Topic: Devcoin - page 28. (Read 412952 times)

Hi all, I'm having an issue with Devtome that I'm curious if anyone else is also experiencing. The first page I load on the wiki will load fine, but if I then load a second page I get a connection failure. I've noticed that this problem won't occur if I wait 20-30 seconds in between loading pages, but this is incredibly annoying, especially when I'm trying to preview the formatting of an article I'm writing, then lose the work when the page fails to load.

If this is a widespread issue, I could see it turning off a lot of potential readers, and take away from the potential exposure the wiki is giving Devcoin. Unless there's something wrong on my end (which I doubt, because I've had similar issues on other computers and networks) it seems like something that could be resolved by getting my reliable hosting. If that is indeed the case I'd propose that whoever is in charge of hosting receive 1 or 2 shares so they can upgrade to more reliable hosting.

I pre-apologize for this long post but it is all very relevant to the future of devcoin and it involves the risks and benefits of all who contribute to devcoin, now and in the future.

Amin, weisoq, short term, Devcoin is hitting on all cylinders.  Right time and right place, they're in the hyper growth phase right now so cutting back on printing coins is not possible, nor a good idea, now or in the near term.

We have High global unemployment and devcoin is everywhere offering jobs with real pay.  This is why I said the upward pressure variables will grow exponentially and some logarithmically while the downward pressure factors such as dilution and selling will only grow linearly which will result in large to enormous upward pressures on the devcoin price.

My only issue is that it looks like we're paying third world country contributors first world country shares.  That will wreak havoc on the system in a matter of months.  I hope there's a plan to pay a triple the national average salary (which is generous, i wish i could get triple the national averafe here) in those countries which is generous and will help stem abuse, poor contributions and a mass exodus of educated top notch first world country talent.  

One other thing that happens when you pay a 3rd wold country person a full to 2 years of wages in a single month is that he will undoubtably dump it all on the market cause he's never seen anything like it and knows something that good will never last and word of mouth will spread and the damage will be near instant.  It's like deccoin giving us $50,000-$80,000 worth of real dollar coins for 1 month of programming or working. Who wouldn't sell it all, for many it's life changing money?  That's how it is in 3rd world countries, I know I lived there for many years.

So besides the destruction of total share value a secondary negative effect caused by paying 3rd world countries equal shares will be a sudden and massive implosion of the devcoin price.  Where in America, Germany, etc even $3,000 in a month of wages is not a lot to most and at worst most would only sell a portion and in many cases like mine, since I can pay my bills in other ways, I won't sell any coins.  

So 3rd world country people who desperately need the money would most always dump all their coins which would further drops the price of devcoin. This is the second reason share payouts in 3rd wold countries should be generous but in line with their national average incomes and cost of living there.

I'm seeing devcoin has already gone global so I hope they have a fair and sound business solution for this.  It might sound unfair but these countries also have, for the most part, also 1/10th the cost of living expenses to go with the 1/10th the income of the US, and any person there would feel lucky to sit at home and make 2-3 times the national average instead of digging ditches or weighing tables with a computer science degree.  

Let's keep our compassion in check and do this thing right.  Devcoin is the first real CryptoStock in the world and I'd hate to see poor yet simple decisions destroy this beautiful thing which is, I believe, on the brink of catching global fire and really taking off.  How many remember what a logarithmic graph looks like from high school?  Think Hyperbole!!!!  It's a short lived and rare phenomenon which can make people very rich and I think the situation and factors for devcoin are all near set up but one major miscalculation could prove a huge setback.  

This type of success is truly possible with devcoin and soon, it could start in 3-6 months, but we have to keep good top notch content coming and I suggest unthinkingbit et al putting some system in place to first warn then potentially fire people who don't rightfully earn their coins with good service and or content.  This system is new and like all new systems it's ripe for abuse.

