Topic: [ANN][DGC] Digitalcoin | Multi-algo & Masternodes | Established 2013 - page 112. (Read 523584 times)

Looking really sleek! PMed!

Great news, and I love your nota bene. Wouldn't want anyone confusing you with trucoin.

Yep its only the tip of the iceberg at the moment. Most friends and colleagues I talk to about Bitcoin and alt cryptos had absolutely no idea they existed. Their is huge potential for growth if you can come up with the right services and marketing that help get it out into the wider community.

Hopefully dgc and arg are on that path with the developments coming for it

Besides, once a coin gets on the radar ala LTC, the market price will manage itself. Right now it's only really a matter of user adoption. Even bitcoin hasn't become majorly mainstream yet, so it's unrealistic to expect instantaneous progress.

DGC is no doubt a model altcoin though.

Of course, but that's always been known to be part of the deal. To arbitrarily change the block reward at this time is a different issue entirely. I probably worded my post poorly.

I agree entirely that it is merely tackling a symptom of the problem and in the event that the block reward is lowered, I hope that it is in addition to a broader reform of the difficulty re-targeting system. That being said, I still wish DGC were less inflationary than it is, even if it doesn't really matter that much.

As a large stakeholder in DGC, I stand to gain a lot by an increased scarcity of DGC. That's precisely the issue.

You realize that DGC halves it's block reward every 4730400 blocks anyway, so to bring it forward is no big deal. But it's only tackling the symptoms not the problem.

Baritus mentioned in the DGC fundraiser thread that he plans to integrate a payment processor into the DGC/ARG bank/exchange.

In regard to the dgc block reward reduction issue: I initially supported a reduction of the DGC block reward. In an ideal world, I still wish that DGC had a slightly smaller block reward---say 15 DGC. However, in light of the points raised by disclaimer, cosmo, et. all, my view on the issue has changed. I think one of the strongest points that DGC has going for it was the fairness of its launch and the lack of benefits to be had by ultra-early-adopters. Indeed, this is one of the major reasons that I initially choose to support digitalcoin (of course, far from the only reason ) To change the block reward would largely undo this, at least perceptually. Digitalcoin set the standard for fair coin launches, and I feel that the negatives of changing the block reward far outweigh the benefits.

The coin value is relative to demand, which is why I agree that demand ought to be increased with things like the payment gateway you mentioned. But I think that it is undesirable for the coin supply to be a function of demand. That smacks of Fed-style currency manipulation.

The coin creation rate should be relative to the coin requirement rate, supply vs demand. To maintain a desired balance you need to alter one or the other, I vote for increasing demand.  If you want a coin that has low supply, focus on ARG.

The main shortfall I see with DGC demand, is a merchant gateway where people can add Bitpay style DGC payments as an option to their shopping carts. eg. Prestashop, Magnet, WHMCS etc.  I believe that should be the main focus of development, solve that and the over supply problem will vanish.

Vote for your favorite altcoin!

www.bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264016.0

MaGNeT posted a thread on this very subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263827.20

There are a couple good ideas in there, like making newly minted coins take forever to confirm. Maybe set up a random confirmation time for each block that could take anywhere from 2-5 days until the miner can spend their coins?

When i feel i have a large enough stake of DGC - and if they don't screw around with the structure of it , I'm going to help .

If it goes full retard (kind of how Caps is going) , then I'll dump all I have .

If i could throw my two bits in here, I own a fair chunk of DGC and tampering with the block reward doesn't sit well with me. The virtues of doing so don't seem to outweigh the fallbacks by much and so far DGC has had an impeccable record to its name. Good reputation is hard to gain and easy to lose; I hate to see DGC fall prey to such claims when so far its successfully held its original intention of equal community.

The flash miners that bombarded the network when the price spiked does compromise the security of the coin and I understand how Baritus wants to protect something that so far has become an admirable force in the world of altcoins, but this is simply a result of the environment we're trying to succeed in, you can't change that. Brainstorming ideas for improvement is great, and Baritus, thank you for making the decisions on changing the code public domain, that's exactly what I want to see from a developer and there's no question that that's how the bitcoin protocol was designed to function.

