Geistgold is interesting... but a factor of 15 times slower than QUICKCOIN!™ I am still curious what happens if blocks are generated every second. That said, it does sound similar in goals to what I am proposing. So, the question is, why does no one use it? And more importantly, who came up with that horrible name? It reminds me of a yeast infection every time I read it.
@ercolinux, I understand that 1 second is slower than network latency/propogation, but why would that really be a problem? Sure, blocks would be orphaned a lot, and forks would dead-end even after several blocks fairly often, but I don't see either of those as a show-stopper.
@markm - I don't know anything about liquidcoin, and, while it sounds like an interesting experiment as well, I likely do not have the hashpower available to push it to its limit. Thus, I cannot experiment with such an alt in the way you describe.
You seem to have misunderstood my intent. This is a call for an experiment - nothing more, nothing less. It would only be a few lines of code changed from the Bitcoin-QT client to actually see this happen. I would do it myself if it wasn't for the difficulty in compiling Bitcoin for Windows (and I'm not much of a linux user either).
No one uses geistgeld because it is a resource hog and the blocks are too fast. Why do another experiment? There have been 2, geistgeld and liquidcoin, and both are unusable for the main reason of the exact property you are trying to add. Heck, litecoin is having problems due to its block propogation speed. I know how you coin will turn out (unusable) because i've tried it and it doesn't work. What are you going to do differently to fix the problem? Nothing, you're going to make it even worse. Good luck with that.
