Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 291. (Read 1058949 times)

Don't think it's at all delicate, questions like that should be at the core of general crypto discussion.

I think this is why much of devcoin's project progression is based on market cap, rather than just pipe-dreaming. The issue, and I'd assume the reason there hasn't been a simple 'fix, is because payment has to in some way be relative to currency value, i.e. the market - what people are willing to buy and sell for.

For example, let's say the 'share' aspect was eliminated - a project was an absolute dvc amount. As well as then creating further dynamics between projects, it would just leave another variable as a function of a more volatile price, because some of the volatility (unknown) that's currently embedded in a share would have to be demonstrated in the price (i.e. if I know I'm getting 1m dvc this month, but not next, my price interest this month is going to be massively dfifferent to next month - now multiply that across everybody...)

Then instead, let's say every project was actually costed in dvc to fiat. That raises at least 2 problems. The first is that at convergence of the project end (or start) there has to be an equivalent convergence of multiple other costed projects to make all possible - that would need constant dynamic adjustment for factors including unknown ones that could later impact on already existing guarantees, voiding them. The second is that even if at a snapshot in time every project and forecast payment was payable at that moment, realisation of those values requires conversion into fiat. Which therefore requires a static or pegged price or market and a limitless orderbook. I can't see how cryptos can be pegged to fiat short of a government doing it and 'making it so' with the same presses that determine their fiat.

So that's not doable with crytos. It's not generally even achievable in the big controlled world of central banks and fiat. I can't ask my boss that instead of paying x per year they pay a dynamic 0.x % of that nice house on the corner of the street. I can't even get a guarantee that instead of x per year they pay a rate indexed to what everybody else doing my job gets. i.e. it's a market. If I'm lucky I might get forwarding indexing on some broad inflation measure, but not the measure of my choice and definitely not a measure that even assures me of constancy.

It's about dynamics of price more than about dynamics of the concept. I think it would be quite possible in theory for devcoin to allocate either absolute % or absolute sums to varying projects, but that would get you no closer to having assurance of absolute return in your currency of choice than the current setup.

I'd be interested to hear your and other ideas on it though.

I agree, the only way that someone is going to make a very expensive Devcoin ATM is if the business model of making the ATM is feasible. The 96 share bounty will simply be a bonus or a thank-you for a job well done.

My guess is there will be some company out there who makes an ATM that can accept a wide variety of crypto and Devcoin will simply be one of them.

A simple idea would be having an account linked to your crypto ATM card and you simply withdrawal your crypto as needed (in the form of fiat) at various ATMs around the country. Paypal has something similar with a card and withdrawals come from your Paypal balance or bank account.

~2 cents~

If you want money for your projects, someone else must first be willing to give that money to devcoin.

No one can create money out of thin air here. We are not a government, nor a central planned money issueing organization.

Therefore the value and acceptange of a Devcoin is completely derived by the worldwide community of developers, marketers and most of all supporters who invest by buying devcoins on one of the exchanges and therefore kinda submiting a vote in favour of open source.

The sooner you understand that the less you will be confused about this "missing price stability".  

The good thing is YOU can already influence devcoin in a good way, buy buying devcoin, creating for devcoin, advertize the idea of devcoin, etc...
The amount of good influence you can potentially bring to devcoin is only limited by yourself.

i've been around for long enough to experience volatility in all its forms.

I'm totally ok with it now. I do not want total predictable reliable price stability.

I want to get a fair amount of value for open source projects funded.
The coin says that '90% of miners profits' are given away to fund those projects, right?

Maybe you can try to guarantee a minimum payout expressed in a more stable currency and then offer the payout in DVC. That would require store DVC in large quantities that could become a problem.  But it is still feasible.

When and if the price stabilize then you can offer random payouts, but now... it doesn't make much sense.  Not only the price of 1DVC is volatile, but even the number of coins per shares :\

isn't what you describe a fundamental problem with all cryptocoins, and not just devcoin?

You ask for total predictable reliable price stability?

Isn't that something only a centrally planned economy can provide?

But we sure don't want that, do we.


I have no crystal ball, but I do assume that when...

...more people use a coin worldwide with...
...more (and bigger) exchanges...
...and don't immediately convert their coins into fiat money all the time...

...we WILL have a much more stable price than we have now.

Only future will tell, but I like the fact how far cryptocoins have already gone, with the participation of something like 0.1 % of world population.

Hi everybody,
Let's start by saying that I'm a DCV newbie, a software developer, and DVC holder and lover. I probably absorbed some misconception and Id like you to help me get it straight. I discussed this issue with Unthinkingbit over PM and I would like to hear the community's opinion.

DVC is born as an ethical coin to provide reward to individuals and organisations who contributes in open source projects. Right? something like this guys :  http://bitcoingrant.org/ , the idea behind is spelled simple and clear:


I would like to raise a concern and hear your opinion on a delicate topic.

What I think that is unfair is that the amount of the reward is basically random, or at least a gamble. Assigning a varying number of shares with a varying number of coins per share with a high-price volatility sounds really like betting.  This undermines the whole mission of the coin IMHO. Moreover, I believe that if some other cryptocurrency can fix this problem DVC will become obsolete in no time. And I don't like it.

Let me put you through an example: Say I want to build a DVC ATM machine (ndr: which I do want, and I have skills, tools, people, and time ) .  
It takes a lot of effort, work, components, people and skills. There is a  96 shares pending bounty on it.
But before digging into the project and starting taking my time out of other paid projects, buy materials and hire people I want to make some math.  
The problem is.... I can't! 96 shares could be anything between 2k$ and 25k$ by the time I'm done. Right?
It doesn't make sense. I created a certain value for the community and I would like to receive a fair value back. Not just a random number.  Don't you think so?


