Topic: Execoin: | First Open-Source Stealth Wallet Released! | Fast | ASIC-proof - page 64. (Read 281667 times)

This isn't true... everyone will have half the hashing power, so everyone will get the same amount of coins (everyone would still have the same proportion of total network power, since everyone's rate halves).

OK here are my thoughts about the proposal... I agree with a lot of what powercntl said and would like to add few more points.

I assume the chief concerns of the EXE team are 1) fixing coin overproduction 2) stabilizing and increasing EXE value, 3) rewarding miners and maintaining hashrate, 4) building a community, and 5) fostering a widespread adoption.

The problem with the proposed change is that it heavily punishes miners, and rewards early adopters/hoarders. If this proposal becomes reality, then rational behavior is to hoard/mine as much as possible now and dump all or substantial part of it after the hard fork when there is a pop in EXE value. I think it would help achieve 1), help short term with 2), fail on 3), and not address 4) and 5).

I agree that coins are being overproduced, but hitting miners with 80% subsidy decrease which will even increase future is unfair as those are the people that have carried you thus far. Why would they continue mining? It would be more beneficial to them to mine something else, and then buy EXE if they want it. In addition, it is assumed that resolving coin overproduction would mean a substantial EXE price increase, which might not be true. In order for the price to increase substantially, there has to be perception of value and utility of EXE, which you will note are both human properties. The more people understand EXE works, the better. The problem we have here is that not enough people know about EXE and as such there is no critical mass to put floor on EXE price. Therefore, even more than 1), it is vitally important that 4) and 5) are addressed really soon, something that has not been happening until now. One thing that the EXE team deserves kudos for are all the tools they have produced to make it easy for people to use EXE, so obstacles to 4) and 5) are not from technological standpoint, it is simply the fact that there has been no coherent plan to engage people about using EXE, and building a buzz around it.

So, to close on an already long post and related to coin overproduction, I think that the subsidy should be dropped to no less than 25, and should be increased once the change in N-factor hits, which hopefully helps retain miners after that point. For example, if the current subsidy is changed to 25, then when the next n-factor hits it could be increased to 30, then 35, all the way up to no more than 50. That way coin overproduction can be reduced, and also keep this worthwhile for miners. And I will also add another thing that I understand might be a sore point with some is that an elegant way to reduce overproduction of coins is to extend the block time. If block time is extended to 1 minute, then 33% less coins will produced compared to now.

Hopefully this makes sense, and I apologize for the long post. I am looking forward to hearing other ideas on how to go about this.

+1

me too!

Yes I think so. Cryptsy made EXE seem boring more than a month... leave now1

What if we remove all our orders from Cryptsy and switch to Poloniex?
Let Cryptsy play it's games, we won't be buying or selling there.

Would any other parameters change, like total coins issued, total PoW timeframe or block time? Can you present a fuller picture of how your proposed changes will affect issuance?

Have you also considered the fact that sometime next year everyone will mine 50% less coins due to increase in the n-factor?

I think devs may consider modify wallet UI for some change ( in next edition when hard fork), or add some function like difficult history chat etc (just an example), if we have a cool UI, maybe it can attract more people.

EXE also low hashrate, low exchange volume and a plummeting value now!
EXE must make a change!

I agree with powertcntrl.

As I'd previously replied, I strongly feel reducing the mining reward will ultimately kill this coin.  Looking at Coinwarz the last few days, all of the older Scrypt-N coins have seen their hashrates drop.  My guess is that it's a combination of miners pointing their rigs at Caishen or going back to regular Scrypt coins, which have recently become more profitable to mine for whatever reason.

Execoin is just a bit ahead of its time.  We're still in the relative calm before the the Scrypt ASIC storm.  It's somewhat unreasonable to expect this coin to start catching on until ASICs really start out muscling the GPU miners in a major way.

The best thing for Execoin is to continue to promote it as a coin you want to mine and hold for the future.  There's nothing wrong with granting the miners who place their faith in this coin with a large reward.  To paraphrase the airlines, "We know you have a choice of coins to mine and we're glad you chose Execoin."  Plus, coins with large mining rewards seem to be among the most profitable - take Dogecoin as an extreme example.

Reducing the mining reward will likely send Execoin down the same path of another low reward Scrypt-N coin - Rotocoin.  Low hashrate, low exchange volume and a plummeting value...  And that's how a coin dies.

OK,i agree!

Big decision, i don't know much but what i think is , with all the craze today we are being neglected and coin is dying as it is, sure change can kill it too but since it's already dying we got nothing to lose and it shows developers effort to try to save this great coin so,

i approve the changes for what is worth.

The idea is the reward will be lowered to 10EXE per block _immediately after the hardfork_ and then slowly decreased even more by 1% per month.

20 or 10EXE per block sounds like a good call to me, and gradual block decrease seems like it might work well.

I would say go forward with a hardfork, just push it at least 1 week away so everyone has time to upgrade.

I should also mention that if we do a hard fork we may want to leave a good size window so that we don't run into any issues like the ones flappycoin just had...

Are you proposing instantly switching to 10 EXE a block and then decreasing by 1% per month?  I think that might be a bit abrupt personally, but the 1% per month is a neat idea that I believe is new?  The network might also benefit some more if at least some of this decrease in payout was used to extend the block subsidy farther into the future.

Let the market decide, is not up to you to say if there are "too many coins"

Mind you i'm holding lots of exe and it would benefit me if rewards drop but i believe this is not the way to go.

Decreases of block rewards by 1 percent every month?How long lowering it up to 10 EXE per block?

Proposed alterations in Execoin

Execoin suffers from overproduction of the coins, our community already noticed that 50 EXE reward for 45 seconds blocks is a way too many. In addition, abrupt block halving is not good for a well-established coin. So we propose to make some changes while the coin is young to make it more smooth and to support its value. We think that Execoin needs dramatic block decrease and we are thinking about lowering it up to 10 EXE per block. In addition, to prevent abrupt block halvings in the future we are going to implement eventual decreases of block rewards by 1 percent every month. Proposed changes will require a hard fork, so we will benefit from it and incorporate new version of the KGW with Time Warp vulnerability fixed.

We would like to listen an opinion of our community, what do you think?