★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[benjamoyne]

Regarding the coin reduction or mining period extention as you can call it, there are several things to consider. In the first place why extend the period? I personally don't believe in a 144 year supply, the real horizon is much closer. In the financial arena people have trouble planning things 5 years ahead so 144 years?  Stating that the supply will be the same but in an extended period is fooling yourself. The real period where things happen is the next 5 to 10 years and maybe even 2 to 5 years. If crypto is adopted the amount of coins on the market on that very moment is what matters not what the supply will be in 50 or 144 years.

Next thing is the reward. About six months ago the price of 1 Digibyte was 15-20 Sat and people complained about the supply. The price was pumped to 60 Sat and no one posted anything about the supply… Now the price is back to 25 Sat and people immediately agree to reduce supply. Is this decisson based on fundamentals to get Digibyte mainstream? Or is this call for reduction founded by the psychological phenomena that people accept gain very easily but can’t cope with loss.

My personal objection against supply reduction is the fact I did not hear a single good argument why the supply should be less. And if it really should be less, why 10 times? Because thats a nice number? Why not 2 or 7. Second objection I have is the short term thinking, what will happen in six months, or what will happen if one or some projects really getting momentum. The main reason some people agree is because they have a pile of Digibyte and see a quick (paper) gain.

I’m happy to diccuss this matter with anyone but simply stating reduce the supply because it suits my millions of Digi is not my cup of tea. A reduction must be done to support Digibyte as a coin, the security or the adoption otherwise I would say leave it as is.

Completely agree. People need to understand they haven't lost anything unless they sell.

Also most country's manipulate there currency values, is this the road we want to go down???
This is where we are headed if we continue to change the award.

[Kayahoga]

I agree as well, please don't change the block rewards / supply.  We need to create value in the currency, constantly changing the block reward to prevent dumps only hurts the faith / trust in the coin. 

[Bluestreet]

Like I mentioned before DGB has dedicated miners who you might lose support of if you change rewards.

[yoyoamigo]

seems like the only way is to put all focus on development & marketing then.

[Jumbley]

Like I mentioned before DGB has dedicated miners who you might lose support of if you change rewards.

The other day, I suggested that we all migrate, just for the weekend, into the official DigiByte pool so that we could judge just how much of our mining was friendly. I was especially interested in sha miners because I have always considered this our greatest threat.
One of the miners that responded to this call was thsminer, so I consider him DigiByte friendly and I can tell the rest of you that between him and myself, we account for roughly about 10% of total sha mining on DigiByte, not a bad start!

What I wasn't able to do, for the benefit of the community, was disprove my fear that possibly 70% of sha mining was not friendly!

If the majority of mining can be judged to be DigiByte friendly, then any change to the supply would be unnecessary and unwarranted.

so DigiByte sha miners...

What say you all, should we give this another shot and perhaps put this issue to bed?

[Jumbley]

ANNOUNCEMENT ...

Hi Everyone,

Just heard from Olly over at Altcoin Speculation.  He just published a story on the DGB Gaming Wallet (Press Release).  It's in the "Coin News" section.

http://altcoinspeculation.com/the-digibyte-gaming-wallet/

His main site is:

http://altcoinspeculation.com/

He puts out a newsletter and I've been following his site for a while.

Let's all show him how much we appreciate his support and his help promoting DGB.

This is a great start and demonstrates the worth of community ventures such as DigiByte Group!
Well done Eric, keep it up.

[Bluestreet]

Like I mentioned before DGB has dedicated miners who you might lose support of if you change rewards.

The other day, I suggested that we all migrate, just for the weekend, into the official DigiByte pool so that we could judge just how much of our mining was friendly. I was especially interested in sha miners because I have always considered this our greatest threat.
One of the miners that responded to this call was thsminer, so I consider him DigiByte friendly and I can tell the rest of you that between him and myself, we account for roughly about 10% of total sha mining on DigiByte, not a bad start!

What I wasn't able to do, for the benefit of the community, was disprove my fear that possibly 70% of sha mining was not friendly!

If the majority of mining can be judged to be DigiByte friendly, then any change to the supply would be unnecessary and unwarranted.

so DigiByte sha miners...

What say you all, should we give this another shot and perhaps put this issue to bed?

Another solution could be to replace SHA and Scrypt as others have suggested?

[Jumbley]

Like I mentioned before DGB has dedicated miners who you might lose support of if you change rewards.

The other day, I suggested that we all migrate, just for the weekend, into the official DigiByte pool so that we could judge just how much of our mining was friendly. I was especially interested in sha miners because I have always considered this our greatest threat.
One of the miners that responded to this call was thsminer, so I consider him DigiByte friendly and I can tell the rest of you that between him and myself, we account for roughly about 10% of total sha mining on DigiByte, not a bad start!

What I wasn't able to do, for the benefit of the community, was disprove my fear that possibly 70% of sha mining was not friendly!

If the majority of mining can be judged to be DigiByte friendly, then any change to the supply would be unnecessary and unwarranted.

so DigiByte sha miners...

