Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 268. (Read 1058949 times)

I generally agree with this sentiment. I don't know that I would be affected either way since I don't know what period of time this occurred over. But indeed, it maintains the diluted shares from previous rounds, despite there being a pool of devcoins that could be used to compensate those receivers. Instead, those who received diluted shares may receive nothing. This doesn't seem equitable.

Ok, I may have misunderstood what you were saying. I brought communism into it because that relies more so on cooperation than capitalism, and perhaps that's not what you meant. I still think it's unfair to call open source more cooperative in the comparison you made, though, because capitalism depends very much so on cooperation (eg outsourcing, manufacturing inputs, etc), and open source is still open source if there was no cooperation in making it. I think I get what you mean, though; one outstanding difference is that capitalism goes hand in hand with self-interest, whereas open source not. To cooperate with self-interest (also possible), you need something like devcoin. It connects open source to self-interest by floating the value of open source on to the (self-interested) free market, and this is the paradigm shift I've been talking about in my recent posts.

I suspect that this float is going to revolutionize open source (and by extension all software). If propriety software has high value, it'll always be kept propriety, but if the value of an open source version rises enough (through dvc exchange rates), a developer might decide it's more bountiful to release their software as open source instead of not, which is a boon for humankind - if you take the stance that the more knowledge that is freely available, the better off the human race will be. There is the possibility that only crap will be produced, but that's the free market for you, and why the admins exist...if the market truly values open source software, it will pay for it, and as long as the price is less than propriety software, devcoins are going to do just fine. The side bonus is that sites like http://devtome.com get more, excellent writers - I've seriously been impressed with some of the stuff going on there...far better than wikipedia regarding some things (of course this depends on author, but that will increase with the devcoin value). This is the power of self-interest, and why I've so quickly become so enthralled by devcoins. I can easily see the dvc market crashing and rising through speculation and earnings (another free market problem), but this is one of those ideas that will survive this sort of thing, because once open source software/writing has been developed, it doesn't disappear, and instead makes the whole more interesting and therefore more potentially valuable.


Nono, that was just a reiteration that cooperation is not exclusive to open source. Incidentally, there is some small element of risk for the bounty issuers - poor criteria leading to wasteful software, opportunity cost on bounties (value one over the other and one gets made faster but the other may have been more useful in the long run), etc, but I'm sure those will be dealt with in time. This is one situation where having more decision makers can help, but as you can see below, UTB's priority is aiding the community so these admin bounties will probably always revolve around making sure devcoins are stable and in circulation (much like a government and fiat.../giggle) well enough that 'public' works can be supported.


Thanks, but I wasn't the first to mention it on this thread : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4331403 . I did agree with jdlrexy though that people need to really want something (enough to put up something they like, like money) to trust demand, judging by Valve's Greenlight problem. Interestingly regarding people with a political stint putting up bounties to get something done (in the system you're talking about), why do you think people would use dvc to offer bounties and not just offer straight fiat for a contract? By using dvc they'd basically be paying for all devcoin developers via the exchange rate, not just for their bounty, so they're going to have to pay more to get better software. If they're earning a lot of devcoins themselves, then it's different, but if they're converting fiat just for the job, would they find it the best value for money? Maybe if all developers wanted dvc they would, but is that likely? Are you offering non-admin based bounties? In those cases, do the developers really need to release the source? It's a requirement for the generational shares of course, but it doesn't have to be if anyone can create a bounty, and then it becomes something like crowd-sourcing developers. If it's just admin-bounties only with people voting with their wallets on what they want to see, then it could become quite interesting.


Awesome, this is exactly what I want too. I don't feel so ranty now.

The goal is to proliferate open source. The method is by paying for it. Devcoin pays with bounties, word earnings, and the share lists.


The bounty system is for community needs first. It looks like in the next month we'll get most of our needs met (client, web site, forum, animation, etc..), after that it'll be more about projects that help everyone.

