC fee for the return payment. Hence, 9.5 DVC available and 0.5 as payment fee. See details of the payment here

Just about the test wekkel, not the dvc. It should have said something like 'you don't have the funds, change the send amount'. Let me know when you have the newest update and I'll try sending again.

Ok I uploaded 1.0.1 for the qt binary you can try it again. I don't know if it will throw up a message saying you don't have enough or whatever but as long as the fee's are "right" I think its good for now.

Thanks,
Jag

[sidhujag]

I downloaded the devcoin client in the OP.

Overall, it seems okay so far (indexing the ~118K blocks will take much more time). However, there are some minor cosmetic errors:

1. The taskbar logo, the window icon and the "About Devcoin" logo are I0Coin.
2. In "Sign/Verify Message", the "Devcoin addresses" are actually I0Coin addresses.
3. "Pay To" says "Enter a Bitcoin address".

Other than that, I don't see any major problems. I'll wait further until the reindex is complete to update this post.

Fixed points 2 and 3 in 1.0.1, thanks.

For point 1 we will have a bounty of I think 8 shares for the new qt images and 4 shares for second best... the images we need are in the  original post of this thread.

[markm]

The main purpose of fees is to discourage spamming.

Devcoin creates (more than) 1000 times as many coins per block as bitcoin so fees were set as a thousand times higher than bitcoin's fees back when we created Devcoin.

The idea was that Devcoins would be worth 1/1000 (at best, and actually now that bitcoin makes only 25 coins not 50, presumably more like 1/2000) of what bitcoins are worth, so that however many bitcoins of fee it would take to discourage spammers it would presumably take 1000 (nowadays maybe more like at least 2000) times as much fee to accomplish the same amount of discouragement in Devcoin.

So maybe while you are at it you should update our old "fees 1000 times as much as bitcoin's fees" to be at least 2000 times as much.

Which would be a hard fork, so should be set to come into effect at some particular block number.

Plus we can predict ahead too, we know in how many years bitcoin will again halve its number of coins per block, so maybe we could plan ahead to have our fees jump yet again at those times. Though when those times actually come bitcoin will maybe have changed its fees so come the day we'd want to look at bitcoin's fees and do our multiply accordingly then when updating devcoin again then.

-MarkM-

[markm]

For point 1 we will have a bounty of I think 8 shares for the new qt images and 4 shares for second best... the images we need are in the  original post of this thread.

That seems insanely high, since we already have logo images so all that is needed is to re-size our official logo (whichever one was picked, we already paid bounties to get the logos in the first place didn't we?) to the correct sizes needed for this particular case of actually using the already paid for logo.

Its a one line command fergoshsakes, "for size in sizeone, sizetwo, sizethree do resize logo".

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

For point 1 we will have a bounty of I think 8 shares for the new qt images and 4 shares for second best... the images we need are in the  original post of this thread.

That seems insanely high, since we already have logo images so all that is needed is to re-size our official logo (whichever one was picked, we already paid bounties to get the logos in the first place didn't we?) to the correct sizes needed for this particular case of actually using the already paid for logo.

Its a one line command fergoshsakes, "for size in sizeone, sizetwo, sizethree do resize logo".

-MarkM-

I think the splash images are different as well as the testnet ones.. Maybe not 8 shares since the logo can be resized and its little work. Your right. I propose 4 shares for all of the images. LightLord did i0coin so if noone takes this up in a timely manor  I can ask him .

[emfox]

Does your src exactly based on bitcoin 0.8.5 ? I see some files missing, e.g. src/leveldb/Makefile is in bitcoin 0.8.5, but not in your devcoin source, and that prevent me from build on linux.

Edit: after add src/leveldb/Makefile from original bitcoin 0.8.5, and add line '-l curl' in LIBS in makefile.unix, I could build devcoind properly on my debian box.

I suggest change the captical D to d, 'cause it not so normal that we use $HOME/.Devcoin and Devcoin.conf file.

Taken from i0coin which was based on btc 0.8.5... I can add that makefile I will get it from 0.8.5 thanks...

Once you can build please share the makefile so I can update it. We are still testing so the official binaries will come after we are done testing. But can I rely on you to make the linux builds? Can you do 64 and 32 bit?

About the lowercase 'd' thing... fixed in 1.0.1, can you retest for this?

Thanks
Jag

I'm the official linux Administrator of devcoin, so you could rely on me. currently I've done the 32bit build, and if everything ok, I'll set up my 64bit virtual machine to do the 64bit ones.

please also update the git source, adding src/leveldb/Makefile(does not need any change), and add line '-l curl' in src/makefile.unix.

[sidhujag]

The main purpose of fees is to discourage spamming.

Devcoin creates (more than) 1000 times as many coins per block as bitcoin so fees were set as a thousand times higher than bitcoin's fees back when we created Devcoin.

The idea was that Devcoins would be worth 1/1000 (at best, and actually now that bitcoin makes only 25 coins not 50, presumably more like 1/2000) of what bitcoins are worth, so that however many bitcoins of fee it would take to discourage spammers it would presumably take 1000 (nowadays maybe more like at least 2000) times as much fee to accomplish the same amount of discouragement in Devcoin.

So maybe while you are at it you should update our old "fees 1000 times as much as bitcoin's fees" to be at least 2000 times as much.

Which would be a hard fork, so should be set to come into effect at some particular block number.

Plus we can predict ahead too, we know in how many years bitcoin will again halve its number of coins per block, so maybe we could plan ahead to have our fees jump yet again at those times. Though when those times actually come bitcoin will maybe have changed its fees so come the day we'd want to look at bitcoin's fees and do our multiply accordingly then when updating devcoin again then.

-MarkM-

I think there was a fee structure change in 0.8.6 so we might need to rethink the fee stuff now. Gaven did to a push to change the fee stuff I remember. Not sure if it affects us... so should we double our min fees? right now minfee is 5 coins (int64 CTransaction::nMinTxFee = 5*COIN) and the 0.5 fee comes from getminfee():

Code:

    // DEVCOIN: To limit dust spam, require an additional one tenth of CTransaction::nMinTxFee/CTransaction::nMinRelayTxFee for each output
    BOOST_FOREACH(const CTxOut& txout, vout)
         nMinFee += nBaseFee / 10;

Which basically takes 5*Coin / 10 = 0.5 coins fees...

The code was setting nBaseFee to 0 for tx under 27000 coins, which I commented out so now fees for all transactions will be based on the size of the transaction:

Code:

    // Base fee is either nMinTxFee or nMinRelayTxFee
    int64 nBaseFee = (mode == GMF_RELAY) ? nMinRelayTxFee : nMinTxFee;

    unsigned int nBytes = ::GetSerializeSize(*this, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION);
    unsigned int nNewBlockSize = nBlockSize + nBytes;
    int64 nMinFee = (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000) * nBaseFee;

This is the same code its always been, just that I commented out the code that comes right after this which sets fee back to 0 if transactions are small (allow free for small transactions).

[sidhujag]

Does your src exactly based on bitcoin 0.8.5 ? I see some files missing, e.g. src/leveldb/Makefile is in bitcoin 0.8.5, but not in your devcoin source, and that prevent me from build on linux.

Edit: after add src/leveldb/Makefile from original bitcoin 0.8.5, and add line '-l curl' in LIBS in makefile.unix, I could build devcoind properly on my debian box.

I suggest change the captical D to d, 'cause it not so normal that we use $HOME/.Devcoin and Devcoin.conf file.

Taken from i0coin which was based on btc 0.8.5... I can add that makefile I will get it from 0.8.5 thanks...

Once you can build please share the makefile so I can update it. We are still testing so the official binaries will come after we are done testing. But can I rely on you to make the linux builds? Can you do 64 and 32 bit?

About the lowercase 'd' thing... fixed in 1.0.1, can you retest for this?

Thanks
Jag

I'm the official linux Administrator of devcoin, so you could rely on me. currently I've done the 32bit build, and if everything ok, I'll set up my 64bit virtual machine to do the 64bit ones.

please also update the git source, adding src/leveldb/Makefile(does not need any change), and add line '-l curl' in src/makefile.unix.

The change is not so simply to the unix file. Have a look at

https://github.com/sidhujag/devcoin/commit/36d595726636255a55c62780a671386c0cc7c505

I had to make multiple changes, give it a whirl and see if it compiles.

I added the makefile's too, for some reason gitignore had makefile in there but I took it out and then it added all of them, there were tons from libcurl aswell.

[sidhujag]

The main purpose of fees is to discourage spamming.

Devcoin creates (more than) 1000 times as many coins per block as bitcoin so fees were set as a thousand times higher than bitcoin's fees back when we created Devcoin.

