From the bitcoin fork discussion:
So why try to limit who can use it? If you open it up to the world then the townfolk, as earliest adopters, could bring a lot of wealth into the town as out of town people discover it and adopt it.DRAMAAA!
It would even have one advantage over bitcoin: an entire town that accepts it in return for real goods and services.
I have had blistering arguments over the idea of separating into mini-networks (I'm for btw) and it doesn't have anything to do with "flaws" in Bitcoin.
Bitcoin storage is decentralized (yay freedom.)
Bitcoin production is heavily consolidated (like corporate mergers just a bit less evil.)
Bitcoin dynamics affect everyone at once (big fat self-righteous mentality of IMF and World Bank).
All these factors should be such that independence of effects is encouraged. Proximity or distance is hard to define in bitcoin, but this towncoin idea is the perfect way to experiment with it.
This can be corrected.OPPORTUNITIES!
Proximity would use neighboring towns' difficulties like control valves.
1. Award amounts per block to networks based on the square root of the ratio of their difficulty compared to the mainline.
2. Update the local difficulty more often.
3. Implement an adapted version of the bitcoin daemon with cuddlefish's modifications. Can be done later.
I say square root rather than by the straight ratio itself for two reasons:
1. A straight ratio would attract control freak administrators who want to add more ratios under control of some official department.
2. Square root allows everyone to experience 'early adopter' opportunities which reduces the rush to create new crypto-currencies with few differences.
3. Square root avoids a hard drop between subnets making transfers between more "stretchy".
Some of the innovations coming to us are going to be motivated by the excitement of Bitcoin multiplied by the jealousy of opportunities lost, real or perceived. That's going to hurt Bitcoin and sister currencies' credibility.MATH and GUTS!
Having said that the plain square root should probably replaced with a more dynamic value.
If we care about decentralization, bitcoin subnets should behave somewhere between separate currencies and a single currency.
The difficulty variations should encourage global and local decentralization. Bitcoin vs bitcoin (a kind of self-awareness on top of the self-correction).
It's much more advisable right now for new incompatible blockchains to start rather than be at the mercy of specialists (hobbyists with meaty GPUs). One internet is worth 1000. One cryptocurrency is worth 1000. Validating the Internet protocols allowed millions of sites and communities to flourish. Same thing with Bitcoin. The concept is proven even if the implementation isn't. It wouldn't make sense to force new subnets to start from scratch any more than it makes sense to force everyone to send email through fido.
A. Differences in hashrates for groups, of people who have similar hashrates, should not punish late comers.
B. Having fewer miners per pool means less consolidation.
We multiply A * B to encourage mainline and subnets to compete with smaller pools. We amplify things we need to fix.
C. Having more pools means more choices.
D. Having more miners per network means decentralization of power.
We multiply C * D to encourage subnets to have more of their users participate.
E. The trades / difficulty update for mainline.
F. The trades / difficulty update for subnets.
We divide E / F to encourage subnets to move money quicker.
Now for the conversion factor: This is where we encourage mainline participants to move into subnets.
X = A * B = the relative internet influence factor.
Y = C * D = the relative intranet influence factor.
Z = E / F = the relative activity factor.
X = A) avg hashrate of mainline pools / avg hashrate of subnet pools * (avg participation in mainline pools / avg participation in subnet pools)
Y = C) pools in mainline / pools in subnet * (ratio of traders to miners in mainline / ratio of traders to miners in subnet)
Z = D) trades per day in mainline / trades per day in subnets weighted by the diff update time ratio
Example: Whole network versus 36,000 (numbers are out of thin air but should be close)
36 Ghashes / 25 Mhashes * (100 miners per pool / 25 miners per pool) (trades per day in mainline / trades per day update period in subnets)
-------------------------------------------------------------------- * --------------------------------------------------------------------
10 pools / 4 pools * (1000 traders per miner / 100 traders per miner) update time in mainline / update time in subnet
144 * 4 / (2.5 * 10) * 25 = 576
Now the actual value of a gpu versus a cpu is on the order of 360 Mh/s / 2.5 Mh/s = 144x
Square root of 576 = 24 = 6 times the actual output value
Square root of 144 = 12 = 12 times the actual output value
Towncoin being worth 12x as much as "really" is too much of a boost. 24x makes it 6x.PROBLEM, CITIZEN?
We've heard a lot of complaining about:
this approach resolves these "issues" without adding arbitrary purely rhetorical one size fits all solutions (inflation, demurrage, high transaction costs, begging the system to like us). and it creates true decentralization. deflation is not an issue - it controls overreactions. hoarding is a natural reaction to market forces but can be self-defeating. speculation can cause epileptic fits. legalities have to cross the soccer mom threshold. the minute bitcoin becomes soccer momcoin, the threat of banning drops to near zero.