 I realize by saying this I could get myself fired as I'm not a pro writer although I try to do a large variety types of articles since I don't know what works - if short, long, music, politics, green energy, economics, conspiracy theories, or poetry works best, given the vast and diverse US population, so until we get the page counter going I tried to hit on all of the above.  I'm trying to cover the occasional reader up to the millions of college students looking for long research papers - just one of the research papers I wrote was 36 pages and I have no way of knowing if all that labor was worthless and if a few much shorter articles on Michael Jackson and Prince would bring in 10 times as many readers.  

so for all i know i may be one of the ones who deserves to be put on notice or fired but there should be a protocol for this for the sake of all the good and great contributors.  At any rate, Fair Quality control with steps for disciplinary action up to termination has to be put into effect ASAP to stem abuse and what would result in a real and effective theft of shares from everyone else.  

Besides the argument of coin dilution, ad nauseum, this is another major issue that has been on my mind so I hope, like the coin printing issue, devcoin management has some kind of plan in the works.

Regards,

Vlad

Okay, well I haven't had the chance to catch up on all of the posts over memorial day weekend, I was out of town. But I thought I would drop in before I go out to say that I am promoting DVC by writing devcoin.org on all of my cash. Yes, arguably I just committed a crime... but hopefully someone will be like "Wonder what this is?" Then go check it out, and if he tells two friends, and they tell two friends... well you see where it is going.

The fee is not a constant and can be arbitrarily changed. Should bitcoin rise enough in value it will be lowered accordingly. The discussion about bitcoin becoming nonviable for low value transactions because of high fees is nonsense. Note that even the dust limit exists only because such low values are not worth to be processed *at the present time*.

I found this link: http://bitcoinfees.com/

It explains who decide the fee. It seems that it is the client based on some formula.

It's the miners who demand the fee - and we're already seeing exorbitant fee demands based on the number of inputs. On reddit someone posted their problem of trying to send $10 and being charged a fee of $9 (because the transaction was made up of many inputs). We've also seen blocks mined with no tranactions included at all, just the 25BTC reward.

The greed of the miners will kill the project especially when combined with it's forced deflationary aspect. I think it will end up as just another asset and devcoin or another coin will be used for real commerce.

Bitcoin should have a fee based on percent of the amount instead of fixed number of uBTC, who define how much fee is for a transaction? the nodes? the client?

I disagree. Have just done another Devtome article on Bitcoins and the Big Mac Index:

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=bitcoin_and_the_big_mac_index

As you can see Bitcoins are already becoming un-usable for transactions in some parts of the world (and that will soon be the case in the developed world too).

Some people laughed at the Winklevii for buying bitcoins and simply putting them in bank vaults - but perhaps they saw the nature of it more clearly - which is that it is a commodity not a currency. As soon as it becomes unviable for transactions, it ceases to be a currency, IMO.

Ok so we seem to be in agreement then that it’s about cryptos generally, not bitcoin. In which case to bring this full circle and as a statement rather than question this time: why would anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category of early adopter choose to acquire and use btc as currency. Probably worth some thought, and then what that may mean for the issue of relative inflation of growing numbers of so-called other crypto currencies vs devcoin's.  And speaking of survival strategies, unemployment and crypto adoption, there just so happens to be a coin to assist in addressing that

As I said before, the purpose of PPcoin isn't to be like Bitcoin but to be something better. It's got better security, it's more energy efficient, it's potentially more deflationary. PPcoin is just a better idea, but whether or not it can work is up for grabs. Litecoin on the other hand exists as it does because of a design flaw in Bitcoin where if everyone tried to use Bitcoin for micro-transactions there would be all kinds of problems with it, and also the fact that because it requires so many confirmations that perhaps Bitcoin is too secure for adoption. I don't believe Litecoin will last because it's not better than Bitcoin as a technology and is mainly just hyped up because it appeals to GPU miners, but the community likes Litecoins so I will have to support it for now.

That being said, it's about cryptocurrencies and not Bitcoin in specific. Bitcoin is the first but it wont be the best technology. This means if someone didn't get in on Bitcoin as an early adopter they'll probably get in on the successor. Those who are late to cryptocurrencies in general will be the ones who are unlucky.

