Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 07:34:51 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Devcoin  (Read 412864 times)
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 10:21:18 AM
 #3361

Notabot, I can't find your post, it disappeared.

At any rate, good catch.  On one hand maybe its the same guy as 8 minutes apart is a bit fishy, especially for 3 names with similar opinions.

On the other hand, a lot of new people have joined lately, me included so maybe that's a coincidence.

Thing about luckybit, he's not flaming like this new owsley guy.  His arguments are well thought out and they make a lot of sense.  What he says may end up coming true - it's definitely at least a possibility.

I too think there has to be some change as the current model cannot thrive in its current form - its simply not sustainable as too many people are signing up too fast while the value is going the wrong way, so one would expect talent to really go south.

It's only a theory but it makes sense as this is what one would expect in real life.  I don't know the solution but I do agree we should have a healthy debate about it and perhaps we'll find a solution.  

Because for sure many more coins are coming and devcoin only has a limited window of opportunity to grow and get its name out before a landslide of alt coins come over us all and bury devcoin in an avalanche of obscurity and mediocrity.

Regards,

Vlad


Someone is trolling. Look at my profile. I did not register in June.
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
Bitcoin mining is now a specialized and very risky industry, just like gold mining. Amateur miners are unlikely to make much money, and may even lose money. Bitcoin is much more than just mining, though!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
1711697691
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711697691

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711697691
Reply with quote  #2

1711697691
Report to moderator
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 10:32:33 AM
 #3362

How is a hackathon any different from a writeathon or a poetry contest?

You seem to be ignoring everything what I'm saying...

A successful software project can bring a lot of users, particularly paying users. And thus revenue. Potentially millions of people will buy Devcoins and use them for payments.

Closed source software like games? Yeah that brings a lot of users and money. Open source software on the other hand does not. Devcoin promotes free software and for this reason will have the same difficulty getting revenue from programming that it has from writing.

If you can do same with poetry contest, go ahead. But I just don't see how poetry contest can do that. You know, for some reason venture capitalists invest into software projects, not into poetry contest. And they kinda like market caps Smiley
People make plenty of money from song lyrics. Song writers are making plenty of money and contests could generate money. Venture capitalists don't invest in small scale software projects that could be funded by Devtome. And I don't see Devcoin replacing venture capitalists, that is delusional.
And higher market cap means that more people can get paid. So it makes sense to focus on high-impact projects first, and later expand the program to get more people involved.
We have enough software as it is. We need content. Just producing all this cool software isnt going to make people want to use it. What would napster be if there were no content? What about Bittorrent?


Please understand me correctly, I'm not against writers and artists. What I'm saying is that we need to get incentives right, i.e. to optimize for a thing we are optimizing.

Writers and artists are the producers of content. Content is why people want to use the Internet for anything other than work.

Let's say I go to devtome.com, what do I see? An ugly page with tonnes and tonnes of mess on it. It is hard to find anything.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the articles on Devtome. How much does a cookbook cost? But you can find recipes on Devtome for free. So you're saying people who share their recipes are suckers and should keep it a secret or sell it to a cookbook company instead? Devtome exists to promote the creative commons, and not everyone is a computer nerd.

Nobody is thinking about presentation because they are paid for writing words!
It's not the writers job to worry about the presentation.
Now, say, if Devtome was done right, its front page would be nicely organized. It should also be aesthetically pleasing, rather than using default theme.
I agree. Wikipedia works well and it could be like that. Honestly it could be better than Wikipedia if done right because people would get paid and quality could be much higher.
A visitor which gets to devtome front page should see general categories, features articles etc. Focus on content which is of high quality, is nicely organized etc. Sweep half-baked shit under the rug.
I cannot disagree with this.
So perhaps it can work if you writers get your shit together and make presentation nice. But "getting your shit together" isn't incentivized, only writing more and more words is. So nobody even bothered to take 5 minutes and think how site can be made more appealing.
Writers aren't website developers or the admin of the site. Why are you blaming stuff on the writers when writers have nothing to do with the design of Devtome?
This clearly demonstrates how incentives are important. It is rare for things to get done without incentive.

Now compare Devtome to http://bitcoinmagazine.com/ What's different?
I agree with you but blame it on the people responsible. Writers aren't paid to design Devtome.
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 10:40:15 AM
 #3363

Please ignore my post. I was looking at everyones profile starting with Owlsley and with all the crap going on got myself mixed up.

I can admit I made an error and do not mean to throw any ones character in a bad light. My apologies to any one I mentioned, apart from Owlsleytroll.



Lol.  Ditto.

I'm curious, we have lots of programmers and at least a hacker or two here.  I thought it was pretty easy to look someone's IP address up to see if there's multiple aliases coming from the same location.  That would be a dead giveaway.

Cookies work better than IP addresses. One cookie per machine and register it in a database.
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 10:58:22 AM
Last edit: June 12, 2013, 11:25:46 AM by Luckybit
 #3364


So bitcoin is designed wrong?

