Topic: [DVC]DevCoin - Official Thread - Moderated - page 410. (Read 1058949 times)

I've decided to extend my DVC Second Anniversary giveaway as indicated in the following quote:

How about this? 

I was not saying you would care, I was saying people can see it for themselves, and draw their own conclusions, and not need to trust or believe either of us.

An ad hominen attack addresses the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument.    Saying I am 'beating a dead horse' fits.


If you would like I can try and find some time to write something to grab the data from the api.   I do think the article idea is a good one,  I just think it is important to have the numbers in the right ballpark.

twobits, I apologize to you for being wrong. I apologize to FuzzyBear for my errors too.

twobits, I could care less if people see the edits.

twobits, I don't know if I would consider that an ad hominem attack. I merely introduced you to a dead horse. An ad hominem would be something like "twobits is such a dick. You can't trust a thing he says because he is a jerk." See? That's going after "the man" instead of the argument.

UPDATE

I'm still thinking of the nature of that accusation of an ad hominem attack. It's curious. I essentially said that twobits was beating a dead horse. To me, that is accusing him of arguing about a point that is no longer under contention. I had dismissed the argument. I tried to avoid saying that the essence of the argument was fallacious because of some inherent disposition of twobits to rationally carry on a conversation. I was saying the argument was going on without my participation. At least that was my intention.

Responding to tone. Yes, I responded to the antagonism of twobits' first post to me, but I also cited the "why" of that reasoning. An argument from tone is a weak form of argument, at least how I understand it, if not also accompanied by an explicit reason why the tone was offensive. There is nothing wrong with pointing out that someone's style is inflammatory.

The link I gave twobits to FuzzyBear's ASCM data was where it was pointed out to me that ASCM had more than one dividend payment. So when I said that FB was also wrong, it was an error of omission. Neither of us identified that amount in our attempts to find the correct data.

I responded to the charge that I neglected to include the ASCM data. Doing so was my error.

I also responded to the charge that I did not supply proof of my work. I posted the link to the Google Docs spreadsheet which included my numbers.

I'm sure twobits will respond, which is his right. But really, I'm only interested in carrying on the conversation with FuzzyBear and then probably only by PM. I felt like twobits jumped in, not with the intention of being helpful, but to stir up some sort of debate that I never fully wanted to engage in but for some reason felt obliged. That's a perception of mine, right or wrong. I also felt guilty about eating up thread room in a discussion where a good part of twobits posts didn't make a lot of sense. I guess that is a communication problem with text only discussions, but nevertheless, it was often hard to decipher.

Resorting to Ad hominem, as a last resort,  rather then just admit that the errors are from you and not Fuzzy.
Guess it makes sense, as you already used  responding to tone.



It was not dead, as you had just claimed some of the errors were not yours and instead Fuzzy's.    Now people can see the edits for themselves.
   

No again you are wrong.     

That is the chart , with your original numbers for all but for the p2pdvc

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_stock_purchases&do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1375739780&rev2%5B1%5D=1375740414&difftype=sidebyside


The edit that moves the ASCM data in the wrong direction is yours as part of

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=devcoin_stock_purchases&do=diff&rev2%5B0%5D=1375740414&rev2%5B1%5D=1375747583&difftype=sidebyside

see how you changed it from 140 to 28.

It is not Fuzzy's data that is wrong here, as he never had any data here, that is all from you.

I think you are right.   Collation does not seem the right wording.  Perhaps derivative works and collections?

Yes it was.   I saw the numbers, I can calculate percentages.   For the listing where you had the majority of the assets listed as the
dividend payment  per one share it was a small percentage difference per share.   You are forgetting the units change you then did.   When you did that for just one of the assets it made things off by orders of magnitude.    Why would you do that change (which was a good change by itself) to only one of the assets?   



Pretty sure FuzzyBear never updated your ASCM data.  So not sure how you can then say his ASCM data was incorrect.  There were at least  few errors in the table.    One is being inconsistent in the time span of the dividends for the different assets, the other was listing the total dividends as some per share and some times the number of shares you would have bought at the given price.   This inconstancy  makes it hard to know which way to change things to have fixed it.  It also tried to extrapolate from the single dividend payment on another issue, which just was not enough data to make any meaningful extrapolations from.

You are forgetting the first time you posted in a message format on the board.  That is the first time,   the second was your first posting in wiki format, the third your edit to the edit.  That is three...    that I saw, could be more, but is not less then three.


They are also true.   I watched the three times you posted the chart.   You consistently made the same order of a magnitude error.   I gave you the benefit of the doubt, till you posted how you could not get around to fixing it for some days. Then after someone else fixed it for you, you all of the sudden found the time to break it again in the same consistent manner. If pointing out the facts is antagonistic so be it.  Your response to the correction was to change it back to be broken in the same way,  by such an order of a magnitude that eyeballing it should have shown that it was off.    You don't think that looks highly questionable to an observer?

