Thank you for your replies.
Personally I much prefer the old milli and micro system over bits(or marks in this case). I think it's pretty confusing as it will be natural for people to want to call a bitmark a mark.
I know Bitcoin is moving towards denominating bitcoins in bits instead of millibits now. But I thought I'd at least voice my opinion on this.
1 bitmark / 0.01 centimark(markcent maybe?) / 0.001 millimark / 0.000001 micromark / 0.00000001 a coinsolidation
It would be nice to keep things as simple as possible. With three primary units. 1, 0.001, 0.000001. Each one relating to a potential parity milestone.
For common usage, each primary unit could have cents, as we experience commonly in life.
Using the existing proposed language:
- 1. 1.9x Bitmark
- 2. 1.9x Mark
- 3. 1.9x Markbits
So I guess a name for the "cent" (x above) in relation to each primary unit would be good.
1. I will suggest that whilst dealing with entire coins people are familiar with 8 units of precision, and thus we do not need a name for the first case.
2. Is may be the most common, I like your suggestion of cents, Markcents. This makes sense to me.
3. The final unit with two decimal places (currently called a markbit) has a cent value which corresponds to a satoshi.
I feel milli, and micro, in relation to currency conjures the notion of limited or meaningless value. Even though as a programmer I like the terms.
This must appeal to a wider audience.
For now perhaps Bitmark, Mark, and MarkCent are enough to define. Do you agree?
Flow of Money: Given that scrypt based ASICs are beginning to flow on to the mining hardware market, we suppose most mining entities will be pools powered by individual miners (people or organizations). This should ensure that in the majority of cases (and as Bitmark adoption grows) no single miner can achieve more than 1 Bitmark from a successfully mined block, with the average being measured in Marks, rather than Bitmarks. This should do much to mitigate hoarding, dumping, market manipulation, and all those things entail. Since Bitmark is designed to be a daily use currency, this fair distribution and flow of money is of vital importance.
Do you think that it's more likely now that scrypt ASICs are here(or soon to be) that we'll see more individuals getting more than your intended share per block?
Do you think ASICs are a net benefit or do they pose more danger to the network?
If we consider coins with longevity in mind. Bitcoin and Litecoin, ASICs have done much to solidify the networks strength. With natural sustained growth I hope the hash rate would continue to rise. Scam, clone or pump and dump coins have problems with them, but this is not such a project. There has been a substantial investment in mining hardware for scrypt based coins, we should not ignore this, and I feel there is an opportunity to put all that hardware to good use, a use which secures the network and gives investors in this hardware a return on their investment.
My main concern is really the first day(s). For this reason I
propose a high diff to start.
1. ASICs should ensure each party get's a more even share of the block rewards.
2. Net benefit, and strengthen.
Ask this question in relation to bitcoin, same answers apply.
Please do keep questioning and discussing, and thank you for your replies
edit: from another thread.
Why "Total Supply: ~ 27.58 million coins" ? and not exact 27 or 27,5 mil.
(I know it´s idiotic )
This is a good question, thank you.
I have not yet decided exactly which block reward will be the last, or whether to just keep halving until it's infeasible to halve any more. After a certain point when transactions are covering the mining costs the block reward is more of a bonus.
Is there any reason you feel a round number would be better?
I can do the numbers and work out the final few block rewards and assign a cut off block which equates to a round number. Potentially a round number of Marks, so 27.5xx million coins, to three decimal places.