Remember bitcoin too is designed to produce a constant number of coins for four years.

So until we hit four years we are no different. Since you don't think four years ahead is relevant what are you proposing, a pre-mined coin in which there is no inflation because the Tome owns all coins from block one and if anyone ever wants one they will have to get it from them?
I never said there should be no inflation. I'm saying inflation has to be controlled or adjusted on the fly so that the value in $ of the coin stays within a certain level while the coin is expanding. Once plenty of people are using the coin the inflation rate should decrease more and more until it reaches around 1-3% which is near the rate of population growth.

We always want more jobs than people so we have to limit inflation.
Or You want a instamine coin maybe, half the coins minted the first month, another quarter the second month, another eighth the third month and so on so that in siz months when the problems you expect come along there is already by then no inflation?

You sound like a bit of a nutbar frankly, no different from those who insist bitcoin will die because it does NOT make the same amount of coins forever, except you take the opposite position.
When did I ever said Bitcoin is going to die? Just because I don't have faith in Devcoin it does not mean I have no faith in Bitcoin. And I said nothing about a premine. Where are you getting this script from?
The reason the coin is going down in price is because it is being given out to opportunists who are no different from the miners whose opportunism was limited in DeVCoin by only giving them 10% of the coins.
So now you think the coin is going down because people aren't hoarding it? And you're claiming people who refuse to hoard it are opportunists? If you give something to someone or someone earns something from you then they can do anything with it that they want.

You have no right to judge other people by how they choose to use their coins. If the currency is designed right this shouldn't even matter.

Maybe a partial solution would be to only let 10% of the coins be written-for just like only 10% can be mined.
And why pick on writers? What about everyone else?

The best method you can think of to fix Devcoin is to somehow convince even less people to work for it? Basically too many people want to work so we gotta lower the hiring rate to fix the economy? This is starting to sound a lot like what is wrong with the global economy being imported into Devcoin. Let's lay people off and reduce their pay and call it austerity?

The point is, if Devcoin were designed to work there would be no crisis in the first place. Blame me for pointing out the crisis and calling for a hard fork. You can diagree with me or even ignore my warnings, and then deal with what happens 10 months to a year from now if Devcoin can even last that long.

Bitcoins have been going down too lately, have you noticed? Same reason: people dumping them. Maybe people are giving them all to asIC companies who are in turn turning them into fiat to buy parts or something, I don't know, but ultimately if the value goes down it traces back to people dumping.

That is the free market. People can pump and dump. I don't care what people do with their money. I know Bitcoins will be going up because the long term trend of Bitcoins is up and has been for years. I also know only 21 million will ever exist, unlike Devcoin where there seems to be no end to the dumping if the dumping starts because there is no cap. I'm not saying a cap is even necessary but the fact that there isn't one built in provides people with no psychological safety.
i read a mention earlier that we need people to buy things with devcoin, and was tempted to point out right there that actually a lot seems to depend on WHAT people buy, or maybe on WHERE/HOW they buy it.

The what/how part is because maybe buying fiat is not the core reason the value goes down, maybe the core reason is the fiat is being bought on a certain style of market. Maybe no matter what you buy if you buy it on that format/form of market you inevitably drive price down, because the players who play those markets earn their money by trying to make sure that you need to sell more and more for less and less to sell in volume and need to buy less and less for more and more in order to buy in any volume.

With Bitcoin I can see the big picture and can see how it can work. I can do things with Bitcoin that I cannot do with Paypal. There is no reason for me to believe I can do things with Devcoin that I cannot do with Bitcoin. The only thing Devcoin offers is receiver shares and Devtome. Until we can do more with it, it's utility is not enough that it will survive competition and no I'm not going to buy and hoard on it just to try to manipulate the market. If I have to take irrational charity courses of action to save this coin then it should be forked.
So writers are like miners, they will jump on each new instamined / insta-written-for coin, there will be a few new coins a day for a while, hmm are there still a few more each day right now, i haven't even bothered to watch, more useless crap blah blah blah. let them, once they have a few hundred wallets maybe they will look back and see writing for a hundred tomes a month is enough, they can afford to drop a couple hundred from their daily grind...

-MarkM-



Why is everyone blaming the writers? Do you think if writing were removed that Devcoin would suddenly become a success? I don't see how it would change anything. I think if you remove writers okay what about artists? What about podcasters? Or are you saying Devcoin is only for programmers?

If Devcoin is only for programmers then it will never be anything more than a coin for computer nerds because 90% of the human population are not programmers and even the majority of programmers aren't going to work for Devcoin when they can write their own coin which is better than Devcoin and become a hero to all the writers and artists.

Whether you like it or not, the Bitcoin community isn't going to be made up of computer nerds forever. If you ever want to bring women into the community and non-nerds, you have to allow these people to contribute and gain wealth too.



My disagreements are on economic, financial and rationality grounds and not for philiosophical reasons (although I suppose every and any view could be defined as philiosophical). I have bitcoins, like you and most here and sure I'd love bitcoin to work. But it won't. The primary reasons for this are that of replication and deflation.