Indeed, any approved open source license is ok:
http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

When working within an existing project, I recommend that people use the project license. So devcoin is MIT since bitcoin is MIT, and I recommend that people making Simple Machines Forum 2 code use the BSD 3 Clause license.

mkdir src/obj

Though I think it should be created automatically in build scripts somewhere...but the bitcoin guys seems forgot that

mkdir obj ?

(Aka, does the dir named obj even exist? A lot of newbies fail to include such a directory in their repo.)

-MarkM-

Thanks that worked :-) but now i got this

Thank you 

Thanks George  


The following reads as critical, but it's not a criticism as such, its an observation from a "Newbie" who just got here and plans to settle down, raise a crypto currency family and maybe have a little block of data one day.....

Georgem and markm, (hi, I'm melodiem, are we related?)

What you say is probably true, but I think Its sad that anyone who does "go green" etc, is first examined for an evil agenda before the work they are doing or what their (misguided?) contribution might be. Sadly for anyone coming into new currencies, the first thing most people ask is "are they a scammer?" followed by "what is their agenda?" and to be honest, this is at odds with (my perception of) an open source or creative community. Rather than an "open" community welcoming new ideas and bright eyed adventurers, newbies are immediately confronted with the mouldy underbelly of a community that really has so much more to offer.

I understand the need to weed out the scammers and the need to build trust within the community but if most people coming in are automatically treated with distrust it just creates more distrust because the newbies are all following the oldies. It sucks (just quietly) to feel judged before one has opportunity to prove or say anything to defend themselves and it sucks even more that people coming into any new community must first be ready to defend themselves.

To hammer the point home, newcomers to the community are met with a trust score which is supposed to be protected at all costs, and expected to post their business into a "reputation" thread. Implying they have to build their reputation. While this is true of any business, few arenas require such a level of scrutiny before their work is even tested.

Ironically, those outside the crypto community have the same distrust of anyone from within the "community".

personally; my decision to accept Bitcoins was completely commercial. I believe I do good work and that there is an opportunity to do business there. I guess that makes me a capitalist but as my capitalist landlord requires rent...

My decision to accept Devcoins is about supporting a community. This community rewards creativity and I love the whole concept so I choose to support it with the skills and services I can offer, within my capitalist landlord controlled cage. Unfortunately, no matter how I might paint the picture...that also makes me a capitalist.

I considered offering a discount to clients paying with Devcoins (and still considering it) - but I hesitate because no matter how I approach it, I can already hear the cries of "she's doing it to make money". I wanted to do something like making a donation from any Devcoin sales back to the Devcoin community but can you imagine what flaming that might have gotten me? I am too old and bored with BS to bother defending myself so I wimped out and chose a "safer" approach. (I have moments, and I am changeable so maybe watch this space...Im already feeling braver!)

(I do realise you were talking about developers but as web designers or writers the concept of an open source community is the same)

I guess I am trying to say that not everyone is an evil genius plotting to steal your nest egg - but to expect them to be, and to judge with cynicism born of capitalism, creates a closed community not an open one.

find src/curl -name .deps -exec rm -rf "{}" \;

He put the windows build dep files in the source repo and cause this problem, above is what i did to overcome it.

Hey guys, I'm having trouble compiling the client on linux

I have curl dev files installed from repositories, any way to bypass the one included in the src? or there are some specific magic changes there?

You seem to be making a misquote Hunterbunter. No intention of opposites were intended. It is just by definition Capitalism is competition by an large. In my mind Open Source is cooperation by an large. It is not like they are opposites. It is like saying something is blue and another thing is yellow. They are not opposite just different. It is easy to understand how one may see Capitalist Philosophy and Open Source philosophy as different enough to be opposites; yet that is not a given nor my intention to relate.


Again, there was no intention of bringing communism into this. In fact payment has been made to me for working on Open Source projects. That is taking something Open Source and adding mods for a paying client. Hopefully that will clarify that there is no connection to communism in my remarks.


We are in agreement that Open Source remains open source. In the present Bounty System it is the creators of the code that assume the risks. If you are suggesting that it is the issuers of the Bounty who assume the risk then we would be in disagreement.