The idea was that Devcoins would be worth 1/1000 (at best, and actually now that bitcoin makes only 25 coins not 50, presumably more like 1/2000) of what bitcoins are worth, so that however many bitcoins of fee it would take to discourage spammers it would presumably take 1000 (nowadays maybe more like at least 2000) times as much fee to accomplish the same amount of discouragement in Devcoin.

So maybe while you are at it you should update our old "fees 1000 times as much as bitcoin's fees" to be at least 2000 times as much.

Which would be a hard fork, so should be set to come into effect at some particular block number.

Plus we can predict ahead too, we know in how many years bitcoin will again halve its number of coins per block, so maybe we could plan ahead to have our fees jump yet again at those times. Though when those times actually come bitcoin will maybe have changed its fees so come the day we'd want to look at bitcoin's fees and do our multiply accordingly then when updating devcoin again then.

-MarkM-

While we are on that topic the initial inflationary goal was tobe 1000x inflationary than bitcoin as really I
thought the goal was for price to stabalize at 0.001btc?

So if fees are maintaining the ratio maybe the generation rate should also be affected? At btc 1 we would stop and make 1000 dvc per block the minimum.. idk makes sense based on initial goals to be 1000x btc

[sidhujag]

v1.0.2 available check OP to download from github, reminder you have to view zip file raw because github really isn't a file repository.. we are just using it temp for our testing.

[markm]

Devcoin continues minting coins forever partly because receivers need to be receiving coins forever.

Changing the fee structure probably requires checking the block number, so that existing blocks do not suddenly look like they had too little in the way of fees?

So you maybe cannot simply change fees boom just by changing the numbers in the code, you also likely have to keep those old nubmers in there for when the validity of old blocks is being checked, and have any change in fees take effect as of some specific future block.

Unless you are absolutely sure that your new fee values/code does in fact still find all already-existing blocks and all blocks people who continue to user old code to be be valid, of course. But you'd better be very sure of that, because some people are likely to keep on using old clients for years thus to continue sending fees as dictated by the old code not by the new code...

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Devcoin continues minting coins forever partly because receivers need to be receiving coins forever.

Changing the fee structure probably requires checking the block number, so that existing blocks do not suddenly look like they had too little in the way of fees?

So you maybe cannot simply change fees boom just by changing the numbers in the code, you also likely have to keep those old nubmers in there for when the validity of old blocks is being checked, and have any change in fees take effect as of some specific future block.

Unless you are absolutely sure that your new fee values/code does in fact still find all already-existing blocks and all blocks people who continue to user old code to be be valid, of course. But you'd better be very sure of that, because some people are likely to keep on using old clients for years thus to continue sending fees as dictated by the old code not by the new code...

-MarkM-

This was done via getminfee() @ block 10700 so I was forced to test it anyway.. I downloaded entire blockchain using the new daemon for my tests. When I didnt check the daemon stopped downloading at block 10700.. so now we would change the numbers again at block x in the future.

On minting forver i already agree to that I just said to reduce to keep the ratio consistent up until say 1 btc per
block at which point ratio widens from then on.

[sidhujag]

Created a cross platform java installer

[markm]

If screwing everyone over by pulling the rug out from under the most basic definitions of a coin, the how many coins there will be and the how many there will be per block is absolutely necessary, go ahead and have bitcoin not halve its minting, that will fix the ratio and it will do so without turning devcoin into fraud / false advertising / scam / bait-and switch.

Let the other chain be the fraud not this one, okay?

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

If screwing everyone over by pulling the rug out from under the most basic definitions of a coin, the how many coins there will be and the how many there will be per block is absolutely necessary, go ahead and have bitcoin not halve its minting, that will fix the ratio and it will do so without turning devcoin into fraud / false advertising / scam / bait-and switch.

Let the other chain be the fraud not this one, okay?

-MarkM-

I didnt say i was changine it.. but maybe thats what a vote can be used for? I thought its a perfect chance to use it. Sometimes in hindsight it makes sense to make the changes if its beneficial.. others in the space are tending towards that direction there had to be some truth to te argument hence why I brought it up in first place.

[markm]

Back when GRouPcoin and DeVCoin were created, the forums were full of people screaming and shouting that bitcoin is doomed, it is a flawed model, deflation is deadly, a currency absolutely has to continue being printed, and on and on like that.

So GRouPcoin and DeVCoin were deliberately created to just keep churning out coins, to basically prove that those people were so full of shit that they would not support a non-delfationary coin themselves. Sure enough, none of them jumped onto these coins that we made for them as far as I know.

DeVCoin though has an actual reason for doing things the way that it does. It deliberately is doing it, there is no error or mistake, if you don't like coins that keep minting then please just go away and play with some coin that is deflationary or something.

Your voting idea is a big problem with democracy. "We have decided to violate all our contracts and thereby screw everyone, ha ha tough luck everyone who believed our promises, we had another election and decided to break all the contracts we made last election. You can always depend on the masses to vote for bread and circuses even the Romans knew that what are you stupid or something, what a sucker ha ha maybe we should spawn a bunch new contracts to break and screw you all all over again you suckers..."

Go play with Novacoin they are into doing that kind of crap.

Oh Solidcoin too, you are right scamming is popular isn't it?

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Back when GRouPcoin and DeVCoin were created, the forums were full of people screaming and shouting that bitcoin is doomed, it is a flawed model, deflation is deadly, a currency absolutely has to continue being printed, and on and on like that.

So GRouPcoin and DeVCoin were deliberately created to just keep churning out coins, to basically prove that those people were so full of shit that they would not support a non-delfationary coin themselves. Sure enough, none of them jumped onto these coins that we made for them as far as I know.

DeVCoin though has an actual reason for doing things the way that it does. It deliberately is doing it, there is no error or mistake, if you don't like coins that keep minting then please just go away and play with some coin that is deflationary or something.

Your voting idea is a big problem with democracy. "We have decided to violate all our contracts and thereby screw everyone, ha ha tough luck everyone who believed our promises, we had another election and decided to break all the contracts we made last election. You can always depend on the masses to vote for bread and circuses even the Romans knew that what are you stupid or something, what a sucker ha ha maybe we should spawn a bunch new contracts to break and screw you all all over again you suckers..."

Go play with Novacoin they are into doing that kind of crap.

Oh Solidcoin too, you are right scamming is popular isn't it?

-MarkM-

I totally get the history and I get the need for always minting but I just said to reduce it to stick to the ratio for as long as possible so the avg rate of dvc would be 1 mbtc setting it for an advantage when the mbtc switch happens with btc later on. Nothing changes except scarcity going fwd... thequestion lies would 1000 dvc per block be granular enough long term. at this rate we are tending towards 0 btc and hard to gain acceptance with a price preceding 7 zero's

[markm]

All that is happening is that we have not yet built up enough "depth" at the bottom of the buy side of the order book(s) to accomodate more than 200 million coins being dumped per month.

It should not take long to reach a point where we can put in a buy order for a billion or so coins at one satoshi each every month to accomodate people who want to dump, and eventually to have a buy order at one satoshi per coin that is big enough to buy each and every devcoin that exists.

At that point even if everyone tried to dump all their devcoins they would be able to, and the folks sitting earning interest on their bitcoins on Vircurex with those bitcoins parked in such buy orders will be laughing all the way back up to 350+ satoshis per coin and it will be trivial to buy up the new 200 million being minted each month, even maybe to give the dumpers a break by offering two satoshis each for them.

Then each cycle, as we have already been seeing, of down to however low the dumpers are willing to go, or feel forced by starvation etc to go, and back up to whatever price buyers are willing to pay for reasonable quantities, the dumpers can dump while the rest of us buy up all the cheap coins, then those who prefer a nicer price for their coins can sit them up over 200 satoshis or over 350 or wherever ready to get sold the next time a buyer comes along who wants more than the few billion that get minted per year or even just more than the few hundred million that get minted in the course of a few months.

How many devcoins worth of buy offers do you have sitting at 1 to 30 or so satoshis waiting for dirt cheap coins from dumpers? The more buy offers there are down there, and the higher the huge stack of such offers climbs, the harder it will be for dumpers who are only dumping a few months minting worth of coins to drive the price down into that pile.

Mostly it is maybe just a matter of gaining trust in Vircurex, trust that by the time they run off with all your bitcoins that are sitting there on the buy side earning interest all those coins will be just part of your profits so you'll still be ahead even if they do run off with them.

-MarkM-

[smeagol]

I think the splash images are different as well as the testnet ones.. Maybe not 8 shares since the logo can be resized and its little work. Your right. I propose 4 shares for all of the images. LightLord did i0coin so if noone takes this up in a timely manor  I can ask him .