I won't reiterate my thoughts there again ad nauseum, but I do think you need to flip your points around to the perspective of somebody who doesn't own Bitcoins worth $100 or ASICminer shares worth 2.5 BTC and ask why such an individual or group would purchase Bitcoin rather than an alternative, when Bitcoin does not satisfy most basic criteria of a currency.

I'm not a billionaire. I'm not even a millionaire. Some people in this world are millionaires and billionaires. So why would I want to work in the USA, and buy shares in Google when they are so much more expensive than they were during the IPO? Why would I want to work when so many people before me became millionaires and billionaires from less work or from other peoples work?

The reason is I'm not trying to be a billionaire and never expected to be. Nor do I ever expect to be a millionaire. All I want is to work hard and at the end of the year have more money than when I started. All I want is progress, advancement, whether it makes me rich or not is irrelevant.

People dislike inflation because it makes this goal impossible. You'll never have more purchasing power next year than you had this year when inflation is high. Under deflation on the other hand you will. As technology becomes more advanced we need an economy which is more deflationary because it's more efficient. Robots will be doing most of the work and there is no point in having the traditional notions of what money is. People who are late to transition into the new economy will not be the leaders of the new economy but it does not mean we should replicate the flaws of the old economy so that the leaders of the old economy can better get a grip on the new economy.

Bitcoin is not about to go mainstream, it can't go mainstream as is. The issue is similar to the debates on this forum about fractional reserve lending, credit etc - the question is not whether these things are possible with bitcoin, it's why applying rationality and choice anybody would utilise bitcoin for such purposes. They wouldn't. It would make no sense to do so.

Bitcoin is missing some infrastructure which keeps it from going mainstream but it is experiencing the network effect and just like Facebook did, it's going mainstream whether the infrastructure is ready or not. I agree with you it's not ready for it yet, but it's happening because there is nothing else and there tens of millions waiting to try Bitcoin who are ready but who for technical or infrastructure reasons cannot actually figure out how to buy a Bitcoin. Once buying them becomes as easy as going to an ATM or a Walmart then it's going to go from having a few million users to having 20-30 million users or what I'll call the Myspace phase of development. It will probably go up to 100 million users over the course of a few years. 100 million users does not seem like a lot because it really isn't, but it's enough that the market cap will be in the trillion dollar range in my opinion because thats 100 times the amount of users we have today and I do believe that is possible within 3-5 years. I predict a trillion dollar market cap, I admit this isn't a scientific prediction it's just speculation and based on a gut feeling that if Bitcoin reaches a critical mass of around 50-100 million users that it's market cap will explode along with that. It's very possible that it could be 100 million computer programmers and male nerds and then the market cap might not grow as much but if it's a diverse 100 million the market cap will explode and the price of Bitcoins along with it.

I appreciate we don't agree and I welcome your perspective as it's structured and thought through, but if Bitcoin does not address some very straightforward problems any objective observer has to conclude it's either an outright scam, or a slightly less scammy pyramid scheme, or suffers such inherent flaws that it's rendered useless for the purposes claimed, or at best a Bitcoin 2.0 will be along to correct the flaws.

This isn't true. The idea that superior technology always wins isn't true. Myspace was a superior technology to Facebook and it did not win. Facebook won and offered nothing that Myspace didn't have and Myspace had groups, features for musicians, etc. Facebook offered the network effect and because it managed to get over 100 million users before Myspace could, it won. Bitcoin offers the network effect and even if it has nothing else this alone will make it cool. When the people buying Bitcoins now are talking about about how they bought Bitcoins at $100 when everyone was calling it a ponzi scheme and a scam then those people who called it a ponzi scheme and scam wont have people listening to them anymore. People listen to success, and all Bitcoin has to do is make enough people millionaires and the network effect of that will make people buy Bitcoins even if just to invest.

And once they buy them to invest then they'll spend some of them on investments and financial products and services or on paying bills. The point is the network effect cannot be reversed. It couldn't be reversed with the Internet, or with social media, and it's not going to be reversed with cryptocurrencies.

Either way, each of those options means there is a significant probability of Bitcoin 1.0 having a future value of 0 beyond a niche group or facilitation mechanism.

The only thing it would take to make Bitcoin be mainstream is infrastructure. When a human being can live off Bitcoins, pay their bills, rent, buy food, and Bitcoins are easy to use and buy, then it's ready to go mainstream. Right now Kashmir Hill has tried to live of Bitcoin and found it's still not ready. When this test takes place again and they find out its ready, then these journalists will begin hyping Bitcoin.
The reason I persist with these points is because it bothers me to view a group that could be affecting real change in societal empowerment and subversion of state dictates (which are not all bad, but as we have little choice I have a problem with them) instead prefering to remain in their own bubble.

Remaining blinkered to the reality that just waiting for change and for society's economic, demographic and financial structures to mould themselves to Bitcoin's economics will not happen. Rather will result in the forces that saw the promise of Bitcoin gain some initial credence over broad monetary failings and inequities doing the same to Bitcoin's monetary failings and inequities and finding a better alternative. This is not a philosophical point, it's just the way the world works.