What say you all, should we give this another shot and perhaps put this issue to bed?

Another solution could be to replace SHA and Scrypt as others have suggested?

The fact that we include these algorithms is what makes us serious contenders in the cryto currency market, if we were to abandon them and choose not to fight these battles, then I fear we would have trouble convincing the rest of the world of that but that's just my opinion.

[EPLDCC]

ANNOUNCEMENT ...

Hi Everyone,

Just heard from Olly over at Altcoin Speculation.  He just published a story on the DGB Gaming Wallet (Press Release).  It's in the "Coin News" section.

http://altcoinspeculation.com/the-digibyte-gaming-wallet/

His main site is:

http://altcoinspeculation.com/

He puts out a newsletter and I've been following his site for a while.

Let's all show him how much we appreciate his support and his help promoting DGB.

This is a great start and demonstrates the worth of community ventures such as DigiByte Group!
Well done Eric, keep it up.

Thanks.  I genuinely appreciate all the support that the community shows for DGB and the DigiByte Group.

[Litejavichu]

ANNOUNCEMENT ...

Hi Everyone,

Just heard from Olly over at Altcoin Speculation.  He just published a story on the DGB Gaming Wallet (Press Release).  It's in the "Coin News" section.

http://altcoinspeculation.com/the-digibyte-gaming-wallet/

His main site is:

http://altcoinspeculation.com/

He puts out a newsletter and I've been following his site for a while.

Let's all show him how much we appreciate his support and his help promoting DGB.

Very good article.
I'm a little disconnected from day to day .... But I do not quite understand that this coin, which has some great services not on the moon ...
26-28 in trade? i´m go to buy NOW

[iikun]

As thsminer pointed out, a 144 year extension is quite ridiculous. Also, I don't think we want or need to go down the slippery slope of hard forks every 3 or 4 months because it harms our credibility and makes it seem as though planning was insufficient or poorly done.

The only thing we need is greater usability in the real world, and this is really where all alts fall down. Really there is such a variety of concepts and tech out there now that if success hinged on something so simple as extending the mining term bitcoin would already be a goner and three successors would be in its place.

I am only one voice but I would much prefer Jared and everyone was focused on how to achieve greater adoption than messing around with the code again. Market manipulation is frowned upon in the fiat world (and is usually unsuccessful anyway), and I don't think we want to sully our good name by association by performing similar manipulation. It stinks of desperation.

I don't see this discussion as a bad thing, but short term gains by choking the supply will be evened out within one or two weeks by ppl just speculating on Digibyte. We want to drive natural growth and natural demand, and a mining term extension will not help this at all IMHO.

[plumptoiletduck]

I'm glad the majority of people see that trading a little short term price rise from the reward reduction, for long term loss of credibility from unnecessary meddling is a bad idea.

On a separate topic, where do you see online gaming going in the future?

Digital copies of games eg: Steam or GOG, seem very popular, I own some myself. I used to play counterstrike; one thing that struck me were the banners that were put up in the arena by the owner of the server. Advertising space could potentially be rented out within these locations. Small fees could be levied for anything from joining a clan or access to server, to entering a tournament with prizes for winners, item trading, bounties for quest help, mentoring newbs... The possibilities are only limited by imagination.
DigiByte enables all this on a small scale up to a large one, and I am extremely excited about the potential here. It is a market that does not yet exist but will soon; DigiByte needs to create it, or at least part of it to secure it's future.

[Jumbley]

can anyone see what the sha mining on DigiByte is right now?
Difficulty 2571767.38

[HR]

Lots of reasonable arguments regarding the 144 year production life.

I'm on the fence for now. It's a tough call.

[Jumbley]

Lots of reasonable arguments regarding the 144 year production life.

I'm on the fence for now. It's a tough call.

Certainly is! Possibly haven't had as much fun since 1992 when Britain pulled out of the EMU. 

It's a rock and a hard place. I'm pretty sure DigiByte would probably lose a lot of dedicated friendly mining as a consequence and we desperately need that but at the same time, it is something that the DigiByte developers could do because they can't force people to buy,mine, hold and support DigiByte.

[HR]

Lots of reasonable arguments regarding the 144 year production life.

I'm on the fence for now. It's a tough call.

Certainly is! Possibly haven't had as much fun since 1992 when Britain pulled out of the EMU.  

It's a rock and a hard place. I'm pretty sure DigiByte would probably lose a lot of dedicated friendly mining as a consequence and we desperately need that but at the same time, it is something that the DigiByte developers could do because they can't force people to buy,mine, hold and support DigiByte.

And it's not too clear whether the benefits are really that big of a deal, both short and long term.  


I think that the solution is taking DigiByte to the world, in every way we can possibly think of doing it. We've got to 1) continue building community, since that is the essential foundation on which everything else rests, and 2) continue building community, 3) continue building community.

After all, when "bridging", or "selling", or "marketing" to the world, what we're really doing is actually building community.  :-)

It's kind of fun.  

[Hegemon]

I think that the solution is taking DigiByte to the world, in every way we can possibly think of doing it. We've got to 1) continue building community, since that is the essential foundation on which everything else rests, and 2) continue building community, 3) continue building community.