4 shares for a new set of qt images and icons (like send, receive, etc.) and 2 for the next-best set.  This will be voted on by randomly selected admins.

Any objections?

[sidhujag]

All that is happening is that we have not yet built up enough "depth" at the bottom of the buy side of the order book(s) to accomodate more than 200 million coins being dumped per month.

It should not take long to reach a point where we can put in a buy order for a billion or so coins at one satoshi each every month to accomodate people who want to dump, and eventually to have a buy order at one satoshi per coin that is big enough to buy each and every devcoin that exists.

At that point even if everyone tried to dump all their devcoins they would be able to, and the folks sitting earning interest on their bitcoins on Vircurex with those bitcoins parked in such buy orders will be laughing all the way back up to 350+ satoshis per coin and it will be trivial to buy up the new 200 million being minted each month, even maybe to give the dumpers a break by offering two satoshis each for them.

Then each cycle, as we have already been seeing, of down to however low the dumpers are willing to go, or feel forced by starvation etc to go, and back up to whatever price buyers are willing to pay for reasonable quantities, the dumpers can dump while the rest of us buy up all the cheap coins, then those who prefer a nicer price for their coins can sit them up over 200 satoshis or over 350 or wherever ready to get sold the next time a buyer comes along who wants more than the few billion that get minted per year or even just more than the few hundred million that get minted in the course of a few months.

How many devcoins worth of buy offers do you have sitting at 1 to 30 or so satoshis waiting for dirt cheap coins from dumpers? The more buy offers there are down there, and the higher the huge stack of such offers climbs, the harder it will be for dumpers who are only dumping a few months minting worth of coins to drive the price down into that pile.

Mostly it is maybe just a matter of gaining trust in Vircurex, trust that by the time they run off with all your bitcoins that are sitting there on the buy side earning interest all those coins will be just part of your profits so you'll still be ahead even if they do run off with them.

-MarkM-

Every time the block reward halves the ratio widens and pushes price down further. This means the price is tending towards 0 btc but not necessarily usd. So the case where dvc may stabalize in price is if/when bitcoiners switch to devcoin (not likely) and that is the case where devcoin has long term prospects unless the model is followed to allow a constant ratio until supply is saturated which I eluded to earlier, not sure if you got that. Supply will be saturated and we will still have an infinite generation rate.. just alot less, and at that point I would argue that people would switch to devcoin just because it offers more than a simple deflationary spiral.

[markm]

Well if other things tend toward cheaper and cheaper too, which they ought to in relation to bitcoin if bitcoin deflates as it is hoped/expected to, devcoin will be a lot more useful than bitcoin for buying cheap things since it gives much more granularity then just "one satoshi each, two satoshis each etc".

Albeit scale helps with that kind of thing too in Open Transactions. Cheap things can be offered on large scale markets, so for example instead of having people offer a number of bitcoins for one of something, cheap somethings could choose to use a million at a time scale market or a hundred thousand at a time scale market in which people bid bitcoins for whole millions or whole hundred thousands of the cheap thing.

(Bear in mind that all assets, not just shares and deeds but also currencies, on my server are integers, so when you bid in bitcoins for something you bid in whole bitcoins for whole somethings... Probably resulting in bitcoiners preferring to offer their bitcoins for sale for cheaper things to bid for them rather than to bid bitcoins on a market where the something else is the thing for sale and the bitcoins are the thing in which bids are being taken.)

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Hey guys 1.0.3 is built and ready. I enabled QR payments in this one, so we need a mobile wallet to allow QR payments to take place... which really is a cool idea if we want traction in the vendor space.

[sidhujag]

Well if other things tend toward cheaper and cheaper too, which they ought to in relation to bitcoin if bitcoin deflates as it is hoped/expected to, devcoin will be a lot more useful than bitcoin for buying cheap things since it gives much more granularity then just "one satoshi each, two satoshis each etc".

Albeit scale helps with that kind of thing too in Open Transactions. Cheap things can be offered on large scale markets, so for example instead of having people offer a number of bitcoins for one of something, cheap somethings could choose to use a million at a time scale market or a hundred thousand at a time scale market in which people bid bitcoins for whole millions or whole hundred thousands of the cheap thing.

(Bear in mind that all assets, not just shares and deeds but also currencies, on my server are integers, so when you bid in bitcoins for something you bid in whole bitcoins for whole somethings... Probably resulting in bitcoiners preferring to offer their bitcoins for sale for cheaper things to bid for them rather than to bid bitcoins on a market where the something else is the thing for sale and the bitcoins are the thing in which bids are being taken.)

-MarkM-

This is why I like the ratio of 1000:1 so we can talk about mBTC instead of satoshi's and it would appeal to a larger audience and not just the devcoin community who deals with 6 or 7 trailing zero pricing. I like the idea that you can get more, and the idea that mBTC would be the target price, however letting it tend to zero means you can't really use anything other than a satoshi, and that in itself is a problem with widespread adaption, continue to think it is worthless in the face of even great developments. Maybe in a hundred years when the ratio of new minted coins is negligible on the entire supply will it make sense for investors to put serious money into helping open source development, however as an investor today that really is like throwing money away and so the catch 22 rolls on. (Which investor wants to wait 100 years today for an investment to mature enough to consider it a success?)

If you do the math it would take 100 years before you reach < 1% inflation p.a.

Since we are early adopters changing it now wouldn't be considered a scam because in the long run it works to achieve a certain goal. I outlined the goal already but if the goals are different then I would like to know simply how what I said isn't better in the long run. That is I already agree to an infinite minting we are really talking about scale here only. The project description doesn't change.

[emfox]

Hey guys 1.0.3 is built and ready. I enabled QR payments in this one, so we need a mobile wallet to allow QR payments to take place... which really is a cool idea if we want traction in the vendor space.

just curious, have you got easy way of update code when bitcoin update from version to version? because we add every functions that orignial bitcoin doesn't have, that's a little harder to udpate codes.

Well if other things tend toward cheaper and cheaper too, which they ought to in relation to bitcoin if bitcoin deflates as it is hoped/expected to, devcoin will be a lot more useful than bitcoin for buying cheap things since it gives much more granularity then just "one satoshi each, two satoshis each etc".

Albeit scale helps with that kind of thing too in Open Transactions. Cheap things can be offered on large scale markets, so for example instead of having people offer a number of bitcoins for one of something, cheap somethings could choose to use a million at a time scale market or a hundred thousand at a time scale market in which people bid bitcoins for whole millions or whole hundred thousands of the cheap thing.

(Bear in mind that all assets, not just shares and deeds but also currencies, on my server are integers, so when you bid in bitcoins for something you bid in whole bitcoins for whole somethings... Probably resulting in bitcoiners preferring to offer their bitcoins for sale for cheaper things to bid for them rather than to bid bitcoins on a market where the something else is the thing for sale and the bitcoins are the thing in which bids are being taken.)

-MarkM-

This is why I like the ratio of 1000:1 so we can talk about mBTC instead of satoshi's and it would appeal to a larger audience and not just the devcoin community who deals with 6 or 7 trailing zero pricing. I like the idea that you can get more, and the idea that mBTC would be the target price, however letting it tend to zero means you can't really use anything other than a satoshi, and that in itself is a problem with widespread adaption, continue to think it is worthless in the face of even great developments. Maybe in a hundred years when the ratio of new minted coins is negligible on the entire supply will it make sense for investors to put serious money into helping open source development, however as an investor today that really is like throwing money away and so the catch 22 rolls on. (Which investor wants to wait 100 years today for an investment to mature enough to consider it a success?)

If you do the math it would take 100 years before you reach < 1% inflation p.a.

Since we are early adopters changing it now wouldn't be considered a scam because in the long run it works to achieve a certain goal. I outlined the goal already but if the goals are different then I would like to know simply how what I said isn't better in the long run. That is I already agree to an infinite minting we are really talking about scale here only. The project description doesn't change.

having read all the discussion about inflation, I think i support sidhujag's suggested way. markm, you can think about it, sidhujag does know our goal and know why we do not use a inflated way, but this method is not bad too, and, maybe, we could get success earlier.

[weisoq]

I understand the point but even if terms were changed, who's to say it settles at x ratio to btc. It will trade where people want to trade it like all coins.

But surely that can't be changed now. What if the bitcoin panel at a future bitcoin conference decide to change something else. Do we alter things again. Devcoin unlike most coins acknowledges the infrastructure that created it, paying out regularly to creators of various tools that progressed things. But to go forward it needs to get away from a bitcoin peg, not stick to it more.

