Topic: Devcoin - page 29. (Read 412952 times)

Hey, Don!  Finshaggy, I've been on a domain name binge and I just bought one you and I may find helpful.

FREECRYPTOCASH.COM

THE coin version and token version were taken. I'm thinking if we're gonna give away devcoins and maybe later on other coins why not do it on our own site. The masses always flock to free. And maybe we'll get donations by people who want to propagate their coin's awareness and good will.

I don't know what kind of traffic one needs to draw to make a few $K per month but there's no better way than a site that tells you where to go to get free crypto cash and even get it there.

We can also use it as a site directing people on how to better mine and earn devcoins, it tooke a month of research to find this stuff out.

What do you think?


Edit:  I just also added 1stopCryptoShop.com and OneStopCryptoShop.com.  That way we can more than give away free coins but also sell anything from hardware, software, gear and coins themselves. 

I am 100% against the destruction of coins. This creates way too many problems. You should be able to hold some for use whenever you want, without being forced to utilize them. This is part of what creates value.

I think what needs to be done is slow down the creation of new coins. We need some way to determine how many should be made and use that to continue on. Every month or so it should be re-evaluated and altered as necessary. This will help keep the total number of coins in check, without causing problems by taking away what people have already earned. Inflation (or deflation in the form of the currency's value) will handle that all on its own, and is a much more efficient determinant.

Hello:
Here are my two cents.
I agree with having a debate about having unlimited, infinite or limited amount of coins, by the way none of those terms are equal, or exchangeable.
Personally, I am for a limited amount of coins created/destroyed every so often, lets say a year, of course this strategy is only for mature coins. This way you start the year with some amount, which you know is going to decrease by a percentage, and you have the whole year to create more. You will also have a whole year to decide wether to create less, to restore the amount lost with new coins or to increase it; a debate could be held to decide upon it.
I have to say I disagree with the idea of weighting quality of someones work through the amount asked for it or the region of the world it comes from. I have to remind the difference in quality of life is just evidence of the inequalities of the "global" society, which could and should be solved someway. One option might go through adopting an open currency which is socially maintained.

I agree Mark that a limited coin is flawed eseocially at 21 million.  I don't disagree with printing more money but it should be less or using demurrage.  Something to keep the billions from growing while the price is imploding.

I agree a lot with what luckybit says but I also think the way bitcoin, once a token, now a coins currency simply because its in demand, devcoin can too follow that route but it would take many adopters.  And if what he says its true and we have hundreds and soon thousands of workers in third world countries then yes, it will destroy the plan cause most 1st world countries will not work for a small share that's only worth maybe $10, while over there that's a good wage but I doubt the content will the same quality there which is why I suggested more like a .25 share for third world countries to keep the businessplan from unraveling.

I also like his idea of devcoins not in use for an X amount of to auto destruct.  That's brilliant as it limits the total numbers and it creates massive money volatility which would then put an upward pressure on the price as people will only hold on so long before selling the coins. Maybe a clause saying once sold the shares clock starts again but up to a limited amount of time to prevent abuse from clever guys with 10 different wallets.

Not really necessary. The amusing thing about Bitcoin is that in functions under a libertarian, decentralised umbrella, yet all it achieves is to replicate the existing monetary and asset inequalities. This is why governments don’t really give a crap about it, except insofar as it avoids taxes and financial sector fees. Bitcoin is clever, but they don’t care if a small group of developers and financiers want to screw over another larger greener group of libertarians, developers and interested onlookers for their own benefit.

A system like Devcoin (and I’m not saying Devcoin is necessarily the thing, but something like Devcoin) is an actual threat, because if greater price stability can be achieved it offers a genuine means of avoiding fiat. Achieving price stability requires constant creation to account for loss and real-world trends. It means I can rationalise and plan forward economically using a non-government currency. It’s the rate of change of the money supply that matters, not necessarily the change itself (within reason). Although the supply of dvc is unlimited, the % of total added increases at a diminishing rate with time, and towards a stable price. Btc cannot and will never achieve this because, at minimum, the twin aims of mass-adoption and price-stability function inversely.

I think the concept of Freicoin's demurrage is intriguing, they basically selfdestruct at a fixed percentage over time. Such a demurrage could be added to devcoin (or rather a follow up) and the generation of new coins balanced with the demurrage to keep the total number of coins steady in the long run.

