Ah, still it's there. You can easily tell a miner from a holder.
The miners, seem concerned about dropping reward to 10 and they should be. Dropping that dramatically, one single aspect, is likely to forever drive miners away.
The traders, seem excited about dropping reward to 10 and they should be. Everyone whom held X amount of coins based on current mint rate / would "hypothetically" have 5 times more "weight".
I had posted on the UTC forum; a hopeful compromise to accomplish nearly the same thing without such a large miner shock. In the end, it's rather semantics as to which method would be preferred.
I had suggested:
-Shortening the Time for POS to 6 or 3 months,
-Increasing the time between N targets by 2 at minimum,
-Increasing block time to 45 seconds
-Dropping reward to 25 slowly in 5 coin increments over a few days each.
This could all be done in one single fork and changed in a systematic fashion for subtle adjustment. If POS, N factor and block time were all changed at once to start (while coding coin drop) there would be no need to fork again later. As well, lengthening the N targets and shortening stake reward will help to attract miners / holders; offsetting some of the "shock" from the change. In a few days to week, the coin per block could drop at set intervals, allowing the market to adjust. There are tangible, viable reasons to extend block time slightly which were provided on the forum. UTC is not currently the fastest, nor would it be over a longer period of time; this should not be held onto as some "unique" concept to UTC.
I only point this out here, so possibly those who don't see the forum can give their take on this. Personally I would have a very hard time mining if it was 10 per block. There is almost no chance I would mine after next N change in less than 2 weeks. There's a snowball chance in heck, that I (nor most) would mine after December when reward would go to 5.
If both variations of these suggestions were released as a new coin; I doubt there would be much question which people would mine.
Coin A:
-100 million total coins
-Fast N targeting scrypt-jane
-POS 20% in 12 months
-10 coin reward
-Halving in 11 months
-30 second blocks
Coin B:
-100 Million total coins
-Slow N targeting scrypt-chacha
-POS 5% in 3 months
-25 coin reward
-Halving in 11 months
-45 second blocks
With the multipool Idea, I'm completely against it in any forms. (though I may be the only one)
There are 2 main precepts for "what makes a crypto, crypto".
1. A decentralized network of peers with no connection or trust to each other.
2. A system of verifying and validating transactions, safely and securely.
Ancillary to this, is the coin reward. Satoshi understood and commented that there has to be a reason / incentive for the network to get support and security without any underlying current value. The coin reward is the way he accomplished this. The reason block rewards drop when they do; is because the network was intended be large enough by each drop to warrant continued mining. When rewards stop, the only way people would still mine; is if there was large / global adoption and transaction fees (by that time) would nearly equal (or be greater to) the rewards from the last blocks. If BTC is not used in any great degree nor has any great value by the time coin reward ends; then BTC would be dead, as 1. and 2. above cannot occur.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.329Right. Otherwise we couldn't have a finite limit of 21 million coins, because there would always need to be some minimum reward for generating. In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
The main point here, is that you are essentially bypassing the core aspects of crypto entirely (1 and 2 above) and could never have security. In fact, the multipool is quite detrimental to a coin; as if it ever gains any "real" value, it would cost almost nothing to break with such low hash rate. Also, the mulitpool does not solve our low difficutly / miners currently; nor would it have any affect on it. Whenever you stop the multipool, then you are stuck back at the same place we are now; and thus would "solve" nothing. Well, I guess, most technically you would have helped the security and value of whatever coins you mined instead of UTC.
The only reason BC has gotten away with it, is because there are no more miners and it would be dead otherwise. However, again this just serves the traders / stake holders and they would be happy to run this as long as there are fools greater to keep it going. Again though; there can be NO long term viability for the coin as it does not promote, encourage, or have the core crypto concepts.
These are just thoughts and I'm not saying "it must be this way".
Whatever is chosen, please, first consider that you are trying to Encourage network size (strength) for long-term growth and viability. This should be the most important aspect, if we truly want the coin to survive many years to come.
Thanks Protagonus, this is an outstanding post that should really be included in some sort of FAQ as it would avoid to lost touch with reality.
You're really helping a lot here and I'm really grateful you take so much time to help people out. This is invaluable, if not precious.
Take care.
