A Modest ProposalI humbly submit this proposal for your consideration. This proposal should not be implemented without consensus in the community. It requires no complicated simulations - you can try it out yourself just looking at the blockchain and with the help of a calculator, pen, and paper. Let's try to follow an open source model to agree on an algorithm. Everyone can peer review and verify this algorithm for themselves. You don't even need to be a programmer. We can reach consensus and put Catcoin on a solid footing for growth. Try it out and see for yourself:
Step 1. Look. Look at the Catcoin blockchain and look at a few hundred of the most recent transactions (easiest, I believe, is just point the browser to
www.catchain.info, and click on "500" to see the 500-at-a-time view.)
Step 2. List. Ignore the current difficulty, but make a list of recent previous difficulty numbers, until you have 8. I am doing this now, and here is what I get: 1] 29.833, 2] 63.071, 3] 45.592, 4] 26.728, 5] 98.455, 6] 24.613, 7] 62.987, 8] 44.875.
Step 3. Average. Add the eight numbers together, and divide by 8. I get 49.51925. This is our reference difficulty, which is the average of recent difficulties. Ask yourself: Would it be asking a lot to agree this is a reasonable estimate of where the difficulty should be right now?
Step 4. Compare. Compare this reference difficulty to the current difficulty, and write down "low" or "high." I am looking at the blockchain. We are at difficulty 78.951 right now. So I write down "high." If difficulty was less than 49.51925, then we would write "low." This is simply deciding if we are above or below our reference difficulty.
Step 5. Compute. One of two possible options: 1) If we wrote down "high" then we write down the current normal block reward, "50." Otherwise, we wrote down "low" and we do a simple computation and write down the result of that. We'd punch into the calculator: 50 times (current difficulty) divided by (reference difficulty), and write this down.
Step 6. Attribute. Write the words "is the current reward to create a new block" after the number you just wrote down. Ask yourself: Is it asking too much, to make the maximum reward per hashes contributed, equal to (and never greater than) what you would get when difficulty is set equal to the reference difficulty?
We can call this the
LLACCA algorithm (Look, List, Average, Compare, Compute, Attribute). Until/unless this is implemented, we can express support by posting a
LLACCA statement, which anyone can make by following this formula. Here's an example of a LLACCA statement I am making now, based on looking at the current blockchain:
LLACCA: (29.833+63.071+45.592+26.728+98.455+24.613+62.987+44.875)/8 = 49.51925 REF < 78.951 CURRENT ==>
50 would be the current reward to create a new block.LLACCA for the last difficulty was: (63.071+45.592+26.728+98.455+24.613+62.987+44.875+60.199) = 53.315 REF > 29.833 CURRENT ==>
27.97805496 would have been the reward to create a new block when difficulty was at 29.833.I will post a LLACCA statement whenever we have a change in difficulty. I am hopeful that we can form a consensus that implementing this in the coin will eliminate incentives for coin hoppers to bother the coin, keep blocks coming about every 10 minutes, and long-term miners will get maximum rewards for their tireless effort to secure our Coin. Or anyone else can post a LLACCA statement following these simple steps. Since this is easy enough for anyone to compute and there can be consensus from everyone manually doing it, this can be considered an example of a model of open source algorithm (and as the author/inventor of the LLACCA algorithm, I hereby release this algorithm under the MIT license). I believe this is the first fully open source algorithm proposed for Catcoin, that can be peer-reviewed by even non-programmers.
I invite everyone to verify this algorithm on their own, and contemplate what this would do to the incentives for both consistent miners and coin hopping miners. Everyone is free to post alternative algorithm ideas. I suggest any algorithm we consider be open source, can be peer-reviewed by non-programmers, and MIT licensed like the BTC and CAT source code itself.
Thank you,
Etblvu1