Update:
As we are wrapping up the process of getting the ATOMIC blockchain running for testing but before we actually generate the main net genesis block we would like to hear the opinions of those in the community about a few of the variables that we have had to set such as block time and number of coins.
Block Time:
When deciding on what we wanted to make the block time for the ATOMIC network we took many things into consideration. First of all we wanted to make sure that the security of the blockchain was not compromised. When setting the block time you are playing with a double edged sword. Faster block times mean faster, but some would argue less secure transactions. Longer block times are arguably more secure but transactions take significantly longer. For example the original Bitcoin blockchain has block times of 10 minutes, while Litecoin has a block time of 2.5 minutes and Dogecoin a block time of just one minute. Although ATOMIC is not another altcoin it is just as important to the developers that we find a time fast enough to enable the advances we want to make with ATOMIC without compromising security. This is why we have settled for a block time of 5 minutes which places us right in between the block times of Litecoin and Bitcoin. We believe that a 5 minute block time is the best possible solution to reach a balance of speed and security on the ATOMIC network.
Number of coins:
As ATOMIC itself is not a 'coin' and we are making use of transactions as a method of storing ledger information we believe that setting the number of coins to be generated to infinite is the best option. ATOMIC does not have to face the same issues as Bitcoin in regards to maintaining value by acting as a deflationary currency as it isn't a currency at all. Other well tested crypto-currencies like Dogecoin have adopted an infinite number of coins as a way to ensure that their miners will never leave once the rewards dry up. ATOMIC would be making use of an infinite number of coins simply to ensure that new blocks will always be generating which is required for ATOMIC to act as the main ledger / ticker tape of all cryptocurrencies. While it may not be an issue right now, 5 years from now we do not want ATOMIC to run out of blocks!
We are open to discussion on these topics and we would love to hear any arguments for alternative values which may work better for ATOMIC, although we have put a lot of time into making these preliminary decisions.
2x bitcoin frequency is what I would have recommended and that happens to be 5 minutes!
I was thinking that the miners would probably get more from InstantDEX revshare than whatever the coins they mine would be worth. Not sure what utility the coins actually have here (other than being able to use existing codebase and they all spit out coins from coinbase) and maybe some speculative market will be created, or maybe there will be some use for these coins that we come up with.
OK, I came up with a use!
Not all blocks will have the same value. One block might have a DOGE<->LTC swap another could be recorded a Legal Deed for a real estate transaction. The InstantDEX revshare would be based on the economic value of the tx a specific miner was involved in. This will be quite "lumpy" and provide results like solo mining. The coins could be the equivalent of a mining pool. The InstantDEX revshare could be allocated between the specific miner and the entire set of Atomic miners.
If this split is 50/50 (maybe 2/3 vs 1/3?) then the revenues allocated to the entire set of Atomic miners would be allocated based on the number of coins they have. Basically each coin would be a share of the mining pool and when there are revenue sources other than just InstantDEX, this could become quite a bit larger than a share of 0.1% trading commissions
The coins are perfect to represent the proportional value of mining, but I dont like the rapid emmissions that a lot of coins have. It gives the earliest miners a disproportionate number of coins. Hopefully we can get a lot more linear emission, so that a miner joining later is making close to the same rate. After all there is no arms race for hashrate, so any sort of exponential difficulty increase seems wrong.
James
). I actually considered making levels of miner based on things like number of coins in wallet and the age of the coins in order to help decide what nodes are the most active an reliable so you have given me inspiration in that area as well! I'm going to keep all of this in mind and post back here once we have the process written out in detail and figure out a way to maintain a level playing field for newcomers. 
.
