Topic: Devcoin - page 140. (Read 412952 times)

Good to hear.

I don't know how to be sure that someone isn't slipping in code, but I added a requirement for a brief explanation of compiling the executable, so that people can compile their own to be on the safe side and make it easier for someone trustworthy to compile and release their own version:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1100833


"There's a four generation share bounty for the first person who provides a devcoin windows executable, and a two share bounty for the second. It must be built from the August 22, 2012 devcoin files or later, from the developer files at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/galacticmilieu/files/DeVCoin/

There also has to be a brief explanation of how the executable was compiled, so that others can create their own executable."

Sounds good. Gotta be somehow trustable though, we don't want executables made by our fiendly local Anon reps...

-MarkM-

I'd like to increase the devcoin windows executable bounty:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1100833

From 1 share for the first and 1 share for the second, to 4 shares for the first and 2 for the second.

Are there any objections?

Icoin has been awarded the first devcoin mining business bounty:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.649844

for the devcoin mining corporation, DVB at:
http://glari.ch:3000/info?project_id=dvb

which is traded on cryptostocks at:
https://cryptostocks.com/securities/14

The mining business bounty starts at five generation shares, so the award is 5 shares. It will be paid to Icoin in the next round, round 15.

Mark has been awarded the first three of the non mining business bounties:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.649844

for the devcoin promoting and financed companies:

• http://devtome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Devcorp
• http://devtome.org/wiki/index.php?title=General_Development_Corp
• http://devtome.org/wiki/index.php?title=General_Financial_Corp

These bounties start at five generation shares, so the awards are 5 shares, 4 shares, and 3 shares, for a total of 12 shares. The 12 shares will be sent out in in the next round, round 15.

To clarify the devcoin pool bounty. The point is to mine as much value as possible, so that means bitcoins must be mined since even in merged mining they're more than 90% of the value. Even if p2pool is upgraded so that the alternate chains can also be cross merged mined, all that means is that the variance of alternate chains will be reduced, it does not mean that somehow it's going to get more devcoins on average or any other alternate coin. Making devcoin masterchain would not increase the number of devcoins mined.

If the miners request on average less than 0.6% of the value as devcoins, only then could the pool pay out of its merged mined coins, anything more means the pool operator has to exchange bitcoins, or other alternate coins into devcoins. There is no way around that. If the pool operator has a lot of devcoins from bounties or devtome earnings, he can send the miners accumulated devcoins at an agreed exchange rate, like the average of the bid and ask at an exchange, exchanging the coins implicitly.

There are separate bounties for different businesses/models. A mining company has its own bounty, a non-mining company yet another.

As to calculating the divvying up of coins, I too worry about cheaters, that is why I would have preferred to be able to know how many bitcoins p2pool had given out to each miner, since that counts work that actually resulted in coins, presumably. I worried that some malicious folk might hack a mining program to only submit solutions that are difficult enough to qualify as a pool share but not difficult enough to be acceptable by any of the merged chains.

Possibly though p2pool is itself vulnerable to such attacks, or some other kinds of attacks, so that merely looking at how it assined bitcoins might not really reflect how much work miners actually did.

I am seeing someone now who seems to be on again off again a lot, I wonder is that maybe someone who is doing some kind of hopping.

Once you have to number though to use as what fraction of the total work was done by each miner, it is not a complicated bit of math to divide what is in the wallets accordingling. And the long you wait before doing so, the closer the amounts in the wallets will tend to have come toward being an actual average amount for that amount of work.

(For example if you pay yearly, in the course of a year likely the number of coins of each type will have averaged out about right. Though then of course difficulty might get significant and people who mined early while difficulty was lower would suggest that an equal amount of work done later wouldn't've brought in as many coins as the work they did early on...)

The main thing, I think, is to be sure to pay more than any pool that is only mining a few coin types, otherwise it isn't likely to be perceived as worthwhile to bother doing Massively Merged Mining.

Even though NKL is not moving back to blockchain format yet, it is being used for the "nickel-ing and dime-ing" in the Open Transactions server in that it is what the "usage tokens" will be priced in, so I think even though we aren't actually "mining" NKL, nonetheless it would be good to award miners some NKL or at least, some of the "usage tokens" that are normally bought with NKL. Depending on how much the nickel-and-dime-ing tends to add up to for people who use the exchange, that might actually turn out to be a nice little perk for miners.

-MarkM-

I don't really see much difference between a pool where people mine with their own hardware and one where they buy shares so someone else can buy hardware, mine with it, and pay the proceeds to them. If the goal of bounties is to get people using devcoin then I think the bounty would best be reworded so this usage is allowed.

Why didnt you wrote that code and published it allready if it would be that simple?