Combined with devcoin's 90% model, this would allow a foundation to constantly hand out coins for work, because the generation would never cease, while making the coins valuable. To keep a certain amount of coins one would either have to work for them constantly or buy more of them... I'm not sure if this would work out over a long time span, but the current non-stop process is guaranteed to make devcoins worthless in the future.

Quite. Since first hearing of bitcoin I had been waiting for a change. Then gave up and stopped following developments and missed existence of groupcoin and devcoin. But I can assure you there are a lot of people out there who appreciate econ101, remain patient and know that btc in so far as achieving commonly heralded aims (which are not necessarily the same as those of its originators, another debateable matter) was doa.

Well, the issue with limited number of coins is that... it's limited. Take the USD, for example. We have inflation because the government keeps adding more money to the pile. Why? Because the population increases. As we have more people, we need more money to help create a sort of middle ground.

I think coins like DVC are really the same. Our population (in relation to the US in the example) would be people coming on board. Think about it like this:

We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board. At any given time only ten coins can be out there, which means hoarding becomes necessary or you have 0.

On the opposite side:

We have 10 coins and 10 people. Each person has one coin. Ten new people jump on board, so we create 10 new coins. As time goes on, each person can end up with their coin. Being that there is no more fear of not having any coins left, they are traded as a currency.

This is a very watered down simplification but it should help illustrate the point. The only downside to DVC is that it continues printing the same number of coins forever. So in the example above, if we got 2 more people we still have 10 new coins. If we got 0 new people, there are still 10 new coins. And if we got 50,000 more people from a village, there are still just 10 new coins.

There should be a way to adjust, in some way or another, the output based on some criteria.

It is kind of weird that once we made GRouPcoin and DeVCoin the constant complaints about bitcoin NOT constantly creating coins seems to have died out.

Maybe all the people who claimed that it is economically vital to keep creating coins forever were just bullshitting?

It would be useful to have them around to re-interate all their arguments, explaining that coins such as GRouPcoin and DeVCoin that keep creating coins forever are far superior to the intrinsically flawed "limited number ever" model exemplified by bitcoin...

-MarkM-

Bitcoin isn't a community token, it isn't merge mined, it's a cryptocurrency which is a commodity more like gold. It has intrinsic value based on it's scarcity and the difficulty and expense of obtaining it. Devcoin is just a community token no different than if we created coupons and called them shares and gave them out so people can exchange those coupons for Bitcoins. The coupons would be coupons not Bitcoins. The value would be in the Bitcoins themselves which function as the gold standard to back the coupons. In the case of Devcoins the value is in the Bitcoins that people can trade Devcoins for. Devcoins themselves are merely community tokens and are not scarce because they don't have to be worth anything to be used to prove you did a job any more than a time card has to be worth anything more than to prove you showed up on time. Devcoins are functioning like time cards for Bitcoins. Devcoins can help establish who did what job and its a lot easier to reward in Devcoins but I see no intrinsic technological innovation or value in Devcoins to make it last nor is it scarce enough to have any psychologically instrinsic value to a smart investor. Negotiable instruments or fiat currency had value in that it was lighter and easier to carry than gold but I don't see what niche or role Devcoin has that could not be done by PPcoin or Litecoin If you'd like to go buy millions of Devcoins go and for now it will be an okay investment but the moment Devcoin is globalized and the majority of writers are in third world countries the value will crash or something has to change, I do not see how it's a sustainable model mathematically.

Devcoin is not designed to be scarce. It will never become like gold because it doesn't have the same design. Anyone can get Devcoins for cheap and while there might be occasional volatility it's always going to be cheap because it will never be scarce. Devcoin isn't really a coin. Let me give an example, lets say I took decks of cards with arbitrary random numbers on them and I called them "shares" and passed them out to anyone who did X amount of work and who typed Y amount of words. Let's say the cards are made by a card company that for sake of argument mined the cards into existence using technology from a completely different company that makes very rare limited edition baseball cards but agreed to let them use the facility to make the arbitrary cards and then gave us unlimited amounts to pass out. The point here is that with Devcoin the worker is acting as the miner mining by earning shares. The more workers who write, the less profitable it becomes to write, the less workers will want to write. This is a flaw in the design of Devcoins because while it was designed to produce efficiency it neglects the fact that in a global economy there will be people willing to write nearly for free so once critical mass is reached there will be hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of third world writers who will write for $5 a share, so what of those expecting $50 or $500 a share? It simple does not scale. The number of Devcoins being generated are just arbitrary numbers, it's only the worth of the shares that matter to the writer just as miners care about how profitable mining is and not so much about securing the blockchain.

