This sounds great, but if we're going to do a new algo change, I think it's best to have proof.
With proof I mean: maths. Input/output of the algorithm calculation. Throwing of 320GH/s (the amount of hashing power that cleverminig currently has).
This is not something that can be tested in a test network, unless you happen to have 320GH/s at your disposal..
When the sim is released, it will be very easy to add another algorithm such as digishield.
First and foremost, everything I bring up is with the utmost respect. When I lose faith in the team, the community will know it because I will flat out say it. I am primarily posting this because I feel lost in trying to help this coin, and I want guidance.
That being said, the problem with your math is that clever
will never throw 320GH at NLG. If they were going to increase their mining it would be because NLG mining is profitable. If NLG mining is profitable, we'll have more miners, and we'll have a higher difficulty. Mining is all about proportions. Clever will never increase their proportion if it's not profitable. If they did, our proportion would probably increase as well. But you forget something, too. Clever won't stick around if they are cut off the chain with an algo change. If you limit the number of blocks clever can mine before it pushes profitability out of reach, which DGW3 doesn't do, you shut clever down. 1000GH won't mean anything if you only get 3 blocks before it shuts down your profitability. Also, throwing 320GH at NLG is basically saying that every other coin, including LTC are inferior to NLG at that point, and I'm pretty sure we'll have a lot more on our plate than clever at that point. Think terahashes. But at that point, you could implement a standard LTC algo and call it a day.
Anyone with enough hashpower can disrupt a blockchain. That's a fundamental flaw with mining. 24Kilo and I almost burnt each others houses down in a heated argument over this. Hashrate is king. No algo change is going to change that. The only way you could change that is implementing code that said that only X amount of blocks can be mined from a certain address in a certain amount of time, which is back to the centralized mining debate. The other approach is POS, and that's a crap-shoot at best. I've never seen a POS coin that didn't have forking issues, or even worse. So yes, 320GH is a big scary monster that can trample our town like Godzilla on a Sunday stroll through the park. However, that 320GH is governed by profit, and an algo change like DIGI would minimize that profit in a single git pull.
There is at least a year of data that can be mined from various coins that made algo changes. There's testnet data that can be put together. There's enough information out there that could be used to make an educated decision. My question is what is it that the dev team wants?
If you want a 320GH testnet, then tell the community you want it, and we'll work on it. If that's what it's going to take to convince the team of a proposed change, we need to know that. We're flying blind here, mate. We need input as to what direction to go to better support you and your team.
-Fuse
--Mark
I don't think it's a big deal that we have to wait until next year for the simulator and algorithm change if the price stays as is, it's just a major issue if it goes over 500.