And this is where we disagree. I don't think Bitcoin will be stopped once the technology is set up where people can live off them. It's not there yet. There needs to be Bitcoin banks, ATMs, credit/debit cards, secure hardware based wallets, distributed exchanges, and jobs which pay in Bitcoins along with the ability to buy anything with Bitcoins.

These problems are being solved this year. Sometime in 2014 most of these problems will be solved. Then it's just a matter of scaling up.

Ethicoin has the same problem. Devcoin is also not perfect, but the unlimited blockchain actually fascilitates much more than Bitcoin. I'm not sure if this was technically ever intended as such beyond the payout equity element, but it is what it is. If it persists Devcoin should over time settle to a price that gives me the ability to buy some, pay a plumber, who pays his window cleaner, who pays to have his computer repaired ...etc... over the long-term with some certainty of forward value until somebody in that chain needs and transfers to fiat. Constant exchange. This will never be possible with Bitcoin as is.
You shouldn't have to buy them. You should be able to work for them. The reason Bitcoin isn't mainstream is because there isn't enough infrastructure set up for people so they can work for them. Coinbase is solving this problem, and Bitcoin banks and credit unions solve the other half. Coupons which give discounts to people using Bitcoin will promote demand.
So you are probably correct that Bitcoin works very well for those who already have some, provided they realise their gains before they become losses. Alternatively yes a Bitcoin could be worth anything in the future as a commodity traded between a niche group, but that's a significant gamble and waste of resources in the meantime. I attribute far greater value to a medium of exchange that could in the future increasingly eliminate the requirement for fiat transactions in the fee-based private and state financial system. So yes that's my gamble but I work on probability not prayers, and I think the probability that at some point there is better broad appreciation of workable economic reality > probability that an economically flawed and skewed system will subvert reality. I don't know whether that will be devcoin but it will be a similar 'inflationary' concept, because it has to be to compensate for world realities.

There will be other coins. Bitcoin does not have to be a niche coin either. When the exchange problem is solved then anyone who wants to can buy portions of Bitcoins at any time from any ATM or Walmart. When that happens it's all over for Paypal and that along would make Bitcoin mainstream. Go into Walmart and buy a Bitcoin debit card. Go to the Bitcoin ATM to turn Bitcoin into fiat and fiat into Bitcoin. Go to the Bitcoin credit union to get loans. Receive discoints, points and rewards for buying products and services with Bitcoins.

It's an easy choice for anyone to use Bitcoins when they can get sales.
killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1015



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 11:34:39 AM
 #3365

Closed source software like games? Yeah that brings a lot of users and money. Open source software on the other hand does not.

Oh, you should tell that to id software. They made code of popular games like Doom and Quake open source. I guess they get no money.

It is even easier for online games: everything can be open source, but somebody needs to run server. The original developers will likely know how to do it in the best way.

Devcoin promotes free software and for this reason will have the same difficulty getting revenue from programming that it has from writing.

Do not talk about things you do not understand, OK? There are many companies with market cap measured in billions who offer free software.

Venture capitalists don't invest in small scale software projects that could be funded by Devtome.

They do, you just have no idea how it works. I work for a software startup, FYI, and I know a bit or two about this.


Chromia: a better dapp platform
worldinacoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 11:39:10 AM
 #3366

Closed source software like games? Yeah that brings a lot of users and money. Open source software on the other hand does not.

Oh, you should tell that to id software. They made code of popular games like Doom and Quake open source. I guess they get no money.

It is even easier for online games: everything can be open source, but somebody needs to run server. The original developers will likely know how to do it in the best way.

Devcoin promotes free software and for this reason will have the same difficulty getting revenue from programming that it has from writing.

Do not talk about things you do not understand, OK? There are many companies with market cap measured in billions who offer free software.

Venture capitalists don't invest in small scale software projects that could be funded by Devtome.

They do, you just have no idea how it works. I work for a software startup, FYI, and I know a bit or two about this.



Count me in!  I would love to be part of the gaming startup with Devcoin
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 11:48:26 AM
 #3367

Oh, you should tell that to id software. They made code of popular games like Doom and Quake open source. I guess they get no money.
ID software did not start out doing that. They do that now that they've had flagship games and made hundreds of millions.
It is even easier for online games: everything can be open source, but somebody needs to run server. The original developers will likely know how to do it in the best way.
You're saying this entirely on faith.
Do not talk about things you do not understand, OK? There are many companies with market cap measured in billions who offer free software.
I was involved with the free software community and a user of Redhat since before Redhat went public. I know how difficult it was and still is, and you're triviliazing it to make it seem like it's not a miracle what they pulled off.

Not only did they pull off the impossible but I don't think many companies have been able to duplicate it. Many other Linux distributions have failed. Redhat also is not anywhere near as rich as Microsoft or Apple. Do you really think Devcoin is going to fund the next Redhat?