You indeed didnt run fully a p2pool node imho, or you run your server on a mainframe. Your calculations can be easy as long you just run with a few constants, but as soon you have pool hoppers or many miners who join in and leave you simply run out of memory to make all this calculations. since not every block is found in the same time on every chain and not every miner is 24/7 hooked only to your node - p2pool is not pps based...


I agree with you on that, but wasnt it you who declared our effort as a mining operation and not a pool or even a development company? When we talk about economics is it realy economicaly sane what actualy happens with the DVC chain? I mean why do you think we are so low in the exchange - its cause mostly miners or operators just exchange there devcoins for bitcoins instead of investing them into something usefull. The DVB Security was created to solve some essential problems out of deeper thinking and consideration, its not profit oriented, even when profit can be made with it by speculation.
But you are right by now we have to look at DVC from a economic point of view and the most economic way these days is to exchange BTC for DVC.

Imho DVC has an even greater potential then BTC does, but probably im allone with this oppinion.

Like i allready stated you should be more carefull why and what you post in this thread

Sharing out the merged mining proceeds is actually pretty easy. Just compare how much is in all the various wallets since last time you paid, and how much mining each miner has done since then.

Or, even compare how much coin in total has been paid to how much mining each miner has done in total then deduct for each miner any payouts that miner already took.

I had figured the so called "area" on the graphs is probably the simplest measure to us for how much mining people have done.

The problem with using DeVCoin as primary chain is BiTCoin does not work as a secondary chain, so 90% or more of the income a miner could make is lost if they drop bitcoins from the mix. Considering how little interest miners have shown in mining even a full gamut of coins at once, it seems unlikely in the extreme they will go for spending their hashes on a mix that leaves out BiTCoin entirely. It simply does not make economic sense; BiTCoin needs to be made capable of being an auxiliary chain if other chains, such as DeVCoin are reasonably to be useable as primary.

-MarkM-

When you are running a p2pool node then you are aware that the biggest problem is how to share the merged mined chains among miners. We was searching for a solution quite some months.  Our solution was found trough the use of securities in a way GMP and DVB does it. Of course its not the only solution.

p2pool will be soon capable of mining Devcoin's as Masterchain. Means the main chain will be Devcoin instead of Bitcoin or Litecoin, this allows to run a huge amout of DVC based p2pool nodes for everyone.

I am not really clear on it either. A long time ago I set up my p2pool so that it was open to any miner to mine there, No one did, even though it mines pretty much all the coins that can practically be merged-mined. It never did get the bounty, I guess simply because no one actually bothered to come and mine until the 23rd of this month?

-MarkM-

To set an final end to this pool bounty discussion:

http://glari.ch:9332 (or an other port) will be fully p2p DEVCOIN capable. we gonna mine for devcoins and we share the found DEVCOIN blocks according to the hashrate of each miner. The code is opensource.

Please be aware that this want have any effect on the GMP or DVB security listed on https://cryptostocks.com

I thought it was a pool, then I thought it was not a pool. I will now wait for clarification before thinking anything else.


This bounty is the most controversial that has ever been awarded. So the first place award is now in limbo until the whole thing is sorted out. Everyone else who makes a devcoin mining pool will get the second place and later awards, only once everything is known will extra shares be sent out.


I did not know that the pool used to be accessible, then it was taken private. I thought that the pool was private throughout. Thanks for the correction.

My question is; assuming that at some time that the ddos ends, and the pool can once again be reached by miners, can those miners choose to be paid in a portion of their choosing in devcoins?



Overall, I don't fully understand what is going on with this bounty. I just want to remind everyone that while there will be misunderstandings and debates, the people in this thread are not the enemies. Banks would destroy all our wealth if they could, whether it be in devcoins or bitcoins. In this thread we are all on the same side, against powerful opponents.

This is not correct! If you need a connection point connect to http://glari.ch:9332

We are definitly not a mining operation we run our own pool nodes! Mining operations do mine and dont build there own pools  - they use existing centralized pools.


@ Unthinkinbit what is going on here is just not right.

@ MarkM be aware that what you are actualy doing is not realy good for the project. But i wish you just luck for your work.

One last thing to say:
As soon Unthinkinbit declared me won the pool bounty my server was ddosed. As i decided to protect the interests of the shareholders and switch the mining to a secured enviroment, the project was declared a mining operation and the bounty was rejected, is this the way we build things? The points in the Bounty was clearly met otherwhise Unthinkinbit wouldnt declare DVB as winner! There was not a single word about accessing the pool by other miners!


Additional Info:

http://glari.ch:9332 will be soon a p2p DEVCOIN only mining node!