I would like to hear your opinion on this because it really makes the whole idea of DVC weak to the eyes of a FOSS software engineer.

I'm sure that a better solution can be found, and I'm sure that is not easy. At all.
But nothing is, until its done!

What do you guys think?

Let me know what you think please .

OK i tested this by sending transactions to myself. I changed the minfee to 1 COIN since bitcoin fee is 10k satoshi (1000* bitcoin fee is 1coin) used to be 5*COIN which was too high for the coins considered "dust"... I had to change the IsDust as well since I multiplied fees by 1000x the IsDust calculation also changes by 1000x.. so now you can send as little as one mBTC

So now the IsDust catches transactions below around 300 DVC in which a standard 1.2 DVC fee applies, above that starting from 0.2 DVC fee depending on the size of the transaction.

The 1.2DVC fee under 300 DVC should act as a deterent to dust. The IsDust check ensures that it is a valid transaction and that it is Dust instead of a transaction that is too small.. before dvc payments below 1 dvc were considered "too small" and you couldn't send them regardless of fee willing to be paid.

Try it again (created new installer) and this time please report results. I think now it should be more deterministic with fees and they should be more sensible. Note that sometimes with around 200dvc I get the ("transaction is too large, you want to send with a 1.2DVC fee?") message but its intermittent based on block activity I think. Anything 300 DVC or above should just send without warning (minus 0.2+ dvc fee).

PS also added UPNP support for more than 8 connections?

I deleted my devcoin application dir to redownload the blockchain from scratch to confirm that there is no backward compatibility issue with changing the fee stuff.

If I understand the workings of the Bitcoin protocol sufficient, the payment caused my 2145 DVC in the wallet to be split into 2129 (remaining) DVC and 16 DVC outgoing, of which 10 DVC was the actual payment. The new address for the 2129 that stay in my wallet remains hidden from me.

I don't have the 1.0.1 version anymore to test the older version.

What i dont understand is all the transactions you made that had higher fees were all around 2k but the good ones were small.

Look at transaction 5 you said you sent 16 but it shows total in 2145? 10 going one place and the rest another.. you are not doing multi address sending are you? I would like to see the same as transaction 1 where it shows you just sending 10 and it charging 6.. I will send myself some coins to test it too..

Thanks for the info.. I wonder if the old client also does the same for you.. Wondering why the big transaction if you only send out 10 coins

According to your notes http://darkgamex.ch:2751/address/18GCTJhxrWfXjnLwwjJKsSYBpyEV16pRsB is your wallet and http://darkgamex.ch:2751/address/1JbubZDUTa387xuPtqhn7JBoH3oHMejKZM is weisoq.

So on transaction5 which you stated you were sending 10
dvc to weisoq for 6 dvc fee.. I see 10 going to weisoq but you transferred out  2145 not 16?

Yep, I was able to check my stats a couple of days ago and that is excellent. 

It seems my posts give rise to some confusion, so here's a recap.

On 22 December 2013, I installed the experimental Windows client for testing purposes. This was a completely new fresh wallet on this PC. This was version v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta.

Below is a list of the transactions.

22 December 2013

Transaction 01 : incoming 10 DVC

Weisoq made a payment to me to test the wallet.

Transaction 02 : outgoing 10 DVC

Paying 10 DVC back to Weisoq went ok with a 0.5 DVC fee. Weisoq thus got 9.5 DVC back because I had no more than 10 DVC in the wallet.

I made a post about this client at Devtome here

25 December 2013

Installed the 1.0.3 client v0.8.5.1-g25a7d46-beta.

Transaction 03 : incoming 10 DVC

Weisoq again paid 10 DVC into my wallet.

Transaction 04 : incoming 2000+ DVC

Subsequently, upon wanting to return the amount, I encountered the fee issue (not 0.5 DVC but 5.5-6 DVC), see post here.

I held off the repayment while the update to 1.0.4 was being prepared. To prepare to reimburse Weisoq in full, I put some Devcoins from other sources into the wallet (2000+).

Transaction 05 : outgoing 16 DVC

I updated the client to 1.0.4 and still encountered the 6 DVC payment fee. I sent 10 DVC to Weisoq with a 6 DVC fee.

26 December 2013

I updated the client to 1.0.5 and still got the message that a 10 DVC payment involves 6 DVC payment fee. See post here

Transaction 06 : outgoing 1000 DVC
To support the Devcoin Payment Block Countdown

Hope that clarifies things.

You're on the devtome lists now: http://d.evco.in/charity/devtome_31.csv

Yep got it thanks. Not much but would have a big impact on things like faucet and micro-transactions (tips etc).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4149750

-MarkM-

This transaction only had a fee of 1dvc... You said it was more... Seems like your transactions are big. Remember your initial test with 0.5 fee can you dig up that transaction? Is there anything you are doing different to send tbese?

Can anyone else try?

What I dont get is that with under 10k tx size it should be 0.5 dvc fee because of the dust filter. Ill try to play with this tom.

Fire up the old client using the same wallet and see if it says the same fee.

-MarkM-

Odd did you try running the one from the zip? If no can you try any of the other exe like the osx file? They are all windows versions just renamed as placeholders for now..

Thanks for the heads up. I will be sure to email before I place any orders with them.

It shouldn't. That's only 2.055 KB. With Bitcoin, for example, transactions of under 10 KB can be sent for free. This has to be an issue with the new client.