They do, you just have no idea how it works. I work for a software startup, FYI, and I know a bit or two about this.


It's the free software movement because it empowers the user. Programmers who follow this philosophy do so becaue they wish to empower the user. Sometimes empowering the user does not get you nearly as much money as you'd get if you went the Apple or Microsoft route of locking people into your formats, or the route of trying to turn the computer into some sort of interactive Internet TV type box. If you empower users sometimes you'll never get rich or never make a profit at all, I've seen it happen that far more often than I've seen a Redhat miracle or Google miracle.

If you work for a startup which empowers the user then I wish only for the success of your startup. Maybe it could be the next Redhat or Google but I doubt it.
MosinNagant
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 12, 2013, 12:23:19 PM
 #3368

Just popping into the thread to say hi, I dev, and I still dev.
killerstorm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022
Merit: 1015



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 12:25:02 PM
 #3369

One of the writers on devtome, Wiser, posted this article outlining their experience and ideas for the project. I think it's definitely worth a read and some thinking through:  http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=on_writing_and_market_forces

Nice article, indeed.

I gotta clarify one point, though: programmers simply do not get same kind of a deal as writers do. 90% of share pool is supposed to be allocated for writers on devtome.

You can't just get devcoins for your open source code, there are only bounties for concrete things (e.g. devcoin software) and for software projects which meet certain eligibility criteria.

For example, I contribute to some Bitcoin-related open source project. It is hard to judge significance, but let's say bitcointalk thread about it was read 16084 times, and my posts on reddit informing about progress got ~100 upvotes. Here's my github account which shows contributions: https://github.com/killerstorm/

But I've been told that software I write is not eligible so I cannot get any devcoins for my code.

I really do not care much about it because I got some money from sponsors, I just mentioned it to note that programmers are not complaining about shrinking share... They never had a share to begin with. (Well, some people receive shares for Bitcoin software but they already received lots of devcoins so I doubt they will complain.)

The only thing which bothers me is long-term viability of Devcoin, I really wish this project best of luck, and everything I wrote are just observations from an external observer.

Here's a list of programmers who receive devcoin shares:

https://github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/blob/master/bitcoinshare.html

https://github.com/Unthinkingbit/charity/blob/master/devcoinshare.html

Chromia: a better dapp platform
weisoq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 720
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 12, 2013, 12:39:47 PM
 #3370

I'm not a billionaire. I'm not even a millionaire. Some people in this world are millionaires and billionaires. So why would I want to work in the USA, and buy shares in Google...
You're referring to speculation and savings, which are not the sole foundations of a currency.

Quote
Bitcoin is missing some infrastructure which keeps it from going mainstream but it is experiencing the network effect and just like Facebook did...
Facebook was free, Bitcoin is not. No comparison anyhow as amongst other things bitcoin is not claiming to be a fad.

Quote
This isn't true. The idea that superior technology always wins isn't true. Myspace was a superior technology to Facebook and it did not win...
Don't mistake a network effect and the luxury of risks taken with existing wealth by an already comparitively wealthy subset, to the ability to shoehorn ordinary people from their hard-earned money. I'm not at all negative on cryptocurrencies in general, in fact I'm incredibly optimistic, only making the point that the winner will not be bitcoin as is.

Quote
The only thing it would take to make Bitcoin be mainstream is infrastructure. When a human being can live off Bitcoins, pay their bills, rent, buy food, and Bitcoins are easy to use and buy, then it's ready to go mainstream. Right now Kashmir Hill has tried to live of Bitcoin and found it's still not ready. When this test takes place again and they find out its ready, then these journalists will begin hyping Bitcoin.
Right this is where we really part company. You would be absolutely correct, except you’re missing the pivotal point that any transaction requires two sides, including for Bitcoin. And to achieve any of the things you refer to beyond saving somebody is going to have to take the shitty side of a hoarded deflationary asset.

Quote
And this is where we disagree. I don't think Bitcoin will be stopped once the technology is set up where people can live off them. It's not there yet. There needs to be Bitcoin banks, ATMs, credit/debit cards, secure hardware based wallets, distributed exchanges, and jobs which pay in Bitcoins along with the ability to buy anything with Bitcoins. These problems are being solved this year. Sometime in 2014 most of these problems will be solved. Then it's just a matter of scaling up.
No they won't be solved. They were not designed to be solved because Bitcoin is not what you advocate it to be. You say that people dislike inflation. You mean every saver dislikes inflation. Every borrower loves inflation (when balanced against asset price, wage trends). Could you explain, in practical and transaction terms:

(a) Why and how any borrower or anyone on the shitty side of bitcoin credit would choose to borrow in bitcoins when they can instead elect to borrow in stable or inflationary currency.

(b) If (a) is a problem, how the Bitcoin infrastructure persists without consistent interest in that side of the balance sheet

(c) If you don’t think (a) is a problem, how Bitcoin would support both the asset and liability sides of transaction, borrowers and lenders, buying and selling with credit/upfront/assured future goods and services delivery etc.