Bitcoin is a global commodity currency. You can use it as a store of value or as a currency to purchase large items but not so much for micropayments. Litecoin is better at micropayments, hence it's a bit less scarce and has faster transaction times. PPcoin is better as a store of value than Bitcoin because of Proof of Stake and the differences in managing difficulty. Devcoins are tokens which represent a value in Bitcoin but which have no intrinsic value of their own. Bitcoin has an intrinsic value of it's own because people will buy or even invest in Bitcoin. I don't see many people thinking Devcoin is a good long term investment. Anyone who actually attempts to work out the math quickly finds out that with unlimited supply but limited demand, you're not going to see much of a price rise. Limited supply but unlimited demand like with gold or perhaps Bitcoin is a very different story.

To test this out, if you ask people here if they have enough Bitcoins most will say no.
Try asking people here if they have enough Devcoins and see what they say.

My dvc bond .Welcom p2pdvc   :       https://cryptostocks.com/securities/40

Luckybit,

Can you give me a quick answer to a couple questions for which I cannot find any good answer.  This is relevant to the value and future of tokens such as devcoin which is why I'm asking it here and not in PM.

1) Since you cleared these are tokens which does change a lot with my own personal theories I'm hoping you can add some color to what I've been searching for.

2) What's your take on the incredibly stable bitcoin token, an utterly worthless video game token showing incredible strength and price stability at well above $120.  From an econ point of view it's not possible for this length of time so maybe you can add some new perspective.  I firmly believe the natural forces exacerbated after a few weeks and it is now being propped up, but for what purpose, by artificial means....but who and for what purpose, again?

3)  These tokens are known about by maybe 1% of the population, and I mean, known as in knowledge not some quick thing they heard on channel 12 news.  So it's only a matter of time before awareness explodes and goes logarithmic and depending the number of tokens on the market at the time most if not all coins can stand to gain massive price appreciation, especially one such as devcoin which has a large following.  What's your take on this theory of mine and the possibility of it actually happening in my timeframe of 6-18 months or so?

4) Tokens are different than money but I think from the physics and economics point, such as supply and demand, velocity of money, turn over rate, etc,. these tokens should behave closely to the same model as money since in essence they can be treated as fiat money at some point so then their price can appreciate based on the same theories which govern the current market value of any fiat currency.  What's your take on that and perhaps a timeframe?

Thanks in advance.

regards,

Vlad

Incredibly interesting and thought provoking take.  I've never thought of it that way but it makes a lot of sense when you consider it a token.  I also fully agree with your conclusion, and also something must be done about the infinite print protocol in place now or else devcoin is doomed.  And unless devcoin is simply a stepping stone for some people then I'd suggest something be put in place soon before competition heats up and I expect that to happen very rapidly.

Luckybit, may I ask what you do or what you went to school for?  Cause I'm  impressed with your very different and insightful point of view.  TIA

Devcoin is not a currency. Devcoins are tokens so that is a problem with them calling it a coin when it's a token.


Devcoins don't have any real value other than to be used as some token to represent the labor. Honestly we could work for Bitcoins instead but Bitcoin isn't focusing on that right now so there is Devcoin. Devcoin is not something to invest into as a commodity and it's not a currency that you should save or spend. It's a transitory or transient token which the moment you get must be traded in for the actual payment in the form of Bitcoin. Devcoin will never make it as a currency and will always be a token system because that is what the creators call it and the fact that you can have an infinite amount of worthless tokens in the same way you can have an infinite amount of time cards. It's the shares and the generation process that matters and from what I can see that process seems to function independently to the amount of coins that exist in total.

I think the solution to this problem would probably be to set the tokens to self destruct after X amount of time. Devcoins can be created infinitely but old coins which aren't traded in for Bitcoin should expire and we should probably treat it like coupons. I did X amount of work, wrote Y amount of words, I get a coupon worth Z amount of shares, and there has to be some volatility to the process but since there is no 21 billion cap and it's infinite the math would indicate that at some point no one will buy Devcoins for any investment or speculation, and it probably does not make sense to do so now, which is why the price is so low. But it does make sense to work for Devcoins and provided that the amount you get is modulated and adjusted, the fact that infinitely many get produced wont matter.

