As noted, that means mining would end in 4 months assuming the initial target of 1B total coins remained intact. So after 4 months we'd be left with video producers and viewers being rewarded with just the tail emission. I think that would kill the project quickly. They are, after all, the people who will decide the fate of the project in terms of widespread adoption of the IPBC platform, not miners or investors.
It seems like you haven't looked into IOTA or how many IOTA tokens actually exist. Simply moving the decimal place will easily move the total coin supply back to 1 billion total.
None of this even begins to address how you would accomplish paying the miners between the fix and start of your proposed hardfork when working with an anonymous blockchain.
I already suggested paying an additional 9600 coins to the receiving address for each coinbase transaction that pays only 400 coins. If pools were already in place they should have records of block payouts per coinbase. If not, worst case scenario is you can't re-distribute those 9600 coins per block (however many blocks were affected by this bug), and those miners are at a slight disadvantage because they mined 400 coins per block for a few days. That's a lot better than having a coin forever known to have an instamine "mishap".
The other solutions are worse because they have long-lasting drawbacks. Fixing the problem by buying out the coins only gives an incentive for million-coin holders to not sell because they know another whale is buying up coins and promising not to sell. The only winners there are the early insta-miners who hold instead of selling to the buying whale. Leaving the mining reward low at 400 coins per block is also pretty bad considering only 100m coins are mined per year (before a halving), although, I'm not sure what the halving schedule of this coin is. If the halving schedule happens quickly, the instamined coins are a bigger problem, because it will take longer than 2 years to reduce the instamine supply below 10%.
- Correct. I'm interested in IPBC, not IOTA. Big difference between resolving this problem with a coin that has ongoing mining, both conventionally and through the IPBC platform, and a token.
- You need to explain this "move the decimal place" concept more. Move the decimal place in what to where? You're proposing leaving the 10K blocks as they are, rewarding the in-between blocks an extra 9,600 IPBC, and making the ongoing reward 10K too. All without increasing the coin supply beyond 1B. That can only mean a decrease in the number of blocks.
- Again with the double quotes when describing it as an instamine "mishap". If you want to accuse the Devs of doing this deliberately, at least have the balls to do it outright rather than hiding behind calling it a "bug" or a "mishap" with the cutesy double quotes. We all know what you're implying, so either knock it off or man up. Then explain exactly what benefit they got from it. If their intention was to end up with the lion's share of the coin with a "mishap" or "bug" then it was awful execution as they only ended up with 25% of the erroneous coins. And as it stands, they have 3 or 4 people trying to discredit them entirely while another tries to buy up coins at a 75% discount while painting himself as a savior.
- Early miners, or any other miner, sure as heck shouldn't sell for $0.01 per IPBC when the cost of production is over $0.04. Economics 101.
- There is no halving schedule for CN coins. They have a smooth emission curve.
- Newsflash: many (most) projects these days have a premine of 10% or more. That's an immediate 10% of the total supply held in very few hands, and it's not uncommon for that 10% premine to represent 50% or more of outstanding coins for a very, very long time. Here we have 1.6% held by 300 - 400 miners, which will be < 50% of the circulating supply in just over a month from now, and it's suddenly the end of the world?