Quote
You shouldn't have to buy them. You should be able to work for them. The reason Bitcoin isn't mainstream is because there isn't enough infrastructure set up for people so they can work for them. Coinbase is solving this problem, and Bitcoin banks and credit unions solve the other half. Coupons which give discounts to people using Bitcoin will promote demand.
The reference to ‘buying them’ was that somebody somewhere at sometime has to obtain them. My sloppy language.

Quote
There will be other coins. Bitcoin does not have to be a niche coin either. When the exchange problem is solved then anyone who wants to can buy portions of Bitcoins at any time from any ATM or Walmart. When that happens it's all over for Paypal and that along would make Bitcoin mainstream. Go into Walmart and buy a Bitcoin debit card. Go to the Bitcoin ATM to turn Bitcoin into fiat and fiat into Bitcoin. Go to the Bitcoin credit union to get loans. Receive discoints, points and rewards for buying products and services with Bitcoins. It's an easy choice for anyone to use Bitcoins when they can get sales.
Yes there will be other coins. Bitcoin does not have to be a niche but it will be when it's quite a straightforward proposition to establish ones own blockchain, call it Wallmartcoin or VisaCoin or Devcoin etc with a foundation that better serves the needs of all users (i.e. that there are more of them).
jaywaka2713
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


aka 7Strykes


View Profile
June 12, 2013, 01:31:13 PM
 #3371

I did place the order, will be waiting on delivery now.

For selling EAW water in devcoins:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110884.msg1207844#msg1207844
which can be bought by sending a request to eca@glari.ch

ECA Project becomes the sixth devcoin non mining business. For which Icoin gets 4 shares from the expanded business bounty:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34586.msg1220943#msg1220943

The 4 shares will be sent out in in the next round, round 17.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225680.msg2374444#msg2374444

Now accepting Devcoin as payment for my business as well!

Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 01:55:45 PM
Last edit: June 12, 2013, 02:30:26 PM by Luckybit
 #3372

Imagine if Satoshi were paid in Devcoins instead. If Satoshi had millions of Devcoins, or even billions, it just would not work because there is no reason to mine Devcoins when 90% of profits go to the developers. Ethicoin has the advantage here in that it's fairly distributed 50/50 which to me makes a lot of sense.

Actually i suspect it makes less sense.

I think it might make more sense to limit each group/category to 10%, not jsut the miners.

Like maybe 10% for miners, 10% for writers, 10% for coders, 10% for businesses, 10% for media presences (e.g. websites), 10% for hardware 9the chips and circuit boards and 3d printers and spaceships and so on), etc. not sure of 10 good categories offhand so maybe a few floating tithes, used to add focus to one or more of the categories at times when a specific category is temporarily needing more work than the others?

Half for merged-mining, half for everyone else seems way too miner-centric, but I guess that is why they don't plan to merged-mine: they are struggling to come up with the next major pump and dump coin so obviously need the miners to get lots of money fast and to get the lion's share, and merged mining would too clearly undercut the "importance" of the pump and dumpers er I mean miners...

-MarkM-



Mining at this time and probably into the future is the best way to actually distribute the coins and money initially. Without miners how exactly do you distribute coins / profits and how do you keep the hash rate up?

I don't know what is going to happen with Ethicoin, but I do agree that 50% for miners and 50% for everyone else is fair. I sense you just have a bias against miners but that is based on your emotional disgust at pump and dump coins. I don't admire pump and dump coins any more than you do, but I also recognize that mining is the best way to distribute coins initially. There could be better ways but right now mining is the best way to get Bitcoins or Litecoins or any other kind of coins. How else are you supposed to get some?


You're referring to speculation and savings, which are not the sole foundations of a currency.
I agree, but neither is credit and debt. I prefer speculating and saving over credit and debt and this is why I promote deflationary currencies like Bitcoin. We simply don't need big spending anymore in a world which is becoming so high tech but also too polluted and potentially over populated.
Facebook was free, Bitcoin is not. No comparison anyhow as amongst other things bitcoin is not claiming to be a fad.
How is Bitcoin not free? Anyone can send you some mBTC in a tip. It's not completely free because someone pays for it with electricity, but neither is Facebook. You pay for Facebook by giving up privacy which turns privacy into a commodity to be bought and sold for a price.
Don't mistake a network effect and the luxury of risks taken with existing wealth by an already comparitively wealthy subset, to the ability to shoehorn ordinary people from their hard-earned money. I'm not at all negative on cryptocurrencies in general, in fact I'm incredibly optimistic, only making the point that the winner will not be bitcoin as is.
Bitcoin is money, and what stops people from earning Bitcoin and not wanting to give up their hard earned Bitcoin money for fiat? The same dynamic can work in reverse where Bitcoin wealthy wont ever want to go back to fiat and will do everything in their power to grow Bitcoin and bait people into it. I think with enough sales, rebates, points, Bitcoin exclusive products, music, films, that over time people will have to go to Bitcoin for Bitcoin exclusive content.