I'd say this about all alts - people should be looking at their value in terms of what they can be used for or the local exchange medium, or the forward potential for that - not necessarily just /btc. Already btc is coming up against the mbtc debate - dvc already addresses that. And the constancy is fundamental to being able to pay ongoing development from generation. Still very early days but if the concept proves to not work in the future that will be because not enough people supported its aims, or because it wasn't done well enough - not because of the inflation rate which falls every period. Changing the terms now might mean those holding dvc (including me) do better out of it, but it would send a shitty msg.

[markm]

The number of coins being minted is only 200 million per "round".

The tendency toward zero value has been because of people dumping the coins instead of exchanging them wisely with care in ways that conserve or even enhance their value.

Now that we know the vast majority of people want to drive the value to zero, or maybe more correctly, want to dump them without caring or having to care about how their act effects the future perception of how valuable the coins are thus tend to act much as if they were trying to drive the value to zero, we can adapt to that.

Basically we can start by being set up ready willing and able to buy 200 million coins per "round", then we can continue to increase the number of coins we are prepared to buy, heck we can even keep increasing the "depth" of the buy-side of the order-book(s) to a point where we stand ready to buy not only each and every newly minted devcoin but also each and every devcoin that has already been minted.

It takes time to build up such depth but had we known from the first moment that we got onto the first exchange that the users of the currency would mostly be people who act as if their goal is to drive its value to zero we could have started preparing more robustly and sooner for such an eventuality.

I am not yet sure approximately how long it will take to build up the necessary depth but it can be done, although of course if exchanges tend to run away with the coins every time we build up a vast enough pile of "coins to buy devcoins with so that devcoins will be perceived to have value relative to the coins with which we are prepared to buy them" that will slow us down. Whereas if we keep our "reserves" with which we "back" devcoins off of the exchanges then clearly we face other problems.

Clearly some people are not holding as "reserves" enough of whatever they sell devcoins for to be able to buy back those same devcoins or even any significant fraction of them. Or maybe they do have plenty of "reserves" but are choosing not to use them as aggressively as some might prefer to keep the exchange rate up by buying devcoins when devcoins are cheap.

Now we know that, we should in principle be able adjust for it. So far I still think that we can.

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Hey guys 1.0.3 is built and ready. I enabled QR payments in this one, so we need a mobile wallet to allow QR payments to take place... which really is a cool idea if we want traction in the vendor space.

just curious, have you got easy way of update code when bitcoin update from version to version? because we add every functions that orignial bitcoin doesn't have, that's a little harder to udpate codes.

Well if other things tend toward cheaper and cheaper too, which they ought to in relation to bitcoin if bitcoin deflates as it is hoped/expected to, devcoin will be a lot more useful than bitcoin for buying cheap things since it gives much more granularity then just "one satoshi each, two satoshis each etc".

Albeit scale helps with that kind of thing too in Open Transactions. Cheap things can be offered on large scale markets, so for example instead of having people offer a number of bitcoins for one of something, cheap somethings could choose to use a million at a time scale market or a hundred thousand at a time scale market in which people bid bitcoins for whole millions or whole hundred thousands of the cheap thing.

(Bear in mind that all assets, not just shares and deeds but also currencies, on my server are integers, so when you bid in bitcoins for something you bid in whole bitcoins for whole somethings... Probably resulting in bitcoiners preferring to offer their bitcoins for sale for cheaper things to bid for them rather than to bid bitcoins on a market where the something else is the thing for sale and the bitcoins are the thing in which bids are being taken.)

-MarkM-

This is why I like the ratio of 1000:1 so we can talk about mBTC instead of satoshi's and it would appeal to a larger audience and not just the devcoin community who deals with 6 or 7 trailing zero pricing. I like the idea that you can get more, and the idea that mBTC would be the target price, however letting it tend to zero means you can't really use anything other than a satoshi, and that in itself is a problem with widespread adaption, continue to think it is worthless in the face of even great developments. Maybe in a hundred years when the ratio of new minted coins is negligible on the entire supply will it make sense for investors to put serious money into helping open source development, however as an investor today that really is like throwing money away and so the catch 22 rolls on. (Which investor wants to wait 100 years today for an investment to mature enough to consider it a success?)

If you do the math it would take 100 years before you reach < 1% inflation p.a.

Since we are early adopters changing it now wouldn't be considered a scam because in the long run it works to achieve a certain goal. I outlined the goal already but if the goals are different then I would like to know simply how what I said isn't better in the long run. That is I already agree to an infinite minting we are really talking about scale here only. The project description doesn't change.

having read all the discussion about inflation, I think i support sidhujag's suggested way. markm, you can think about it, sidhujag does know our goal and know why we do not use a inflated way, but this method is not bad too, and, maybe, we could get success earlier.

Theres no easy way and qr codes already in bitcoin

[weisoq]

The number of coins being minted is only 200 million per "round".

The tendency toward zero value has been because of people dumping the coins instead of exchanging them wisely with care in ways that conserve or even enhance their value.

Now that we know the vast majority of people want to drive the value to zero, or maybe more correctly, want to dump them without caring or having to care about how their act effects the future perception of how valuable the coins are thus tend to act much as if they were trying to drive the value to zero, we can adapt to that.

Basically we can start by being set up ready willing and able to buy 200 million coins per "round", then we can continue to increase the number of coins we are prepared to buy, heck we can even keep increasing the "depth" of the buy-side of the order-book(s) to a point where we stand ready to buy not only each and every newly minted devcoin but also each and every devcoin that has already been minted.

It takes time to build up such depth but had we known from the first moment that we got onto the first exchange that the users of the currency would mostly be people who act as if their goal is to drive its value to zero we could have started preparing more robustly and sooner for such an eventuality.

I am not yet sure approximately how long it will take to build up the necessary depth but it can be done, although of course if exchanges tend to run away with the coins every time we build up a vast enough pile of "coins to buy devcoins with so that devcoins will be perceived to have value relative to the coins with which we are prepared to buy them" that will slow us down. Whereas if we keep our "reserves" with which we "back" devcoins off of the exchanges then clearly we face other problems.

Clearly some people are not holding as "reserves" enough of whatever they sell devcoins for to be able to buy back those same devcoins or even any significant fraction of them. Or maybe they do have plenty of "reserves" but are choosing not to use them as aggressively as some might prefer to keep the exchange rate up by buying devcoins when devcoins are cheap.

Now we know that, we should in principle be able adjust for it. So far I still think that we can.

-MarkM-

What's the point of that? Creating a perpetual 'we' buying all 'our' coins seems to completely defeat the purpose. If people want to sell dvc, or ltc, or btc let them sell. The issue is how they get them in the first place. I don't generally like giving away money or labour for free, so the dvc I have through fiat or work has a certain value to me. If others are willing to offer their crypto at a price < than some sort of consensual value for a period of mining, or work, or its result I have to assume they either don't value their labour or work and/or they were paid too much relative to them and/or this is a second dip at payment.

That means anyone driving the price to x is willing to value whatever it took to get them at x. To address that we need to better align payment to implied value, not chase the lowest common denominator of value perception out there by just buying them out.

[markm]

"The Royal 'We'."

(Or if you prefer, "we the people behind the currencies that moved to Open Transactions insead of continuing to use blockchains because 'we' foresaw that attempting to 'back' coins random miners all over the world mint would be a huge problem compared to only 'backing' coins that 'we' ourselves mint.")

The Canucks, Brits, Martians etc told me from the start that if you let other nations other corporations other people - other 'miners', in short - mint 'your' coins 'you' will have a harder time trying to keep up their exchange-rate than if 'you' mint all the coins so that no one else gets any without providing 'you' with something of value so that 'you' remain in a position to 'redeem' aka 'back' the coins by using those things of value you parted with them in return for to 'buy them back' or to stock shops where those things of value could be re-sold for coins which of course is another way to 'back' them. (Back them with goods, basically. Which most miners seem reluctant to do.)

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

I understand the point but even if terms were changed, who's to say it settles at x ratio to btc. It will trade where people want to trade it like all coins.

But surely that can't be changed now. What if the bitcoin panel at a future bitcoin conference decide to change something else. Do we alter things again. Devcoin unlike most coins acknowledges the infrastructure that created it, paying out regularly to creators of various tools that progressed things. But to go forward it needs to get away from a bitcoin peg, not stick to it more.