His edit fixed it assuming that you had that column as a per unit price.  It made little sense to list it that way, but that was how you had the majority of them listed.  His edit may have not been 100% accurate depending on your starting and end dates, but it was within a small percentage after that.  You then changed it to again be off by orders of magnitude and again for the same asset.  For the third time, errors happen, but when they happen consistently in one direction for the same result after being pointed out,  they become highly questionable.


You would have found information that is misleading and off by orders of a magnitude useful?     



What exactly did I get wrong? 

It was fixed, by fuzzy,  to at least be consistent, you then broke it again.   Now I agree that what you started to change it to would make more sense as to what should be in that column, but again you made it that for only one of the assets.  If you are going to try and find the dividend/interest payments for 1million dvc, for a one month period you need to use the same methods of  calculation for all of them.

If you do not care about the difference, then you also do not actually care about return, these differences make up a large part of the total return.   Also for an issue that has 20,000,000 issued, with 62,449 publicly held a pump is going to be reflected in volume not price of course, so you claim it is not being pumped due to no price rise would be a false observation.

As a general FYI, I have bought into the P2PDVC bond over the past month at a range of 100.4 to 100.6 a share.  The price hasn't changed all that much.  I see no evidence that it's being pumped.  I'm not super thrilled with the return (it's low) but it seems to be a stable asset so good for capital preservation and a little bit of growth.  I like the daily payouts too.  low risk/low reward  One question/concern I have about it is that if you look at the order book, it appears that there are sell orders that are way larger than the entire issue of shares, which is at 20,000.  EDIT:  Oops, read that wrong--it's 20,000,000 shares issued so the sell orders make more sense.  How does that work?

ASCMDVCPT is the best asset I've encountered as far as return.  For what you put into it, you get a lot more out in dividends, but the price jumps up and down a lot more so you could lose if you try to sell at the wrong time.  That doesn't bother me too much as I buy and hold.  higher risk/higher reward

I'm glad that there are these DVC securities, especially when the DVC price is low like it is now.  I'd love to see more of them

I have to tend to agree with FuzzyBear.   You consistently get the math wrong and always in favor of the one bond in the group.  You do not even point out the differences between bonds and stocks and how valuations of them tend to be treated differently as well.

You wrote the article,  you get dvc for doing that.  Others should not have to keep pointing out you have the basic math glaringly wrong and inconsistent.   You should show your work so we can see where you are getting things so far off.   At least three times now you have created a very misleading chart.  Sad thing is sales of the asset you are pumping have gone up from it.   Guess your obvious errors are not as obvious to all as I would have thought.

Updated my post with figures and calculations... perhaps show your working on the site... or at least how each column is calculated that way you can be sure it is correct and that others are reading it correctly.

Sorry if I "Flew off and got angry" but you failed to show your working and have clearly posted incorrect data twice now... Need I remind anyone of the backlash that came about from someone falsely advertising dvc at $10 a coin?? It only brings bad reputation to the coin, community and devtome, so sorry but I will take a hard line with this.

FuzzyBear

Seriously dude... please check your maths.... you are soo far out it is unreal.

Starting to think you are either running the P2PDVC listing or you are a shrill for it and just trying to falsely advertise this as being the best investment.

FuzzyBear

if you calculating the 30 day dividends on ASCMDVCPT I make it:
28.93082151 + 27.17240263 + 36.57980507 + 47.87741000 + 28.89961953 = 169.46005874 for last 30 days dividends....

You are saying you have 100 shares in the stock... that means you got paid 16,946.005874 DVC

slight difference from the 28.93082151 you are listing.

P2PDVC calculating dividends as of 2nd August
I made it total dividends paid out of 0.401 DVC for 30 days
you say you have 9940.3578530 stock.... and as fractions of stocks not possible call it 9940
9940 * 0.401 = 3985.94DVC payout....

I have not checked the other listings, but PYPROXYDVC has only ever paid out one dividend so that not too hard, and DVB been up and down in dividends payout so not run the numbers....

get the reciever files from here: http://devcoin.darkgamex.ch/

I actually got the idea of using inputs.io from you--I clicked through the link in your signature line and liked what I saw

Awesome idea. Thanks!

At some point (and I'm moving slowly on this) I was thinking I'd offer random "prizes" in BTC and DVC for things like posting good comments and other random things.  I don't want to have a faucet, per se, but figured it might be fun to occasionally "bless" a subscriber with something, and inputs.io makes it easy to send small BTC amounts around without the transaction fees

Joined! What's the inputs.io address needed for btw?

OK, I'll bite.  I'm offering some DVCs to everyone who subscribes to my list (and provides a DVC address) before midnight Eastern Standard Time August 6, 2013.  I'll post a thread in the alternative crypto section of this forum and the newbie section.

Here's the article with the subscription form:  http://creativecurrencies.cu.cc/2013/08/05/in-honor-of-devcoins-second-anniversary/

Edit:  I also posted this on the Devtome:  http://devtome.com/doku.php?id=in_honor_of_devcoins_second_anniversary