Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 290. (Read 1059181 times)

Oh okay, I guess I just had not noticed the fee since it wasn't actually saying anything about it (like this will cost X in fees, send anyway? or whatever).

I guess bitcoin only used coin age to prevent the sending to yourself around in circles approach to spamming/bloating the blockchain.

Not sure why we thought that wasn't enough to work for devcoin too though.

(Maybe bitcoin didn't have the coin-age parts back in those days?)

-MarkM-

Dust protection has to be a tiny fee on all transactions, otherwise an attacker could send medium amounts to himself many times. I don't know if the code was enforcing fees on all transactions, but that was my intent.

The dust fee was always there but no box shows up it just sends it with the fee since it is small... It is now 0.2 dvc as 1 basefee is 1coin as market cap rises this makes sense.

The small transactions that are dust arent even allowed to send now..

I think that Coinpayments should probably get some shares on the receiver list as long as they accept Devcoins as payment. It could provide them some incentive to continue to do so.

There could also be an agreement to provide them a specified bounty for a website uupgrade and advertising of their services. I think the next logical step by Devcoin would be to take the bull by the horns and have partial ownership of a payment processor such as Coinpayments. I know the market cap is small right now but there could possibly be room for a 10% to 20% ownership stake if the price was right.

I reported it as spam/troll. Ridiculous.

EDIT: The Mod has deleted that enormous picture of CatCoin. Thank you, admin folks.

Someone delete this ^.

Think of referrals as a way to permanently tip another user that has helped you. You can earn a minute percentage of fees/points for folks you refer, but they must use your referral code when they sign up.

1. Cryptsy.

If anyone would like to trade DVC at Cryptsy and hasn't signed up yet, please consider using my referral code https://www.cryptsy.com/users/register?refid=46 to sign up.

You can also enter my referral ID ceb9475ab6f51ade79b2fbee2dcbc059fe0b9159 if you don't have anyone filled in to that field yet.

Disclosure: I would ideally receive a Cryptsy Points for trading activity that you perform. I'm not sure how much or even if they can be used for anything yet.

2. Vircurex.

My referral URL is https://vircurex.com/welcome/index?referral_id=991-14430. Please consider signing up for Vircurex if you have not done so thus far. In my opinion, it is the best place to buy and sell DVC.

3. Crypto-Trade.

My personal referral link is https://crypto-trade.com/ref/eeharris.

I would encourage everyone to share their information or perhaps unthinkingbit would allow us to post our referral links on our Devtome pages under the Tips section.

EDIT: I apologize if this is considered panhandling or hoboing. I think all the Devtomers should be supporting each other with this feature.

We have always had free transactions, I think, haven't we?

Or maybe it was just taking a fee without telling me?

I have had sends to Vircurex take many hours to get confirmations, I had always figured that was because they included no fee.

Dust protection is supposed to force a few on tiny tiny transactions, not slap on a tiny fee on all transactions.

I am not positive though.

But I routinely all along have sent transactions of millions of coins at a time without seeing any mention of any fees.

-MarkM-

Anyways for now the pushed version 1.0.6 (WINDOWS 32  ) is the one we should test with... min fee is 1 coin and seems 0.2 fees to send coins back and forth (the normal 225-230 bytes) peer to peer transactions.

IsDust picks up transactions smaller than 546.00 uDVC and doesn't allow them to be sent (value too low).

So GetMinFee does the following:

and then allowfree which resets nMinFee back to 0 if its a small transaction (I commented this out for now)

and then   


Which adds  a small dust fee protection. SO there can never be any free transactions.

For my tests regardless if I try to send myself 1 coin or 50k coins I get the same transaction size of about 225-227 bytes... thus my fee is always a little over 1 coin since basefee is 1 coin. However the above minfee calculation truncates values so that minfee will jump to 2 coins once nBytes is > 1000 and less than 1499 (the normal c++ round would round up at 1500). So you get jumps... however if we do:


then we get a smooth fee increase as bytes increase. so for 225 bytes this now prints out 1.427 dvc fee as opposed to 1.2 dvc fee for the code that truncates. If nBytes fluctuates quite often then we might want to use the one I changed it to, the double casting and roundint64...

Wekkel, since your transaction was 2k the fee would jump so this confused me still as I don't know how its getting 6 dvc from nBytes of 2000 and nBaseFee of 5 coins.

Anyways now as nBaseFee is 1 coin and nBytes is 2000 then we should get 3*nBaseFee or 3 coins for a transaction with 2000 bytes. I think that is fair? I dont know what a common huge transaction is that would make the fee higher?