I'd say this about all alts - people should be looking at their value in terms of what they can be used for or the local exchange medium, or the forward potential for that - not necessarily just /btc. Already btc is coming up against the mbtc debate - dvc already addresses that. And the constancy is fundamental to being able to pay ongoing development from generation. Still very early days but if the concept proves to not work in the future that will be because not enough people supported its aims, or because it wasn't done well enough - not because of the inflation rate which falls every period. Changing the terms now might mean those holding dvc (including me) do better out of it, but it would send a shitty msg.

Bitcoin is a success its got mainstream adoption lined up devcoin is in no position to comoete it will always be a token back to bitcoin unless we change that early on... The first 10 yrs of any emerging tech is the boom... Devcoin will have 20 billion coins with a 10% inflation pa. Look at what happened to usd while inflation is lower than that over long term... At 10 yrs if mainstream adoption doesnt happen I dont think devcoin would survivr either... That is the point in which ppl will decide which one really to adopt... Im saying we prepare for then.

We havent addressed the mbtc issue at all because as btc blocks halve dvc will drop in half effectively never giving a chance to reach mbtc... Always at a bigger fraction thsn before. Adoption wont happen without price stability.

Say we aim for that time to have lower inflation and aiming for 0.001... The only reason it wouldnt happen is if volume was down.. If we follow the 1000:1 ratio price will tend to 1 mbtc instead of 0.5mbtc being the ceiling etc etc its also a phsycological factor for investors.

Now what happens when btc block drops to 12? Devcoin will be at 12k and inflation will drop to under 1% when supply is soaked up over a few years. As btc reward drops to under 1 dvc will stay above at some value which will allow,inflation to let price hover in and around 1mbtc... Remember the 1000:1 ratio would set inflation to target 1mbtc but speculation and old supply wouldnt let it happen until a few years in with lower inflation because it will take time for buyers to soak up old devcoins.

If enough volume is around then mathematically price tends to the goal if volume exists...

You cant say we solved the mbtc isssue if price cant reach 1mbtc without something crazy like 70k btc average a day. if we follow my spproach we probably need a quarter that and then fractions of that every time block halves.. And at 1000 dvc per block we would need like 1k btc volume a day to reach 0.001 (multiplying volume by 10x of how many btc to keep price at 0.001 to be safe). Also as btc value goes up volume will go down so 70k btc a day becomes more unlikely as btc price rises.

Devcoin has always been ragged on even by oldest members as a dumb coin... Now we are only a handful and their loss is our happiness when those are the only ones kicking themselves.. Anyone can buy in at any time if we set a future block to be the go point.

Anyway just throwing it out there.. If you do the math it only makes sense to me.. Remember also we are very early in thr project so if we aim for 10 yr goal I doubt that any criticism by the old devcoin haters will likely persist when main stream adoption chooses between btc and dvc (breaking the token ideology at that point)

[sidhujag]

The number of coins being minted is only 200 million per "round".

The tendency toward zero value has been because of people dumping the coins instead of exchanging them wisely with care in ways that conserve or even enhance their value.

Now that we know the vast majority of people want to drive the value to zero, or maybe more correctly, want to dump them without caring or having to care about how their act effects the future perception of how valuable the coins are thus tend to act much as if they were trying to drive the value to zero, we can adapt to that.

Basically we can start by being set up ready willing and able to buy 200 million coins per "round", then we can continue to increase the number of coins we are prepared to buy, heck we can even keep increasing the "depth" of the buy-side of the order-book(s) to a point where we stand ready to buy not only each and every newly minted devcoin but also each and every devcoin that has already been minted.

It takes time to build up such depth but had we known from the first moment that we got onto the first exchange that the users of the currency would mostly be people who act as if their goal is to drive its value to zero we could have started preparing more robustly and sooner for such an eventuality.

I am not yet sure approximately how long it will take to build up the necessary depth but it can be done, although of course if exchanges tend to run away with the coins every time we build up a vast enough pile of "coins to buy devcoins with so that devcoins will be perceived to have value relative to the coins with which we are prepared to buy them" that will slow us down. Whereas if we keep our "reserves" with which we "back" devcoins off of the exchanges then clearly we face other problems.

Clearly some people are not holding as "reserves" enough of whatever they sell devcoins for to be able to buy back those same devcoins or even any significant fraction of them. Or maybe they do have plenty of "reserves" but are choosing not to use them as aggressively as some might prefer to keep the exchange rate up by buying devcoins when devcoins are cheap.

Now we know that, we should in principle be able adjust for it. So far I still think that we can.

-MarkM-

What is the goal here? My goal is devcoin stable at 0.001 or 1 mbtc that is a goal... Who has 70k btc laying sround on a daily basis to soak up all that supply?

[markm]

If it were true that Democracy actually works, in the sense of actually representing the will and/or desires of the people, then it would seem likely that the majority of franchised adults in so called "democracies" prefer inflationary currencies, as witnessed by the apparent determination of such nations to ensure their currencies remain inflationary.

Just because some minority of gold-bugs, libertarian nutbars and gosh knows what else (Austrian economists, who seem a minority maybe too among economists?) might not like our coin as much knowing it is inflationary does not seem a good reason to abort the grand experiment of minint coins at a fixed rate forever.

It seems possible that the reason we see less shouting lately from people who claim that bitcoin is totally doomed and totally broken-by-design on account of deflation being a bad thing is at least aprtly because, partly to shut them up, we did make some coins that are inflationary.

I wonder how best to get those noisy anti-deflation people into this thread to explain at length and in detail how and why inflation is better than deflation.

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

If it were true that Democracy actually works, in the sense of actually representing the will and/or desires of the people, then it would seem likely that the majority of franchised adults in so called "democracies" prefer inflationary currencies, as witnessed by the apparent determination of such nations to ensure their currencies remain inflationary.

Just because some minority of gold-bugs, libertarian nutbars and gosh knows what else (Austrian economists, who seem a minority maybe too among economists?) might not like our coin as much knowing it is inflationary does not seem a good reason to abort the grand experiment of minint coins at a fixed rate forever.

It seems possible that the reason we see less shouting lately from people who claim that bitcoin is totally doomed and totally broken-by-design on account of deflation being a bad thing is at least aprtly because, partly to shut them up, we did make some coins that are inflationary.

I wonder how best to get those noisy anti-deflation people into this thread to explain at length and in detail how and why inflation is better than deflation.

-MarkM-

This is not relevant since again im only talking about scale.. Devcoin needs to mint forever but im talking about reducing inflation to allow 0.001btc at a relative achievable amount of volume. Being able to mint is essential to the dev and reciever process but again im going down the likely road by saying we wont have 70k btc volume a day to achieve the goal.. By reducing that number it becomes likely again and increases the long term prospects of the coin especiially st that point of the boom when people decide which coin is the most stable to adopt to the average joe.

[markm]

Pegged currencies are a whole can of worms.

We never intended to peg our value to any other coin or currency.

We "solved" the "a dollar is a thousand or more coins" problem by moving our decimal point from the get-go so we would not eventually hit the same arguments bitcoin was having at the time about how the decimal point should be moved because people who use dollars don't like using three decimal places to express what a dollar is worth.

Now you are beyond trying to mollify people who don't like what a tiny fraction of a coin a dollar is and on to worrying about people who don't like how small a fraction of a thousand dollars (aka a bitcoin) a devcoin is worth...

What about the Martian BotCoin (MBC)? have you checked out what a tiny fraction of a Martian BotCoin a bitcoin, dollar, or devcoin is lately?

http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

I think all coins are tokens to bitcoin until main stream adoptions kicks in at which point ppl will decide to switch or leave some coins as niche..

If all coins are read in terms of btc then it makes sense to use that as a metric to set goals for price stability especially if fiat is phased out. Even if bitcoin sticks around as the main top dog after fiat is gone devcoin will always be priced in btc like any other coin.

If we are pricing in usd I dont see the proof.. All prices quoted in the thread by ppl are always btc denominations?

Exchanges removed dvc usd and new exchanges add only dvc btc with no plans for usd. All alt coins are unfortunately pegged to btc until otherwise proven.

[markm]

The Canucks tried to peg Canadian Digital Notes (CDN) to CAD, and the Brits tried to peg United Kingdom Britcoins (UKB) to GBP.

The Martians ended up massively in profit from that because of course every time the CDN started to be worth more than one CAD the Canucks had to sell off CDN to bring the price down and the Martians bought it and every time the UKB started to be worth more than one GBP the Brits had to sell off UKB to bring the price down and the Martians bought that too.

End result was the Martian BotCoin climbed in value more/faster than CDN and GBP and the Canucks and Brits gave up trying to peg their coins to anything.

So don't try to 'peg' to anything, even trying to 'peg' to the current value whatever the current value is, in order to try to keep value 'stable', is a whole can of worms.