Honestly, we just need more options to choose from asides from decreasing the block reward. Otherwise, I'd say let things continue as they are, DGC will slowly gain momentum provided the community still cares for it and the dev team is committed to its success. From my intuition in being part of the community and DGC's history so far, I have no doubt about that. The only suckers here are the ones selling it to make a quick buck. Provided we continue to work together such dayminers will soon be sorry they didn't look into DGC beyond its current selling price.

All it takes for a coin to succeed is its adoption. Look at tenebrix and litecoin, and how litecoin went from pennies to dollars in the course of a few weeks. I believe digitalcoin can make a similar impact, provided it holds the momentum it is continuing to gain.

Baritus, in terms of changing the code, it seems the worst that happens to digitalcoin is when the price spikes, and as of now it seems like things will be calm for a while. A 51% attack is still something to worry about and I doubt minor changes like difficulty or block reward will hamper that, but I trust something can be done to keep DGC alive. I appreciate your being mature and only talking about what you have certainty in, because the 90% of us that aren't programmers barely have any ideas ourselves. Thanks for taking care of us.

Thanks for the post.  I despise anything resembling the actions of a central authority akin to the Federal Reserve.  And this was how I interpreted Baritus's (possible) actions.

The mining contract thing goes back to when DGC was released.  I'll find the posts (it's like on page six or something), but I found it so insulting that I question Baritus's motives sometimes.  He's a nice guy and an active dev but then he'll do these really questionable things like the mining contract during DGC release when it would behoove the blockchain to have more trusted miners mining.  Or, for instance, ignoring the reputation of a certain notorious troll on this forum and welcoming him onto DGC's dev team (that was when I sold my holdings of DGC btw).  And now considering to change the coin subsidy when changing the diff retarget algo should be considered first.

-Merc

It's good to be critical, but leave out the insults and read closely.

Baritus: "I'm just gauging community opinion with the poll, you can be assured no decisions are ever made in this community without input from all members." - Great!

"I definitely see both sides of the argument and I am currently siding with keeping it as is or a slight decrease (10-20%)." - Understood. Even if I still think it's a bad idea.
 
"Nevertheless, polls are one of the few ways of gathering information so don't be surprised to see them coming up. It doesn't mean anything but an opinion gauge. Good discussion, if anyone has anything else to add, please do." - It's good to have polls!


mercSue: "Are you the dev of DGC or are you its price manipulator?" - Rightful question dev has to live with if he considers changing the rewards.

"And now you want to change DGC into the biggest premined coin in all history of premined coins." - It wouldn't technically be a premine, but it was clear this proposal could cause anger and concern.  

"Congrats, you have turned what's supposed to be a decentralized system into a centralized one." - He hasn't done anything, and even if he did, DGC would still be a decentralized coin, unlike ripple for example

"By the way, how's that mining contract of yours coming along?" - Is this related to DGC at all?

"Respectfully, the fact you would even consider this shows how clueless you are..." - This sentence is antagonizing and should have been dropped. And writing "respectfully" doesn't make it any less so.

DannyDisco: "What I'd like to see done, is have some sort of mechanism that blocks large amounts of hashrate to be dumped on a coin. Not sure if it's possible... but say if a pool with more than 40% of the current hashrate tries to mine.. it simply gets blocked and no work gets sent to it." - This is what we should be focusing on.

Fair enough.  It is controversial, for sure.

My suggestion.  Don't touch the coin supply.  Change difficulty retarget algo to be on a per block basis of an average of last X block times.  So if the DGC blockchain is hit with large hashrate then diff should retarget quickly and consequently so will profitability.  If this algo is implemented I'll buy back my 200k DGC.  Cheers!

-Merc

No. It is merely a suggestion to dissuade large pool hoping pools from connecting and taking advantage of the coin. It's a solution to protect the investors. It's a controversial one, but at least it's a suggestion. Rather than blast the devs and call them thieves or price manipulators, why don't you offer up a different suggestion and try to help?

I know many of you own DGC and my sentiment won't be all that popular.  So just answer this question, smarty.  And if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.  But is changing the subsidy and coin supply motivated primarily because people are unsatisfied with DGC's price action? 

What is your deal? Quit making yourself look stupid mate.