Your idea of paying to vote is a brilliant amendment to my suggestion. Assuming that the option is open to everyone anyone from any political bent could put up their DevCoins and have their say. That is giving the direction of the open source programmers to even the programmers themselves (who are most likely to be happy capitalist in their own right).


The person or persons who would review the Bounties and scale them (as mentioned as an idea in my original post to this debate) would be project managers of sorts don`t you think?

Thanks for your input. Your pay for voting idea really fleshes out an area that seemed weak to me in my original post.

- Nova

Ok, with all this in mind and being discussed, I am going to stop work on the bounty side of things on the site I was working on and just stick with trying to keep things going forward on the main page

I just caught up and saw this, excellent work!

Yet a former scammer, r3wt or some such handle, is even now developing a free open source exchange.

I wonder if he even knows of the bounty.

-MarkM-

I am pretty much against the way you've handled this. I am not posting this publicly to cause problems, but to hopefully get other opinions on it as well.

Here's the issue: you paid these out according to the *current round* instead of the past ones. The problem here is that it was those in *previous rounds* that actually lost the coins. Their shares were diluted due to this problem, and now it's not those who lost that get rewarded for their losses but those who never lost anything (unless someone happened to have the same ratio in each round, which is highly unlikely, especially with the changes to max share count from Devtome and the massive number of bounties this round). Essentially what has happened is some have lost coins and others who were not affected are the ones being rewarded.

This is completely backwards from how it should be.

Thanks for the interesting post.

I'm a bit unclear what Devcoin's goal is. Does it want to proliferate open source? Proliferate devcoins? Passively reward anyone who does open source? Each of those require mostly different approaches.

I'm personally interested in the idea of proliferating open source, as a tome of knowledge for the ages, but I realize that's at odds with how the real world works. I released my bounty source code under GPL, but I understand now (having just read about the differences), that I should have released it under MIT. I understand the needs of business, and I want it to prosper but I also want to increase access to education. MIT sounds like a halfway point between the two - GPL favours FOSS over business, EULA favours business over FOSS, and MIT seems to sit in the middle somewhere.

I just had a look at the bounty_now page, and there's a bounty for an exchange, where adding dvc to an exchange is acceptable for the bounty. If you have a running exchange, this is extremely easy to do. That would mean the code to run has to be open source too...I can see how that would be a problem for the exchange owners. It's likely then that the code will only really be given by someone who doesn't care for being an exchange owner.

By the way...I think that bounty is pretty low for an open-source exchange, especially if someone is making it from scratch...that's more work than all I've done for open source so far...by maybe a factor of 20. Security, hosting, wallet-nitty-gritty, backups etc. I'm actually writing software that has exchange elements for my main project, and it's a ton of work. I guess the priority is what matters, and the bounty system seems to favour things the community needs first, which is fine.

Done.

I would like anyone who is willing to please email [email protected] and [email protected] (only once) to request that they consider adding devcoin to their exchange.

You can use a message similar to the example below. Please do not copy this, create your own message, the same message just makes it spam.


I have received a one line reply from coin.mx


If you are emailing coin.mx please be sure to mention that you heard they have plans to incorporate devcoin into their site and that you are looking forward to this, and grateful for their acknowledgement of the currency.

Thank you.

Thank you Unthinkingbit for the quick turnaround on those coins. I will be making another large payment around January 28+- as Unthinkingbit stated above. However that is not the end of my restitution. I will also, be sending 1/3 of my devcoin income to the end of Round 42 (minimum) or until the full amount has been repaid. I have gone beyond the terms that Unthinkingbit proposed as it is required IMO and also sends a strong message to others.

I haven't posted much here in the last month, except to help some newcomers, as I've wanted the first trench to be repaid first. Looking at my post count, those that have been around here awhile will notice that it is considerably reduced. I deleted a lot of my previous posts as I was embarrassed, childish I know, but I am still here  and I am still active in the background.

I do have some good news and I also have a PR task, but I will post those separately so messages don't get mixed. Thank you.