Compared to that, merely trying to always have on hand enough "reserves" of goods services and currencies to be able to provide value in exchange for the coin, thereby supporting the idea that the coin has value, and supporting the magnitude of the value (aka the exchange rate), is much less difficult it seems.

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

Dvc is not pegged to fiat like btc is.. Ofcourse its a can of worms especially at a point when ppl will switch.. Isnt that why we created the bitcoin shares list? So they can import their btc wallets back into devcoin?

Even if you disregard the peg since trading is done via btc mainly the volume is getting to be a bigger problem as btc rises. We are a big fraction off of any kind of stability. Say in 10 yrs if bitcoin implodes and people switch you think they will switch to dvc? Miners will have to switch too?

Otherwise we keep btc as a big brother and roll fwd pegged zgainst it 1000:1 we are tied to its fate anyway until we grow enough to be self sustaining from miners to investors.

At this rate we will neither be self sustaining using bitcoin for mining etc or have harder and harder time coming up with any kind of volume to support real growth for a stable price. Thats what I see. Enough of that Unthinkngbit has last say and I doubt he will change it or even let a vote to be held.

[markm]

You maybe missed all the long laborious discussings of pegged currencies that happened months ago or maybe even more than a year ago.

People are still trying to invent a method of pegging, see for example the Mastercoin project and the Bitshares / Protoshares / etc project.

Maybe if any such projects prove that pegging is possible it might we worth considering the idea, but so far pegging remains an unsolved problem.

Maybe go discuss with them in their threads how they imagine pegging could be accomplished.

Remember too that difficulty is not the same among even the merged mined coins.

GRouPcoins "should" be worth 1000 DeVCoins each, if they had the same difficulty as DeVCoins, because GRP mints 50 coins every 10 minutes and DVC mints 50,000 coins every ten minutes. But their difficulty is different so they are a long way from that ratio of relative price so far...

Once GRP is stable at 1000 DVC each maybe your idea might seem to have some merit, but right now we have an experiment in progress (GRP vs DVC) testing your hypothesis that the number of coins being mined should or will lead to a ratio of value equal to the ratio of minting rate and so far it has not given much evidence that your theory is valid...

So go ahead and peg GRP as 1000 DVC to demonstrate that you are correct...

-MarkM-

[weisoq]

Bitcoin is a success its got mainstream adoption lined up devcoin is in no position to comoete it will always be a token back to bitcoin unless we change that early on...

I'm not talking about competing with bitcoin. I'm referring to the fact that devcoin has an equivalent fiat price and compensation price that if there was the facilitation to trade away from bitcoin could still be the price, maybe. Devcoin is merged-mined with bitcoin so at very best it's symbiotic (some might say parastic to be fair to them, although I think the ends justify the means and I hear very little negative said on devcoin's intents). We agree on a lot of stuff, I just don't think what you're saying address the root problem at all.

You're assuming a market and prices will always adjust to technicalities of supply only. That may sometimes be the case but cryptos offer a pretty good example of when that's not really true. Let's say the changes are made. What happens if the price reverts to where it was, or just doesn't move? Is that because the adjustment wasn't big enough, or simply because holders are willing to sell at that price?
  
You're also then assuming that the infrastructure in place can smoothly adjust to those new technicals. The whole point of devcoin is potential inclusivity for the big wide world where mining is something involving the ground - ie. everyone - changing their terms of participation changes the basic rules.

On the mBTC issue, all I was saying was that decimals are avoided, which some think is becoming a perception issue for btc. I wasn't inferring anything about relative prices.

Basically I think relative supply has pretty much sod all to do with crypto prices. Yes there are obvious trends but try building difficulty and other input adjusted models and trading on that (as I and I bet many others have) - it's almost irrelevant as a simple price move determinant. Cryptos are as much about perception as reality. Take devcoin, it has constant supply but I think it's current rate of generation is exactly the same as bitcoin when adjusted for the /1000 dec move and will be until it reaches the equivalent point in time where btc halved. But that's not what people look at. If there's anything wrong with devcoin it's just the choice of such large numbers - perception - although in practice it's large numbers that could facilitate very widespread project distribution.

Stability comes with an equilibrium of participation, buying and selling. Not by playing about with the parameters, where if bitcoin is the benchmark that's the shadow we'd always be chasing. Regardless I do think it's good to be discussing all this. Devcoin and others make too many assumptions about incentive and interest that should be challenged when improvements can be made.

[sidhujag]

you guys Im surprised you dont see it.. Its a simple demand supply problem.. If you step back look at the big picture you may see it.. maybe Its easier for me since Im so used to calculate price targets for forex pairs which is so much more complicated.. this is not.

All you need to know is volume and generation rate. Mining hashrate has a minimal factor keeping the transactions secure but these merged mine coins dont have that problem. Groupcoin might not be 1000dvc because there hasnt been enough volume to soak up previous supply or even daily supply.

Look at it this way.. if volume is greater than 7.2million dvc then price has to go up no matter what. Volume will tell you everything in a strict demand supply environment.

So at 0.001 btc which is what I thought the target price was when I first joined it would take 7.2k btc daily to sustain not counting any old suply. I multiply it by 10x to be safe.

So what im saying is as btc becomes more precious there is less volume and since dvc os traded via btc it loses ground in terms of confidence and price since most ppl dont even look at dvc usd. Im saying we need to look at thos now rather than later as it will only beharder.

Speculation may drive price in short med term but fundamentals will always drive price long term. This is a fundamental issue we are discussing.

[markm]

Okay, but we have no peg/target for price, whether price in bitcoins or price in botcoins or price in britcoins or price in dollars or whatever else.

What we have is a coin that generates new coins every block, just like groupcoin, coiledcoin, and geistgeld do.

Basically we have a family of 8 coins that are all minted by the same mint, albeit not all the workers working in that mint choose to mint all of those coins; and of those 8 coins four of them (BTC, NMC, IXC and I0C - am I right or is NMC actually not like the other 3 in this respect?) stop minting someday, in the case of IXCoin it stops cold turkey in the case of others it "ramps down" the number minted per block over time; and four of them that keep minting forever (DVC, GRP, CLC and XGG).

That seems like a nice balance actually, half inflate half intend eventually not to.

If you happen to prefer coins that ramp down minting or cold turkey their minting, the merged mined family has those, go ahead and play with or utilise those. It also has these constant minting ones, and some people like those, and some people like both, heck some people even like all eight coins of the family. (Some people even sometimes play around with the idea of adding a new coin to the family, since although these 8 between them provide quite a nice spread of different features there are still a few features not found in the family yet.)

-MarkM-

[weisoq]

you guys Im surprised you dont see it.. Its a simple demand supply problem.. If you step back look at the big picture you may see it.. maybe Its easier for me since Im so used to calculate price targets for forex pairs which is so much more complicated.. this is not....

I see it, but I'm saying there is demand as well as supply, sellers as well as buyers. We're not going to agree on this, but that's fine we don't have to agree. I have a fundamentally different view of the basic economics of cryptos - one I think you already know - which is that they're all inflationary because frankly they're pretty much all the same. What sets them apart is being faddy and what will set them apart will be anything different they aim to achieve and the infrastructure base they can appeal to and work with to achieve that, and there's no point in the long-term aiming to not-be-inflationary. Issues today will not be the same issues in the future.

And I'd say fx trading is quite a bit less volatile and more straightforward to model than cryptos.

[sidhujag]

Yes but I feel this one can survive long term because of the reciever stuff!! This is why im here and not there.. only thing is the scale of inflation and the proper utilization of the generated coins.. later we can work on as time goes but former is a one off. The other coins dont have this.. and devcoin to me truly is only one which offers this competitive advantage.

[sidhujag]

you guys Im surprised you dont see it.. Its a simple demand supply problem.. If you step back look at the big picture you may see it.. maybe Its easier for me since Im so used to calculate price targets for forex pairs which is so much more complicated.. this is not....

I see it, but I'm saying there is demand as well as supply, sellers as well as buyers. We're not going to agree on this, but that's fine we don't have to agree. I have a fundamentally different view of the basic economics of cryptos - one I think you already know - which is that they're all inflationary because frankly they're pretty much all the same. What sets them apart is being faddy and what will set them apart will be anything different they aim to achieve and the infrastructure base they can appeal to and work with to achieve that, and there's no point in the long-term aiming to not-be-inflationary. Issues today will not be the same issues in the future.

And I'd say fx trading is quite a bit less volatile and more straightforward to model than cryptos.

Fx is way harder I believe since there is unknown demand and supply and unknown external factors you have to dig and model based on what works today.