Re fees, remember that "coin age" is part of the fee calculations too, so if one time that you send an amount you had old coins adding up to that amount you will get one fee but then if next time you try to send the same amount and the only coins you have left to use are new ones (such as when you only had about enough and the only reason you have it again to send it again is the other person testing with you sent it back to you) the fee could well be higher because part of the anti=spam concept is to discourage sending the same coins back and forth back and forth back and forth like you might be doing in your testing if you didn't have much in the wallet that you are testing with in the first place.

That is part of why I tried to suggest lookign what the fee would be using one version of the client - an old one already in use for a long long time - then look what the new client would say the fee would be for the same amount sent using the same wallet. In other words don't actually send the coins since that would change the contents of the wallet. Just look what the client says the fee would be, then try the other client to see what it says the fee would be.

Once you actualyl send the wallet changes, and if you send most of what you have then the other tester sends it back it has become new coins, each send consumes "coin age", the newer the coins you want to send the more it looks like you are spamming the blockchain by sending back and forth or around in circles, which, taken to extremes, is one method of spamming blockchains thus one thing the anti spam stuff is trying to discourage aka make expensive.

However if I understand the posts-so-far correctly I get the impression the problem has actually been that one of the testers was not downloading what they thought they were downloading due to some"placeholder" concept confusing which files are which versions for what platforms.

...

Re the volatility not knowing how much a share is does increase the unpredictability. It does not really seem all that hard to figure out that a devcoin is worth usually somewhere between 30 and 230 satoshis, nor that is as been more usual lately to be between 30 and 130 than between 130 and 230. SO I think a lot of that side of the uinpredictability is easily solved by not placing "market orders" but instead simply placing a sell offer at a a price of your choosing, such as at the price your budget or business plan assmed.

e.g. If your business plan calls for being able to get 100 satoshis of bitcoin per devcoin, place your order at that price. It might take a while, but there does not seem to really be much doubt that one can get that much per devcoin even though we did go through a longer dry spell than hoped/expected lately between one time offers to sell at 100 were gobbled up and the previous period in which such offers were gobbled up.

It is a queue, really. Everyone who wants to dump their devcoins is in a first in first out queue at any particular price. The delay in getting your offers to sell at 100 accepted by a buyer is partly due to all the people who placed their offer to sell at that price before you did. Then also by all the people who got impatient and decided to place their offer at 99 so it would get acted upon before all of the offers to sell at 100. Then some folk get even more impatient and decide they won't wait for 99, they will wait for 98 which will come sooner, so a queue starts to build up at 98. And so on.

I have orders placed way up over 300, I only recall seeing such orders gobbled up once but I plan to have it happen again so I have offers up there so as to be first in line to sell at those prices when the time does come that they start being acted upon.

-MarkM-

Hello Everyone,

I am new to devcoin and I just started adding content to Devtome today.  I noticed that I needed to link my articles to the "most recent" page, but I am having difficulty doing so.  I would really appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.  Thanks.

edit- It really helps if you log in....lol!

hmm it does here maybe cause im sending it to myself? Ill try sending to my vircurex account

Whats the smallest value you can send before it says its too small?

It does not punish a payment of 1 DVC (payment fee is 0.2 DVC).

Leverage the share system put them on the receiver list.. we can pay for extra exposure.. give shares to store owners for x rounds to give incentive to use ones that support devcoin.

Omg lol
 My bad but I did say that all other files were placeholders.. there is no w64 version until someone builds it.

So you have been installing older version probably with the allowfree commented out.. Anyway please test this version and tell me if you like the fee structure and the way it punishes dust payments (under 400dvc) aswell as not allowing payments under 1mDVC at all.

Wouldn't that basically just encompass 'the mobile internet' in a box, although making devcoin mobile would be a good step.

This mirrors my results as well. The 32 bit version is a bit quicker on my Windows PC too.

Updated to 1.0.6 (v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta). Still got the 6 DVC payment fee message.
Therefore, I threw away the block chain files (except wallet.dat of course) and synched again. Still the same problem.

Then I thought of installing the 32 bit wallet instead of the 64 bit I installed each time. Voila, I can send 10 DVC with a 0.20 DVC fee.
A 1 DVC payment also takes only 0.2 DVC fee instead of 1.2 DVC fee.

I will remain with the 32 bit version for now.

Ok, thanks!

Do you know what the value of a share last round was? (round 30)

EDIT: I found it on devtome stats