Following discussion with other people on this proposal, we have located a flaw and I have determined a potential fix. If the price of the coin, for whatever reason, drops below the cost of mining one significantly for extended periods of time, miners will leave en-mass and there is little that would cause the price to go back up. It lacks the standard bitcoin "There is less miners now so it becomes cheaper to mine", which is what causes this issue.

To resolve this, I have proposed that (2×Difficulty)/2^(1+Y/2) could be changed to (2×Highest difficulty ever)/2^(1+Y/2).
This means that should mining rate suddenly decline, causing the difficulty to decline, the ratio coins/difficulty will increase above it's standard 2/21+Y/2 ratio, promoting a return to mining until stabilization of difficulty is resumed.

This is a way to implement roughly the same protections bitcoin has against miner exodus, as a loss of hash rate for bitcoin also receives the same response with coins/difficulty increasing.

I'm not a programmer, so I cannot develop or launch it. It's a concept that someone else could develop if they liked.


What matters regarding difficulty of mining a single coin isn't just difficulty. It's the number of coins per block / difficulty, where with a lower value it's harder to mine one coin. If years are calculated as integers, then you will see sudden drops in cpb/difficulty, increasing the amount of work required to mine 1 coin by a factor of root2 instantaenously.

Although the difficulty itself will be erratic, the ratio cpb/difficulty will decrease at a steady rate of about 0.095% per day with the current equation and this will apply for every single day from now until the end of the universe. No sudden jumps, no random mining scheme.

It will initially be an inflationary coin, but I believe there is a limit on how long it could remain inflationary based upon this. In order to maintain a consistent mining rate, it would require that approx every 5 years you replace hardware. The costs assassinated with replacing hardware put a limit on how much could be mined. If the coin has low value, then when it's time to replace, less hardware will be replaced, mining rate will decline and the price of the coin will go up. Remember: Inflation at low levels isn't inherently bad, and bitcoin itself experienced long-term periods of inflation during it's early years.

Using numbers of blocks generated would be an effective alternate way to determine how many years it has been since the first block, were it not for one caveat. So far bitcoin and most altcoins have had the hashing rate growing for several years consecutively almost without stopping. This means that blocks are actually being mined at a faster rate than the algorithm is tuned for. I am sure you are familiar with this https://en.bitcoin.it/w/images/en/e/e3/Total_bitcoins_over_time_graph.png but this is entirely dependant upon 1 block per 10 mins, otherwise the dates change.

This is not a big issue for bitcoin, but if you are trying to use # blocks mined to calculate a precise length of time since block #1, then it does become a problem.

Moore'sCoin is named after Moore's Law, the approximation that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years.
Moore'sCoin will be designed specifically to combat several extremely common criticisms levied against Bitcoins and its various existing Altcoins. Early adopters are rewarded to such excessive levels that it can often appear to be (or some would claim truly is) a pump and dump scheme. Additionally, Moore'sCoin will be capable of maintaining much more long-term stability as the production rate of Moore'sCoin is roughly tied to the amount spent on new hardware in the past 5 or so years for mining the coins. Instead of the coin rising in value at extremely high rates, it will instead be much more stable.  Moore'sCoin is not a coin for the speculator; it is a coin for the rest of us.
Although a lot of Bitcoin supporters will dispute this, the rapid deflation of Bitcoin is very hostile to its ability to function as a currency. I don't need to go into specifics, all I need to say is that Moore'sCoin would prevent much of this deflation.

At a basic level, the algorithm for deciding how many coins are mined is set up as follows:
For all use of $ in this example, the value of the $ is fixed at some arbitrary point as opposed to changing. Imagine person A purchases a mining rig for $1,000 on this day in 2014. They then mine for 1 hour and recieve X coins. Person B purchases a mining rig for $1,000 exactly 2 years later, and also mines for 1 hour. Although the mining rig is twice as fast as a result of Moore's Law, they also receive X coins. This occurs regardless of the total hashrate of the network at any moment.
 Hence, Coins mined per second per value of investment is constant. Early adopters and late adopters are awarded equally.

Now onto the algorithm itself:
1 Block every 1 min
Difficulty adjustment every 60 blocks
Hashing Algorithm : Scrypt
Coin Supply : No limit
Reward for Block (The important bit) = (2×Difficulty)/2^(1+Y/2)  where Y = years since first block was mined. This probably needs to be modified as described in "Preventing Miner Exodus"

To put this into perspective:
When Y = 0 (the first block), the reward is = Difficulty.
When Y = 2, the reward = 1/2 Difficulty
When Y = 4, the reward = 1/4 Difficulty
When Y =9.21, the reward = 0.04109 * Difficulty

However, as Reward per difficulty decreases, the cost of equivalent hash/s hardware decreases at roughly the same rate, resulting in the constant coins mined per second per value of investment.
The precise multiplication of 2*Difficulty will need to be adjusted to produce a suitable rate of coin production to give numbers that are easy to handle. The ideal situation would probably be what initially provides 3 coins per day per $1,000 (at current value) hardware invested. Additionally, the precise division of Y/2 will need to be adjusted for optimal correlation with Moore's Law using hash/s instead of transistor count, or the algorithm could be adjusted to take into account predicted deceleration of Moore's Law.

I am not a programmer; I am not an expert on all things cryptocurrency. Most of this was typed out in an hour following another hour staring at the wall and pondering solutions, followed by several hours of refinement. However, I believe that what's already here is a starting point for addressing criticisms against Bitcoin and existing Altcoins being adopted as a general purpose currency. Low number of transactions processed per second is also considered a major obstacle preventing widespread adoption, but I am sure people have already put a lot of time into solving that problem and any existing solutions could be incorporated into MSC.

Preventing Miner Exodus
Following discussion with other people on this proposal, we have located a flaw and I have determined a potential fix. If the price of the coin, for whatever reason, drops below the cost of mining one significantly for extended periods of time, miners will leave en-mass and there is nothing that would rapidly increase the price in response. It lacks the standard bitcoin "There is less miners now so it becomes cheaper to mine", which is what causes this issue.

To resolve this, I have proposed that the algorithm could be changed to this:
Reward for Block= (2×Highest Difficulty Ever)/2^(1+Y/2)
This means that should mining rate suddenly decline, causing the difficulty to decline, the ratio coins/difficulty will increase above it's standard 2/21+Y/2 ratio, promoting a return to mining until stabilization of difficulty is resumed.

This is a way to implement roughly the same protections bitcoin has against miner exodus, as a loss of hash rate for bitcoin also receives the same response with coins/difficulty increasing. Alternatively, to both cause the rate of coin mining to decrease and the coin/difficulty ratio to increase, (Current Difficulty+Highest Difficulty Ever)/2^(1+Y/2) could be used.

My first reaction was disapointment that it's main advocates are Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists. I feel that their loudness and dominance in the community is actually a small factor in why it wasn't adopted further. Ideologues certainly make me distrustful of concepts. I now don't see bitcoin itself as particuarly useful as a currency largely due to a long list of limitations that prevent widespread currency use in the daily lives of millions, but I have drafted some fixes for it based on equating coins per block to difficulty and throwing in a bit of moore's law.

The mathematics of it would be something I would be discussing were it not for this newbie time.

Limitations for those who haven't learned of them yet:

• Excessive rewards to early adopters looks like a pump and dump (and some will accuse it of actually being a pump and dump)
• Deflation rate is so large that spending effectively halts
• Above two factors mean people are treating it as an investment, not a currency
• The huge network currently existing can barely handle more than 10 transactions per second

There is of course more, but really these are the main issues between Bitcoin and becoming a widespread currency.