Your right that it may not matter in the future but I truly think its a great feature to add it im so why not? Ppl will call us scammers? The same ones that call us idiots for caring for a scamcoin? Who cares.

[Wekkel]

I appreciate this discussion, but I think it is too soon to talk about a possible change in the way Devcoin operates. Currently, it is still quite small (although very widely known) and young (only about 2 years). The inflation part has been huge during this period, but this will drop below 10% very soon (the next few years). If Crypto's live up to their full potential, 10% annual inflation will be a mere dip in the growth of value.

From my perspective, Devcoin has a future as prime example of supporting a cause directly but anonymously. It could be a role model of a 'charity coin'. Usable as currency, but in support of a commonly felt cause (is the Red Cross reading this?). It should be fancy in the future to use Devcoins (e.g., to pay for beverage and food with Devcoins at the big annual tech conferences), geeks knowing that they support their own. All this in connection with a much more valuable Devcoin, so more and prestigious projects can be funded.

We just need to find and cross the 'chasm' to make this happen.

Addition: as I wrote here, I think it is important to explain in more detail how Devcoin works in terms of total cap (=none) versus reality (it won't be a problem in the future).

[weisoq]

Fx is way harder I believe since there is unknown demand and supply and unknown external factors you have to dig and model based on what works today.

Your right that it may not matter in the future but I truly think its a great feature to add it im so why not? Ppl will call us scammers? The same ones that call us idiots for caring for a scamcoin? Who cares.

I'm here for similar reasons. The main upside as I've also said before is because the potential interest base is much much larger than any other crypto if done properly - in terms of primary interest as well as secondary support for the concept. I think most people here, including me, often forget that most people do not have the faintest idea what the discussion here is on about. It's generally pure tech-to-tech with speculation thrown in. Whatever the best approach of the future will be it certainly won't be one that involves people asking what cpu or gpu or asic is to get involved, whether people like that or not.

Ask yourself, is it the inflation rate, or if devcoin generation was just divided by 1000 (aka bitcoin) would it really be the same? Then imagine a future where there might be thousands of people or groups on the receiver list - having big numbers is going to help for average folks and getting sub distribution going. Yes that's optimistic but these are very early days in e-currency and I cannot see the hurry in even thinking about fundamental changes when it's far simpler to alter payouts and things are only just getting going with the portal, your work on the client and getting it out there.

Actually I've just now realised you're the sighujag from a thread a wrote on quite a while arguing inflation/deflation stuff, so you definitely know what my view is. If everyone wants to make this change, then I guess it would happen, but I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake in perception and reality.

[weisoq]

I appreciate this discussion, but I think it is too soon to talk about a possible change in the way Devcoin operates. Currently, it is still quite small (although very widely known) and young (only about 2 years). The inflation part has been huge during this period, but this will drop below 10% very soon (the next few years). If Crypto's live up to their full potential, 10% annual inflation will be a mere dip in the growth of value.

From my perspective, Devcoin has a future as prime example of supporting a cause directly but anonymously. It could be a role model of a 'charity coin'. Usable as currency, but in support of a commonly felt cause (is the Red Cross reading this?). It should be fancy in the future to use Devcoins (e.g., to pay for beverage and food with Devcoins at the big annual tech conferences), geeks knowing that they support their own. All this in connection with a much more valuable Devcoin, so more and prestigious projects can be funded.

We just need to find and cross the 'chasm' to make this happen.

Addition: as I wrote here, I think it is important to explain in more detail how Devcoin works in terms of total cap (=none) versus reality (it won't be a problem in the future).

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

[Wekkel]

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

I'm confident the test client works so we can save 1 DVC (2x 0.5 payment fee). However, I noticed the version of the client I tested is not available anymore and that the newer binaries at Github have a download problem (could not download the [...]w64.exe files from here).

[sidhujag]

All valid points you guys brought up.. thank you.

Yes I created a thread and posted in others saying you need inflation deflation balance.. some inflation im a deflationary framework is ideal like devcoin.. I like that wiki read lots of good info...

Just one point I need to drive home is that still as bitcoin becomes more precious the harder it will be for devcoin to stay stable in relation to bitcoin. As of now it looks like only trading is dome via ltc or btc so this is inportant to know and expect this. Only if volume picks up drastically and gains more traction than bitcoin to compensate for the block halving can devcoin price stabalize.

Had dvc usd been available on these exchange its a different story but for the forseeable future we are a bitcoin token.. providing one of the truest means to working to earn
bitcoins.. not devcoins since it is thought of as a gateway currently.

Do you guys think a price of 0.0000001 is going to bring in solid interest? Knowing that its always going to stay around there.. I would much rather change it early on than later..

Yes the granularity of recievers will change as userbase grows but remember
only 20k people max can be on that list.. After that you have to have sub niche recievers who will divy up per project.. but at that point the granularity of devcoin price wont matter since max recievers were already reached.

i thought a value of 1mbtc would serve us well because its granular enough in terms of fiat yet is one to one with a bitcoin sub value type. Then as the 20k recievers are dispersed coins they wont feel as if they need to get so many to feel as if they little bitcoin .. in other words they will consider it more precious and not worry about trying to make thousands in a block.

As long as people are earning more than a few coins per round I think its ok...at 1000 coins per
block thats 120k a day or 3 to 4 million per round.. divided by 20k receivers

[sidhujag]

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

I'm confident the test client works so we can save 1 DVC (2x 0.5 payment fee). However, I noticed the version of the client I tested is not available anymore and that the newer binaries at Github have a download problem (could not download the [...]w64.exe files from here).

I created a cross platform java installer its too big todownload so you must checkout the source to get it..

[Wekkel]

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

I'm confident the test client works so we can save 1 DVC (2x 0.5 payment fee). However, I noticed the version of the client I tested is not available anymore and that the newer binaries at Github have a download problem (could not download the [...]w64.exe files from here).

I created a cross platform java installer its too big todownload so you must checkout the source to get it..

Thanks for the update. I do not have GitHub and are not really qualified to mess around with that. So I will just leave it alone 

[sidhujag]

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

I'm confident the test client works so we can save 1 DVC (2x 0.5 payment fee). However, I noticed the version of the client I tested is not available anymore and that the newer binaries at Github have a download problem (could not download the [...]w64.exe files from here).

I created a cross platform java installer its too big todownload so you must checkout the source to get it..

Thanks for the update. I do not have GitHub and are not really qualified to mess around with that. So I will just leave it alone 

Its easy on the page there is a link to download the github application if you are on windows and its really a wizard style interface.. put in the github repository and checkout then just open the jar file its an installer in the dist folder...

Someone needs to host the jar file online so we can distribute it easier.

[weisoq]

All valid points you guys brought up.. thank you.

Yes I created a thread and posted in others saying you need inflation deflation balance.. some inflation im a deflationary framework is ideal like devcoin.. I like that wiki read lots of good info...

Just one point I need to drive home is that still as bitcoin becomes more precious the harder it will be for devcoin to stay stable in relation to bitcoin. As of now it looks like only trading is dome via ltc or btc so this is inportant to know and expect this. Only if volume picks up drastically and gains more traction than bitcoin to compensate for the block halving can devcoin price stabalize.

Had dvc usd been available on these exchange its a different story but for the forseeable future we are a bitcoin token.. providing one of the truest means to working to earn
bitcoins.. not devcoins since it is thought of as a gateway currently.

Do you guys think a price of 0.0000001 is going to bring in solid interest? Knowing that its always going to stay around there.. I would much rather change it early on than later..

Yes the granularity of recievers will change as userbase grows but remember
only 20k people max can be on that list.. After that you have to have sub niche recievers who will divy up per project.. but at that point the granularity of devcoin price wont matter since max recievers were already reached.

i thought a value of 1mbtc would serve us well because its granular enough in terms of fiat yet is one to one with a bitcoin sub value type. Then as the 20k recievers are dispersed coins they wont feel as if they need to get so many to feel as if they little bitcoin .. in other words they will consider it more precious and not worry about trying to make thousands in a block.

As long as people are earning more than a few coins per round I think its ok...at 1000 coins per
block thats 120k a day or 3 to 4 million per round.. divided by 20k receivers

And cheers to you for doing this work and suggesting ideas as you go. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, because I just don't see how there'd be any way of maintaining 1mbtc - price is just supply and demand. The 20k - will be a nice problem to have, but if it's reached would be as simple as receiver for say devtome distributing the dvc that make up that share to a sub group. Either way, I still share a lot of your general frustrations and I also hope that more is done through one means or another to address them.

[weisoq]

You want me to test a transfer again wekkel?