That is why I'm all about content. The content is what attracts people to Facebook after Facebook became big and it's what keeps people there. Bitcoin will grow by network effect but also by exclusive content. Right now unfortunately that content is only stuff on Silk Road but in the future it will be many kinds of products and services which only make sense to buy with Bitcon which will force people to buy Bitcoins.

Right this is where we really part company. You would be absolutely correct, except you’re missing the pivotal point that any transaction requires two sides, including for Bitcoin. And to achieve any of the things you refer to beyond saving somebody is going to have to take the shitty side of a hoarded deflationary asset.
I don't know what you mean by the shitty side.  All you will have to do is work for Bitcoin instead of dollars and suddenly you have Bitcoins. You're telling me that I can't set up a website right now which streams movies only to people who pay in Bitcoins? The benefit of this streaming site is that it would be completely anonymous for the users which means by using Bitcoins they would achieve privacy. The benefit for me is that I'd get to host the site and make a profit charging a small fee for each stream or even a monthly fee similar to Netflix. You're telling me that people wont pay for multimedia? Of course they will, they already do. When you can see what you want to see streamed to you whenever you want to see it without a contract, without a name, without any strings attached, just pay the Bitcoin and presto, this alone would grow the market cap on both ends. The viewers would pay to see the films or amateur movies, the hosts would take their cut for streaming it, the film makers would get their cut to make it.
(a) Why and how any borrower or anyone on the shitty side of bitcoin credit would choose to borrow in bitcoins when they can instead elect to borrow in stable or inflationary currency.
I don't know what you mean by the "shitty side" of Bitcoin credit. Are you saying why would the Bitcoin have nots choose to borrow Bitcoins vs dollars? Maybe if you are poor you shouldn't be borrowing in the first place, but if you are going to borrow then it wont make a difference in the future if you borrow from coinlenders or from somewhere else.

I don't think we should encourage poor people to borrow though, even if they can make margin trades or go to coinlenders.

(b) If (a) is a problem, how the Bitcoin infrastructure persists without consistent interest in that side of the balance sheet

I don't understand what you're saying here.

(c) If you don’t think (a) is a problem, how Bitcoin would support both the asset and liability sides of transaction, borrowers and lenders, buying and selling with credit/upfront/assured future goods and services delivery etc.

I don't think (a) will be a problem because Ripple will solve the problem and OT may solve it also.

Yes there will be other coins. Bitcoin does not have to be a niche but it will be when it's quite a straightforward proposition to establish ones own blockchain, call it Wallmartcoin or VisaCoin or Devcoin etc with a foundation that better serves the needs of all users (i.e. that there are more of them).

Let them try. But when the majority of businesses accept Bitcoin it isn't going to work. The reason it wont work is because people today are becoming millionaires from Bitcoin and eventually there will be billionaires. These billionaires will control the cryptocurrency industry, not random newcomers with new coins. I'm saying the early adopters in Bitcoin will be established, organized, and will be the big players in the cryptocurrency industry and the little coins will have a very difficult time changing the landscape. The old guard will have benefited from the deflationary aspects of Bitcoin and you're not going to be able to change the minds of people who became billionaires because they bought thousands or mined tens of thousands of Bitcoins in 2010 or 2011. These people will own hundreds of ASICminer shares and will own stocks in many other companies as well and as the shareholders these individuals may decide they like the deflationary aspect.

What will make matters even worse for you is that people right now are following the same path, buying Bitcoins, learning to appreciate the deflationary aspects of it, and in 2016 these people could be millionaires as well. What will happen is journalists are going to start interviewing more and more Bitcoin millionaires and billionaires and do you think these people who grew up poor or working class and through Bitcoin became rich are going to decide suddenly that Bitcoin has a flawed design? It never happens. And people who get in at 2016 will see what happened for people who got in at 2013, or 2011, or 2010, and they'll choose Bitcoin merely because by choosing Bitcoin they'll be better off.

I don't think anything can stop that trend from happening except making Bitcoin illegal. if Bitcoin is legal and people start becoming millionaires and billionaires overnight, then there can be other more stable coins, coins with better technology, stuff like Ripple with establishment support, but ultimately a billion dollars is cooler than a million. A thousand is cooler than a hundred. A hundred is cooler than ten. Ten is cooler than one.
Luckybit
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 510



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 02:00:23 PM
 #3373

i read a mention earlier that we need people to buy things with devcoin, and was tempted to point out right there that actually a lot seems to depend on WHAT people buy, or maybe on WHERE/HOW they buy it.

I don't see how it is relevant. What matters is supply and demand, and for trading it means how much time coins spend in wallets of merchants and their customers. Higher velocity means lower demand.

So if you want a boost to market cap, you need a kind of a project which freezes coins it gets... A perfect example would be a kind of forum which requires you to destroy some amount of Devcoins to prove that you aren't a scammer.

It is possible to approach this on cryptocurrency design level: since permainflationary alt-coins like Devcoin do not depend on fees, you can make it so fees are destroyed when transaction is made.

