Wouldn't botnets would make a comeback once CPUs gain relevance again? It seems like it would be better to stay in GPU realm, but still apart from ASICS. The serious miners won't keep their GPUs, of course- they'll upgrade as long as it is profitable to do so and with a reasonable ROI. Advances in technology could easily nullify advantages in both staying at 15 or continuing down the normal progression. Who knows how tedious it will be for even desktops to download a few million blocks at NF20. As to who would better poised at that time? Who knows. 6 years is a long time. At this time we have the flexibility to change, not being tied down by a huge crowd. The biggest thing here is creating our own identity. Right now there really isn't that much differentiating our coins, except for a few wallet changes, art, the retarget and updates and refinements.
From what I've observed every shift in nFactor has resulted in fewer miners as the schedule progresses. A factor changes the average miner gets frustrated that his cards are no longer hashing at the rate they were before, but don't always come to the realization that everyone else is similarly affected and that their total share of the pie doesn't really change that much. They get hung up on the hashing numbers. Currently we are at 40 workers between UTC and UBP pools- basically the faithful who will stick around no matter what. We would prefer to increase that number. We believe locking in the nFactor would be a positive step in that direction. We would be poised to avoid that shift in nFactor which has to me always seemed like a train approaching a cliff.
Who is "We" in "We believe". Also, "basically the faithful who will stick around no matter what" has a negative connotation?
Hypothetically, if UTC is at NF20 right now, and UTC is mined at better hashrates and efficiency with most CPUs compared to GPUs, your concern over setting changes would be moot, correct? Have you considered 'fast-forwarding' the NFactor changes?
Correct me if I am wrong, but there are coins out there that are geared for the higher-end GPUs, such as the 290x. These coins are considered 'asic-resistant' in the same way UTC would be 'asic-resistant' frozen at NF15, correct? Asic-resistant with the operative term being 'resistant' and not 'proof'. And does anyone know the distribution of graphics cards enough to be able to pick and choose which ones the coin should be geared toward in order to reach out to the most miners? Is it simply based on cost per card?
In my opinion, the burden of proof SHOULD be on the ones wanting to change. The argument for not hard-forking should always have the higher ground because the implication of a few people deciding a coin should be hard-forked with every little theoretical nuisance is harmful. On the other hand, the marketcap and lack-of-adoption is such that it wouldn't a big problem I feel. But look at what has happened to VertCoin! It will likely be surpassed by a scrypt-chacha coin very soon, and it seemed to have a lot of momentum until it went away from Scrypt-N for fear of asics. Bottomline, you are making assumptions. Bottomline, no one knows enough to say absolutely what will happen to mining with the next NFactor changes. We only know that no one knows, and I don't think that is a bad thing.