What I mean to say is, if there is 21 billion that exist then the jobs will be paying tens to hundreds of millions of Devcoins. All that changes is the decimal places and the amount per share. Honestly I don't know why they made this decision of infinite inflation, because from a marketing perspective it's keeping many people away from Devcoin who need to be using it. It kept me away from buying it, but I don't mind earning some provided that I can trade them in nearly instantaneously. Basically the only purpose behind them is to let people work and feel like they earned a billion coins or something, but the truth is people work for dollar amounts not coins and the amount of coins will be based on what people are willing to accept. No one is going to accept anything which isn't a fair amount in a free market, at least right now. When the market becomes more global that is when Devcoins will become worthless to many people because the price of the labor once again will be the minimum that anyone in the world will work for.

Devcoin is fine for now but I suspect at some point there will be competitors.

WeisoQ, I see your points and I agree.  Check your inbox.

Good luck.


Edit:  I wanna add a few important and relevant points about the value of fiat currencies, for anyone who followed the economics exchange between weisoq and myself.  He is looking at money from a practical point of view which is in a way correct as 99% of people do buy assets with their money so then who cares if the dollar has lost 97% of its value.  I'm being more scientific and textbook about it which has its place as well.

That said, I want to quickly add that fiat money is driven by a lot more than supply and demand.  Money behaves a lot like the laws of physics.  It has inertia, velocity, speed, rate of change, turnover rate, etc., which, the latter, is increased by velocity.  That said, the current dilution is only one factor and the good part is that it is a linear factor.  

While the other factors at play which have an upward pressure on a fiat currency's price or value such as awareness, adoption rate which lead to a much higher velocity of fiat money (devcoin) and in turn should lead to a much higher turnover rate and all of these upward pressure variables are starting manifest and soon these factors should see exponential growth and I think it will soon, within months, turn to logarithmic growth by a factor of 10 or more.  So then the upward pressures (such as increased demand, velocity and turnover rate) should soon be obvious on the value of devcoin (and a few other coins) and should far outweigh the downward pressures which may be dilution or constant selling by miners.  

And if that holds true we should see a large to potentially enormous upward pressure on devcoin and a number of other coins.  I hope this turns out the way I see it since I do plan to hold all my devcoins for at least 1 year.

Good luck to everyone and thanks for the exchange, weisoq.

Regards,

Vlad

My facts are correct, it's also my experience and job to know them. You're inferring a lot about my economic and rationality viewpoint from statements that stake no such claim. My point was in relation to devcoin, bitcoin, crytocurrencies and what I believe are misunderstandings and mis-pricings. I don't want to hog this thread but we have quite different perspectives. I'm looking for solutions and progress not a pseudo goldbugish view that is creeping into the bitcoin world. This will be its undoing if it persists, but if you can find evidence to dispute what I'm saying in relation to cryptos and deflation I'd be interested to hear it via pm.

This is a complex situation and I'm not sure that's the best answer, at least not in the short term.

Perhaps its time to clone devcoin with reduced % going to developer

Absolutely untrue. In 1933 we went off the gold standard (partially) at which point it was illegal to own gold until 1979. In 1971 Nixon took us completely off the gold standard.

The fact you're throwing stocks and gold only muddies the water. Stocks, Gold, houses, etc are real assets and thus rise with inflation. Gold and houses are at 0% growth, they have kept up cent for cent with inflation while stocks, as you point out have outperformed and that's because stocks unlike houses and especially gold grow on their own.

But all of This has zero to do with fiat currencies.  Zero to do with the absolute FACT the dollar is down 97% since 1933.

So your answer is to spend every DEVcoin, like every dollar, the moment you get it to keep it from going to zero, at least for yourself. Is that what you're doing with all your devcoins? I'm keeping all mine and if your answer to inflation and devaluation is to call savers stupid for now having only 3 cents for every 1933 $1 dollar that's not exactly a good argument in favor of fiat currencies.

I'm not talking out of my ass here, this isn't opinion, it's history and economic facts. I have a 3.8 GPA degree in Econ and another in Finance. I invite rebuttals but at least do a little research.

With the exception of temporary exuberance where demand can temporarily outstrip supply and then you may get a ridiculous and temporary increase in value like you now see in bitcoin, fiat currencies which are not backed by anything, which includes ALL crypto-currencies, if printing continues ad nauseum, even one with earnings like Apple's would eventually and absolutely approach zero towards infinity, let alone one with little or no earnings.

What I am telling you is as sure and proven as the law of gravity.

Regards,

Vlad

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1890430