No I don't believe only Bitcoiners are taking it to the political distribution system. Anyone who is locked out of the system will have incentive to find alternative survival strategies and lifestyles. Considering how many young people are without jobs and without hope of surviving in the current system as it is, either the current system has to be changed by the young jobless or the young jobless will not survive. For that reason there will be a lot of young people adopting cryptocurrencies as a way to survive the unsustainable political based economy.

How can you disagree with me, I was referencing your quote. If there are plenty of bitcoins then why are there litecoins, ppcoins etc, and then why do you assign value to them? Or to put it another way, do you really believe that bitcoiners have taken up a struggle against the political distribution system, but that nobody else will take up the struggle against the bitcoin distribution system?

I disagree with you. I think there are plenty of Bitcoins (21 million is enough for all of us). I believe this because I believe at some point a dollar can be worth a Satoshi, and if a dollar is worth a Satoshi then you have way plenty of Bitcoins. You aren't entitled to a whole Bitcoin any more than you are entitled to a million dollars. Go earn more if you want more than what you started with. We can blame Bitcoin only for not having the infrastructure to allow us to earn more, but I don't think we need more total Bitcoins. If you work and earn more Bitcoins then you can get more and that is all, that is sufficient for me at least.

I do not support arbitrary inflation of cryptocurrencies. I do support PPcoin, I'm not much of a fan of Litecoin but I do understand that with Bitcoin not really dealing in small transactions that Litecoin may actually be necessary. I do believe that Litecoin should have had the same total number as Bitcoin or perhaps half, because I believe the time to sell Litecoins is the moment it surpasses the total number of Bitcoins in the market.

Bitcoins are at 11 million? If there are more than 11 million Litecoins right now but Litecoins have a smaller market cap than Bitcoins the smart thing to do right now would be to trade your Litecoins for Bitcoins right now. PPcoins on the other hand are a completely different technology, at some point it could be worth more than Bitcoins or less depending on whether or not Proof of Stake works. If Proof of Stake works then PPcoin will surpass Bitcoin due to lower transaction fees and the security by design against 51% attacks along with the energy efficiency and the fact that as more people adopt it, it becomes even more deflationary than Bitcoin in some ways (because saving/hoarding it actually mints new coins by Proof of Stake).

Your text in bold is my point, and contradicts your own assertions on bitcoin. If you acknowledge an inherent value to any 'replicated' blockchain, where do you draw the line? Wherever that line is drawn if it encompasses replication it then becomes arbitrary. The problem with bitcoin is there aren't enough of them (in price terms), and at some point communities rather than individuals here will form alternatives to better serve their own demands. To bring this back to devcoin (as we're on the devcoin thread), dvc isn't perfect but it doesn't even try to feign scarcity. This is where bitcoin went wrong, or right, depending on your perspective and intent.

Right now we are all early adopters. Some were luckier than others but if you have a whole Bitcoin you're pretty damn lucky.

On the other hand even if you don't have a whole Bitcoin, even if you're very late it may still be better than whatever your national currency was.  What if you were late to buy gold and now the gold bubble is as high as it can get and you never got in early? It happens. What if you missed the dot com bubble? Even if you missed the Bitcoin train there are Litecoins and PPCoins. So at this point, the technology is so new that I don't think anyone involved in the Bitcoin community right now should consider themselves unlucky.

I also don't think people should get into Bitcoin to get rich quick. If you don't truly understand what Bitcoin can do for the world beyond make you rich then you're not a true supporter of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies.

In terms of your points highlighted above, assuming they're true, please explain then why anyone who doesn't fulfill that lucky category would choose to acquire and use btc as currency? And here I mean btc specifically, not SEAsiaBlockcoin, or US Shipping Industy coin etc.

Exactly. Tokens are like tickets. You want to get on the train or bus? You buy a token. You want to gamble? Buy some chips. It's not going to gain in value over the years and it's not designed for you to keep your money in it for long periods of time. It's not designed for you to actually spend it either, it's for a specific purpose within a narrow focus of a community.

