Thank you for your response! One of the few constructive ones I got so far.
I am an occasional miner. Just to give you an idea, I have mined ~10k MYR in about a year. I don't think I hold any BSTY.
that's exactly the kind of miner a cpu coin needs. just that it needs 100,000's of them.
I sell my extra electricity at an higher cost than you would consider "too high to mine".
not sure exactly what you mean by that. you would mine even if your costs are higher than your reward?
with cpu it's good that your only cost is the electric bill, the computer is not a cost, as you already use it for other purposes.
It seems I have a feat for picking up coins which get screwed.
It's not you! I had the same feeling over and over until I came up with a theory.
Some coins get screwed from the start. That's for sure.
But all coins get screwed eventually because of the deflationary model. Or at least that's my theory.
The faster the deflate, the sooner they'll be doomed. BSTY is a great example of this.
So wait, did I just make a blasphemy here? I think so! It's like the cryptobible says that inflation is the doom of normal money, and their deflationary model is the solution. WRONG!
Let me explain why:
The faster a coin reduces reward, the more obvious the following effect will be.
At start there is the highest block reward, and the lowest hashpower.
So the early miners will get tons of coins, at a very very low cost. So there it is: inflation right from the start. The bitcoin model fails to reduce inflation, it simply puts inflation right there from the beginning.
The only way not to fail now is that these early miners will pretend they never mined the coin at all, and never sell it. This is absurd and insane. Ultimately people need money and will sell some of it.
So my workaround to this problem is to have the block reward proportional to the difficulty. This creates inflation still, however it changes the holders of these inflated coin. You will get inflated coins, but for higher hashpower, so there is a minimum amount you'd be willing to sell for. You need to compensate for electric costs, so this will help. I'm not sure if it eventually works out, but at least it's a workaround for the initial inflation issue. I'd say it's better to give many coins to people who invested lots of electricity than to the first people. There is no good reason why the early miners should have it all, not at all. This is simply PONZI and that's why all of them fail.
Real money works with inflation too, their inflation mechanism may be different than what I'm proposing but they do work better than cryptocoins.
My inflation mechanism is similar to farming. If more people start farming wheat, more flour will be produced. That's what happens in real world. So either the flour price drops, or the demand increases and then is successful.
I had some feelings the hashrate was going low; I was honestly happy that was not my problem. I have difficulty understanding how changing the reward would change anything at this point. The value was nonsensically low last month anyway. I did read somewhere about the reward change; I don't consider it clearly broken even though I don't see much good reasons to do that. I am not against turning profit either so if this change rewarded early adopters more than it rewards current adopters... I cannot even tell if this is good or bad.
Has the BSTY team got "unfair profit" from this? I don't think so. I would have to look at the blockchain. In theory, I am not against that. It doesn't feel like DRK or BCN anyway.
They haven't got the unfair profit, because I stopped them when they were just about to get it. That's why they're mad at me.
But I haven't created the problem, I just exposed it. Having low hashpower is the problem, and is the result of their reward structure.
Their profit relied on nobody exposing it, and I'm sure they didn't even realize they had the problem in the first place. You did, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.
If a GPU miner can be made for this coin, then it's a good thing to make it, it simply exposes that this is not a cpu coin. Or if the performance advantage is not so big, then it will be a CPU/GPU coin.
GPU coins are ultimately evil because it moves mining from the average user to the professional miners, therefore creating centralization, and making it possible for a single entity to have over 51%.
With CPU mining a professional miner cannot compete with the casual user, who has the hardware for free, he only pays the electric bill for mining. But for the casual user to get in and make a difference, a lot of them have to join in. So there must be a reward higher than the electricity cost. This is hardly the case with BSTY and not really the case with any other coins either.
If there would always be some profit for the casual user, then millions will eventually join in, making it the most secure coin ever created.
So yeah, lets increase the reward, that's the only solution, GPU or not. Also minimum reward that makes sense is 347, but I advocate to experiment with higher reward, let's see what happens.
It must attract many miners, therefore it will have a strong hashpower. Miners ultimately give value to the coin, so we may actually see a coin value increase.
Other thing that can give value to a coin would be anonymity, I also proposed it and am willing to code it.
Anyhow, I started this takeover thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1016617.0;allThis message will probably be deleted shortly after posting by your beloved Mr. Bruce Porter Jr.