After all, when "bridging", or "selling", or "marketing" to the world, what we're really doing is actually building community.  :-)

It's kind of fun.

so answer to your private messages please 

[HR]

This round was interesting from the psychological point of patience and endurance. I must have spent almost 3 hours “mining” just 100 or so e-mails, was asking myself where else I might look, and thinking that if I could just get another hundred and a half I could settle for a total of 1,250 when I happened on some “second tier” investment banks who are much more inclined to open their doors to the outside world, and, wham, just like that, in just a couple of hours time, I took my list to over 2,000! I had hit a main vein! A real nice batch of personalized contacts. In just a couple of hours! I’m the happy camper. Now it just so happens that I’ve run out of candidates to scour and I don't think I'll push my luck, and I think I’ll leave it at this with 2,000+ (2,178 to be exact) high quality e-mail addresses of principals, senior vice presidents, assistant vice presidents, managing directors, executive directors, heads of research, sector analysts, asset managers, corporate brokering, corporate finance, compliance and sales people in more than 50 companies with international scope.

Of course, the early data indicates the expected: that most, if not all, goes directly into Spam, but a good many of us take a peek and sometimes, and, well, if I saw an e-mail saying “Top 5 CryptoCurrency Investments 2015” with no attachment, I might take a look-see. We’ll have to see if their IT departments continue to give me at least Spam access or if they outright block me. Time will tell.

While on the one hand I know a lot of these folks are “old guard”, and crypto antagonistic, I also know that of all the target markets I can think of, these are the folks, with their very livelihood centered on financial analysis, investments and risk management, that if anyone knows how to correctly value the real long term investment prospects of crypto, it’s these folks, and that if there’s only one who reacts and gets involved, not even on a company level, but on a personal level – think about it, only one person with the income and wealth of these 2000+ prospects is enough to move markets (and there will be more than one, rest assured, and with time it will become institutional, but remember, for the time being, this is just first contact: the opportunity to get in front of them).

Next on the docket?  An article about how thinly traded the cryptocurrencies are at present and the need to be patient with opening positions.

. . . it would be nice to get a “newsletter” relationship going with as many of these people as possible . . .  

. . . and in September I’m going to buy a DB or two.

[HR]

I think that the solution is taking DigiByte to the world, in every way we can possibly think of doing it. We've got to 1) continue building community, since that is the essential foundation on which everything else rests, and 2) continue building community, 3) continue building community.

After all, when "bridging", or "selling", or "marketing" to the world, what we're really doing is actually building community.  :-)

It's kind of fun.

so answer to your private messages please 

Gotcha.

[EPLDCC]

Lots of reasonable arguments regarding the 144 year production life.

I'm on the fence for now. It's a tough call.

Certainly is! Possibly haven't had as much fun since 1992 when Britain pulled out of the EMU. 

It's a rock and a hard place. I'm pretty sure DigiByte would probably lose a lot of dedicated friendly mining as a consequence and we desperately need that but at the same time, it is something that the DigiByte developers could do because they can't force people to buy,mine, hold and support DigiByte.

I've been staying out of the conversation because I will support whatever decision Jared makes.  Still, I obviously have my opinions. I was opposed (prior to the video).  But, the more I thought about it, the less I worried one way or the other.  Mostly I believe this is a question about if DGB should conform to the current altcoin "aura popularis."

We can't influence the real supply and demand.  We can only adjust the supply schedule (or I suppose the demand schedule if we are active buyers).

I'm not sure that we would lose dedicated, friendly miners.  Maybe some.  But, I hope that people who are serious supporters of DGB would continue to support the coin.  It might even help work against the non-committed miners who just mine whatever coin is the most profitable.  I think, in theory, reducing supply might benefit ASIC miners more than others.  ASICs are far more power efficient per GH than GPU mining.  So, it could lead to greater centralization of mining power.

Reducing the mining rewards (even slightly) would increase the cost of production per DGB.  In other words, my electricity bill is not going to go down, so if I receive fewer coins per day, it costs more for me to mine each individual DGB.  From a practical standpoint this could have numerous effects (both positive and negative) on the price.  I guess, in theory, it would create a new price equilibrium between the supply schedule and demand schedule.  But, there's no reason that the actual exchange price would adjust to that new equilibrium point (unless we're talking about in the indefinite long term).  It could lower the number of people mining DGB in multipools (the non-dedicated group who just autosell), because it could make DGB less profitable than other coins in the pool; but if it triggers a rise in price to match the new cost of production, then the same people would just jump back in and mine DGB when it's profitable again.  But, all this assumes that people who mine are the predominate suppliers.  If we include traders, we have a different set of supply and demand curves based on significantly different objectives (often different slopes as far as I can tell).  Honestly, there's no reason to attempt to guess what effects it would have.  It's just guessing.  Even if it's educated guessing.

The real question should be if it is the right decision to make for the long term benefit of DGB development and deployment.  If the answer to that question is "yes" - then I think it would benefit both traders and miners in the long term.