Devcoin is like that. It only exists as a support structure for Bitcoin until Bitcoin has infrastructure to pay people in Bitcoins and then Devcoin is done. No one is going to choose to get paid in Devcoins over Bitcoins just because theres an octillion Devcoins. And the moment someone comes along and forks Devcoin and adds the ability for the tokens/coupons to expire is the moment Devcoin becomes second best. Nothing is wrong with infinite inflation if the inflation is nice and slow, and if there is an expiration date. Devcoins seem to have no expiration date and are generated so fast that I cannot see how it will work up against a fork which has expiration built in.


Devcoin isn't a coin, it's a token/coupon. Coupons expire when the sale is over. That is how it works. If you're 100% against the destruction of "coins" that statement is too vague. I'm assuming you're against the destruction of Devcoins? I'm for it. I think Devcoins should deteriorate and self destruct over a period of time. This will encourage Devcoins to be used for what they are designed to be used for, which isn't a commodity. Commodities don't have infinite amounts of inflation if they are supposed to be a store of value. So why pretend like Devcoin is gold or silver? It's not a precious metal, it's not a commodity. The only purpose of having Devcoins is to trade them for Bitcoins as soon as possible. If Devcoins self destruct then it encourages people to trade them in as soon as possible which is better in my opinion if you're going to generate an unlimited amount and generate at such a high rate. The last thing we would want is to have millions of people with trillions of Devcoins hoarding them so the price can swing way up and then dumping them all at once so the price can dip down to less than 1/1000th of a cent. This kind of volatility is bad for something like Devcoin where people are expecting to earn a reasonable amount of money for labor and stability is everything.

If a case can be made for why Devcoin can have an infinite supply of tokens, that never self destruct, (even paper currency deteriorates and even coupons expire), then please make the case. If we look at nature the way nature balances life forms with fast metabolisms and generation rates is that they don't live as long. Basically nature keeps the balance by saying if you generate billions a month, you only live for 6 months anyway. If it wasn't like this then we'd be overwhelmed by insects that will live forever and reproduce in the trillion trillion trillions. I think you can see why it does not scale.

I agree with this 100%.

I'm not against inflation, it's the rate of inflation that matters. If you inflate at 1% like PPcoin it's fine because it's still going to be scarce and it's inflating at a rate that is so small that it doesn't change that. Gold inflates too but is scarce. You can have a small amount of inflation, 1% or less. But to have infinitely large amounts like Devcoin simply does not work well for a commodity or a currency.

If the dollar is such a great currency why don't you have a lot of dollars? After all, a lot of dollars are printed up and there are way more of them than Bitcoins so why are you buying Bitcoins with your precious dollars?

For a community token you can have one token per person because the token itself is supposed to be worthless. For negotiable instruments or paper money you can have 1 dollar per person, but once again in my humble opinion it's better to keep the rate of inflation so low that demand always vastly outnumbers supply. Nintendo used to do this with game console launches, they would deliberately not produce enough of them around the Christmas season and people would have to stand in line to get them. Apple does this too, they deliberately keep supplies low to boost the demand. I'm saying there should never be 1:1 coin per person on earth because then each person will have to have thousands or millions of coins to distinguish themselves from others as "rich". No economy is going to work when everyone has an equal stash because that isn't capitalism, so some people have to be rich.

In Bitcoin the early adopters will be rich. Early adopters include some of us. In fiat currencies whoever is more politically connected to the central banks and those who already have money are more likely to have money. Bitcoin with it's early adopter premine is still much more fair than the political distribution system we have. At least with Bitcoin anyone could have been an early adopter with some luck and even if you weren't an early adopter you can still through hard work make yourself very rich as is happening with people who start successful startups.

Hi, Actually I would say Vlad and FinShaggyare correct on their statements.

We could have a look on the theory behind token money and money.

at http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_commodity_form_of_money_and_token_money you can find this:
Which fits the common knowledge of what a token is, but a more strict definition is found here http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=318&chapter=9929&layout=html&Itemid=27
Therefore token money is basically ALL money we handle now-a-days, the main difference is, money handled centrally by a government authority is recognized by law, and criptocurrency is recognized by custom, is only a matter of time and social power to make custom into law.

I wouldn't say money is completely different than tokens.

Enter token, get service... Tokens are really just local currency. REALLY local.

Fair enough.