Higher number of transaction means that that more devcoins are destroyed... And if there is some trade, in the long term you get a situation where amount of coins which are mined approximately equals to amount which is destroyed.

Then, say, if you make transaction fee equal to 1% of transaction, you get 1% of total trading volume in economy for bounties and miners.

Freicoin's demurrage does something similar, but they got it backwards: currently they starve miners through obligatory donations to foundation, but in a long run miners will get 5% of total trade volume, which is just insane if total trading volume is high. (And foundation gets nothing.) It shouldn't be called Freicoin, it should be called MinerCoin.


This is exactly one of the solutions I mentioned in a previous post on here. I asked why can't Devcoins be destroyed via a Freicoin style demurrage to cap the rate of inflation and people flamed me for it. They hated the idea of destroying Devcoins for any reason but I do think this solution has a chance to work and should be implemented robustly.
wiser
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1029



View Profile
June 12, 2013, 02:18:02 PM
 #3374

One of the writers on devtome, Wiser, posted this article outlining their experience and ideas for the project. I think it's definitely worth a read and some thinking through:  http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=on_writing_and_market_forces

I just realized I need to add a section about number of words rewarded per month.  I will post it once I do.

Also, I know I am missing details about how shares are divided up.  If anyone has an article which clarifies that and is more accurate, please pm me and I will link to it  Smiley
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
 #3375

My brother died this past week, and we are starting a foundation. We want to do a few things.

1. Aware people that allergies are way more serious than they seem to be (packages need to be labeled like cigarettes, ex: "This product can kill you or your child if ingested", and possibly a big red "P" on any peanut product bag.

2. Do some charitable things in his name, such as clean highways, give scholarships, make baseballs (he was 11 and it was his favorite sport), make tributes (Mason Town, Songs, etc) and other nice things.

I would like to make donations possible in Devcoin, and I would like to get the support of the Devcoin community in starting this project. Not through donations (unless you have some extra DVC, a wallet will be created for this purpose over the next few weeks) but through sharing the word, and maybe posting on a thread when I make one later to this same effect.

Thank you for any support, I will post more information here.

Sorry for the LOSS.

I am from India and I can conduct any Charitable programs on behalf of you. So let me know what you are going to do with charity.

Thank you very much, I will definitely keep you posted.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:48:12 PM
 #3376

Notabot, I can't find your post, it disappeared.

At any rate, good catch.  On one hand maybe its the same guy as 8 minutes apart is a bit fishy, especially for 3 names with similar opinions.

I honestly think it's trolls stalking me. They heard I'm writing for devcoins, all three made accounts real quick, then got as far up my ass as fast as they could before I figured out who they were.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
owsleybeatsbigcartel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:49:37 PM
 #3377

I think it might make more sense to limit each group/category to 10%, not just the miners.

Yes. Perhaps like this:

1. Number of shares for each category is limited.
2. Each category has its own person (or several) responsible for bounty allocation.
3. That person should periodically report what bounties were allocated and what tangible results were achieved. Preferably with statistics.
4. If category eats through all shares allocated to it, bounties should be made smaller, or request can be made to increase limit of shares. But in that case request should provide some justification (e.g. explain how it helps to grow market cap) and maybe people (other category managers?) should vote on it.

only developers and DEVCOIN pumpers get paid = word to the wise!
FinShaggy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100


Google/YouTube


View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:50:27 PM
 #3378

Quote

Edit: Finshaggy, are you in contact with that mon corpus or whatever, a pretty face never hurts with gaining public attention.

Yeah, I can get a hold of her.

If everyone is thinking outside the box, there is a new box.
owsleybeatsbigcartel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:50:53 PM
 #3379

Notabot, I can't find your post, it disappeared.

At any rate, good catch.  On one hand maybe its the same guy as 8 minutes apart is a bit fishy, especially for 3 names with similar opinions.

I honestly think it's trolls stalking me. They heard I'm writing for devcoins, all three made accounts real quick, then got as far up my ass as fast as they could before I figured out who they were.

stop spreading lies >> back it up with FACTS!!!!
owsleybeatsbigcartel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
June 12, 2013, 02:53:38 PM
 #3380

Closed source software like games? Yeah that brings a lot of users and money. Open source software on the other hand does not.

Oh, you should tell that to id software. They made code of popular games like Doom and Quake open source. I guess they get no money.

It is even easier for online games: everything can be open source, but somebody needs to run server. The original developers will likely know how to do it in the best way.

Devcoin promotes free software and for this reason will have the same difficulty getting revenue from programming that it has from writing.

Do not talk about things you do not understand, OK? There are many companies with market cap measured in billions who offer free software.

Venture capitalists don't invest in small scale software projects that could be funded by Devtome.

They do, you just have no idea how it works. I work for a software startup, FYI, and I know a bit or two about this.



Count me in!  I would love to be part of the gaming startup with Devcoin

DEVCOIN IS THE GAME!!!
Pages: « 1 ... 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 [169] 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!