You're right that more hash doesn't mean more Uno, as KGW resets difficulty every block to average 3 minute blocks over time. This is different from Bitcoin which resets difficulty every 2016 blocks; with Btc more hash does mean more coins faster (< 10 minutes). Not with Uno. If hash was low enough, you could run the Uno network off of your block erupters.
More hash, when distributed, helps to secure the network against various attacks, such as a 51% attack, or double spend attacks.
In a manner of speaking, Uno is protected not only by Kgw but by it's low block reward. While Btc still gives 25 btc/block, Uno's reward is getting extremely low so that attackers have less incentive; there are just easier coins to attack.
I have a computer here that mines various forgotten sha256 coins off of block erupters, for no other reason that I can simply do it. I have no illusions that anything will ever come from it, it's just sort of fun for now. All these networks run just fine on low hash.
Very interesting, FK. Thank you.
I once did my own "51% attack" against one of the networks after I accidentally send a large % of the coins to a dead address. As the sole miner, it was simple for me to back up the block chain and create new blocks to write over my mistake and bring back my lost coins (How do you do it? Start by downloading the blockchain to a new client on computer 1, but stop it before the block you want to overwrite; setup a private network between two computers; synch client on computer 2 to partial blockchain on computer 1; start up the miners on our private network and create a longer chain than the real one; put them both back online and the network will accept the new longer chain). But it becomes much more difficult to attack when there are other miners pushing the network forward, syncing the block chain. Ideally, you don't want anyone to control more than 51% of the network; it's not an automatic tragedy if that happens, but goes to the integrity of the blockchain.
Wow. Absolutely fascinating!
OK, so back to UNO. Again, assuming a current average 20 TH/s, say a John Doe all of a sudden throws an additional 100 TH/s at UNO mining. That's way more than 51%. So what (I think) you're saying is that John Doe owing that huge majority percentage of hashing power is not in and of itself a bad thing, but that if "John Doe" were actually a pseudonym for Dr. Evil, the UNO network
might be in danger of some serious hanky-panky. Do I understand you correctly?
(pos is open for various fatal attacks)