I'm confident the test client works so we can save 1 DVC (2x 0.5 payment fee). However, I noticed the version of the client I tested is not available anymore and that the newer binaries at Github have a download problem (could not download the [...]w64.exe files from here).

Ok cool, but isn't it still the same flat 1 dvc

[markm]

Bitcoin value is ridiculously volatile, we should be hoping that we will have a far more stable value than bitcoin has.

Bitcoin continues still after all these years to keep changing the prices of everything, you can check the price of something in bitcoins, decide it seems affordable, dig out your offline wallet machine from your vault, set it up, figure out which of your online machines has the most up to date blockchain on it, fire up a bitcoin client on it, wait for the blockchain to get up to date, go through whatever steps are required to get the online machine and the offline machine to agree about a transaction to move offline funds online or to send offline funds directly to the merchant from who you wanted to buy something, and find that the price has already changed.

Some payment processors only give you 15 minutes to send coins once you have found out from them what the price of what you want to buy is and lock it in for 15 minutes, so maybe if you get so practiced at the whole business of getting coins out of your offline wallet inside of 15 minutes you are okay, but otherwise you are very likely to find the price has already changed.

Hopefully with devcoins we can much faster move toward setting wages and prices directly in devcoins.

For example once various sites like devtome get their share directly to the site instead of directly to their employees/team/authors/workers, they can know how much devcoin they have in their kitty and set pay in devcoins instead of in shares. So workers will know how many devcoins they will be getting instead of having to wait to see how much a share happens to be by the time they get it.

Hopefully we can also set prices of services directly in devcoins too. For example we could have a food site that pays people per thousand grams of food produced or per thousand weeds pulled or whatever, and, having paid the workers in devcoins to produce the food, we'd know, once the food is harvested, how many devcoins it cost to produce it, thus we would be in a position to price it in devcoins directly when offering it for sale.

Possibly devcoin might be just the right coin with which to develop the entire supply-chain all the way up from the ground, the wind, the rain, sunlight, seeds and labour.

Free open source quarrying and lumber-jacking, free open source stonemasonry and brickmaking and carpentry and architecture - how to build affordable simple housing from local materials or from sustainable materials located nearby, or free open source materials so revolutionary that shipping them from a distance is actually more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than using local materials, whatever, basically free open source shelter so people can shelter from the elements and such while eating our free open source foodstuffs.

(I categorise clothing as shelter since it seems to me that unless clothing provides shelter it maybe is really not as totally essential to survival as shelter is; shelter from prurient eyes is maybe not always more life-or-death than shelter from inclement weather/elements.)

Maybe if we are to try to make our currency stable we should try to make it stable in relation to food and clothing/shelter more importantly than stable in relation to hideously volatile things like penny-stocks, bitcoins, tradeable pokemon-cards, fiat currencies and so on?

Maybe we could even reach a point where when the number of dollars it costs for a loaf of bread increases the number of devcoins it costs does not increase?

Would something like that constitute being even more stable than the fiat in terms of which the price of bread increased?

-MarkM-

[sidhujag]

All valid points you guys brought up.. thank you.

Yes I created a thread and posted in others saying you need inflation deflation balance.. some inflation im a deflationary framework is ideal like devcoin.. I like that wiki read lots of good info...

Just one point I need to drive home is that still as bitcoin becomes more precious the harder it will be for devcoin to stay stable in relation to bitcoin. As of now it looks like only trading is dome via ltc or btc so this is inportant to know and expect this. Only if volume picks up drastically and gains more traction than bitcoin to compensate for the block halving can devcoin price stabalize.

Had dvc usd been available on these exchange its a different story but for the forseeable future we are a bitcoin token.. providing one of the truest means to working to earn
bitcoins.. not devcoins since it is thought of as a gateway currently.

Do you guys think a price of 0.0000001 is going to bring in solid interest? Knowing that its always going to stay around there.. I would much rather change it early on than later..

Yes the granularity of recievers will change as userbase grows but remember
only 20k people max can be on that list.. After that you have to have sub niche recievers who will divy up per project.. but at that point the granularity of devcoin price wont matter since max recievers were already reached.

i thought a value of 1mbtc would serve us well because its granular enough in terms of fiat yet is one to one with a bitcoin sub value type. Then as the 20k recievers are dispersed coins they wont feel as if they need to get so many to feel as if they little bitcoin .. in other words they will consider it more precious and not worry about trying to make thousands in a block.

As long as people are earning more than a few coins per round I think its ok...at 1000 coins per
block thats 120k a day or 3 to 4 million per round.. divided by 20k receivers

And cheers to you for doing this work and suggesting ideas as you go. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, because I just don't see how there'd be any way of maintaining 1mbtc - price is just supply and demand. The 20k - will be a nice problem to have, but if it's reached would be as simple as receiver for say devtome distributing the dvc that make up that share to a sub group. Either way, I still share a lot of your general frustrations and I also hope that more is done through one means or another to address them.

You cant gaurantee but by makign it 1000:1 price will tend towards 1mbtc the phsycological factor aswell as an easier build up of the bid orderbook since there would be less distribution. Based on growth of volume recently It would prob take a few years to reach but today you will need thousands of btc in volume which is pretty far fetched relative to today... just playing the odds.

[sidhujag]

Bitcoin value is ridiculously volatile, we should be hoping that we will have a far more stable value than bitcoin has.

Bitcoin continues still after all these years to keep changing the prices of everything, you can check the price of something in bitcoins, decide it seems affordable, dig out your offline wallet machine from your vault, set it up, figure out which of your online machines has the most up to date blockchain on it, fire up a bitcoin client on it, wait for the blockchain to get up to date, go through whatever steps are required to get the online machine and the offline machine to agree about a transaction to move offline funds online or to send offline funds directly to the merchant from who you wanted to buy something, and find that the price has already changed.

Some payment processors only give you 15 minutes to send coins once you have found out from them what the price of what you want to buy is and lock it in for 15 minutes, so maybe if you get so practiced at the whole business of getting coins out of your offline wallet inside of 15 minutes you are okay, but otherwise you are very likely to find the price has already changed.

Hopefully with devcoins we can much faster move toward setting wages and prices directly in devcoins.

For example once various sites like devtome get their share directly to the site instead of directly to their employees/team/authors/workers, they can know how much devcoin they have in their kitty and set pay in devcoins instead of in shares. So workers will know how many devcoins they will be getting instead of having to wait to see how much a share happens to be by the time they get it.

Hopefully we can also set prices of services directly in devcoins too. For example we could have a food site that pays people per thousand grams of food produced or per thousand weeds pulled or whatever, and, having paid the workers in devcoins to produce the food, we'd know, once the food is harvested, how many devcoins it cost to produce it, thus we would be in a position to price it in devcoins directly when offering it for sale.

Possibly devcoin might be just the right coin with which to develop the entire supply-chain all the way up from the ground, the wind, the rain, sunlight, seeds and labour.

Free open source quarrying and lumber-jacking, free open source stonemasonry and brickmaking and carpentry and architecture - how to build affordable simple housing from local materials or from sustainable materials located nearby, or free open source materials so revolutionary that shipping them from a distance is actually more sustainable and more environmentally friendly than using local materials, whatever, basically free open source shelter so people can shelter from the elements and such while eating our free open source foodstuffs.

(I categorise clothing as shelter since it seems to me that unless clothing provides shelter it maybe is really not as totally essential to survival as shelter is; shelter from prurient eyes is maybe not always more life-or-death than shelter from inclement weather/elements.)

Maybe if we are to try to make our currency stable we should try to make it stable in relation to food and clothing/shelter more importantly than stable in relation to hideously volatile things like penny-stocks, bitcoins, tradeable pokemon-cards, fiat currencies and so on?

Maybe we could even reach a point where when the number of dollars it costs for a loaf of bread increases the number of devcoins it costs does not increase?

Would something like that constitute being even more stable than the fiat in terms of which the price of bread increased?


-MarkM-

I agree the only way to instigate stability is a known static generation rate but all these things will be possible in far future when the project will grow to a point of self sufficience. As block reward stops halving market cap would have grown to allow funding of bigger projects and at the point they split off the price will stabalize because of constant generation

[papamoi]

hi guys

i ve tried to dowload several times the windows wallet but a strange thing is happening:

whenever the download is finished,the .exe seems to disappear and i can t find it nowhere in the disk?

are the .exe compromised or is there any other explanation?

thanks

[sidhujag]

hi guys

i ve tried to dowload several times the windows wallet but a strange thing is happening:

whenever the download is finished,the .exe seems to disappear and i can t find it nowhere in the disk?

are the .exe compromised or is there any other explanation?

thanks

Your anti-virus is deleting it. You have to accept it in your anti-virus.