Part of the purpose of the tables at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html is to make it easy for companies to accept any of various different currencies.

For example although GMC generally expresses prices in terms of its own currency (also known as GMC), and GRF does likewise with its GRF currency, it is common nowadays for the folks selling stuff to them to ask to have their pay applied against their debt; and ever since General Financial Corp came along refinancing of that debt has become commonplace.

Thus quite often when GMC or GRF buys stuff the price paid is to be applied not against debt the supplier owes to them but, rather, debt owed in CDN to the Canucks or in UKB to the Brits or in UNS to the (Galactic) United Nations or in DVC to GFC, DeVCorp, GDC or GRC.

Markets would just make that way too complicated, so instead we have these tables. The supplier tells them please apply my pay to my DeVCoin-denominated debt that I  owe to GFC. GFC looks at how many GMC is being paid against the debt, multiplies it by the number of DVC those tables claim GMC is worth, and apply that number of DVC against the DVC-denominated debt.

The fact that the interest rates on the debts are usurious helps, of course, against any "currency conversion risk" using such tables might expose the corps to.

This all means though that as well as the deliberately/specifically DeVCoin-oriented corps DeVCorp, General Financial Corp, General Development Corp and General Retirement Corp accepting DeVCoins, the two massive multigalactics GMC and GRF who have their own currencies are also able to accept DeVCoins, as are the Brits via their corps such as British Colonial Enterprises, British Colonial Investments, British Mining Corp, British Retirement Funds et al and the Canucks via corps such as Canadian Mining Corp, Canadian Retirement Funds and so on. Basically all the major players are quite used to the galaxy having multiple currencies in play and well adapted, at least as long as those tables continue being available to them, to accepting them. (The Martians also have similar corps but seem to have been staying more behind the scenes so far and their corps do not have contracts on the DIgitalis Open Transactions server yet due to there having been a typo in the Martian Retirement Funds contract which derailed the process of getting contracts onto the server for their bunch of corps similar to the Brit and Canuck corps.)

-MarkM-

I was not clear what Icoin was doing. I assumed it was a pool because it was posted as a pool bounty request. However, you are correct, it is mining operation, not a pool. Thanks for catching the error.

So unless it adds some way for miners to connect, that devcoin pool bounty award will be rescinded.


In December, we did make an open source devcoin company bounty:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.649844

"Furthermore, there will be a bounty of 5 generation shares for the first open source company which trades in devcoins and makes at least a dollar of revenue.  The next company meeting the requirements will get 4, then 3, then 2 and finally 1.  Because people can set up a mining company relatively easily and make a dollar of revenue, which would drain the bounty for all other types of companies, there will be an additional bounty of 5 generation shares for the first open source non-mining company which trades in devcoins and makes at least a dollar of revenue.  The next company meeting the requirements will get 4, then 3, then 2 and finally 1.  Good accomplishment applies to the company bounties, so they will not be awarded for ponzi schemes, spam companies, etc.."

for which it would qualify and at least one of your companies would qualify for.

Are you clear on what Icoin is doing? You are counting as "a pool" a pool that does not actually let miners mine there, instead simply is a mining operation using its own hardware and allowing people to buy shares in the operation? Thus no help at all to existing miners looking to mine devcoins?

So all the mining companies on GLBSE can get this bounty simply by also mining devcoins and paying devcoin bounties?

That seems to me to be a distinct thing, maybe it should have its own separate bounty "operating a mining shares security that pays in devcoins"...

-MarkM-

The purpose of the devcoin pool bounty is to make it easier for miners who want devcoins to get them, therefore increasing the price. Devcoins currently have a generation value rate of 0.00000125 * 100 = 0.000125 of the bitcoin rate, and the devcoin hash power is roughly 0.02 of the bitcoin hash power, so merged miners get 0.000125 / 0.02 = 0.00625 ~ 0.006 = 0.6% of their earnings as devcoins. Most miners want pure bitcoins, but for those who do want a substantial amount of devcoins, a devcoin mining pool could convert it for them, making it easy to get devcoins.

Otherwise a miner who wants devcoins would have to mine bitcoins, and buy devcoins on an exchange. Currently there is low devcoin trading volume, so buying at the ask loses because of the wide spread, and bids may go unfilled. So because a miner would either lose money, or have no purchase guarantee, some of the miners who do want devcoins will simply not bother.


While it's certainly easier for the pool operator to pay in devcoins if the operator is getting some devcoins, from the miner's perspective it isn't necessary. In any case a devcoin paying pool operator has to be able to exchange coins, because if for example if 1% of the payouts are requested as devcoins, since the pool operator is only getting 0.6% of the earnings as devcoins, the operator would still have to exchange some coins.