[Announce] 6-Week Alt Announcement

[drawingthesun]

Basically, if ASICs hit for Scrypt, the coin reward would go up, and naturally over time as hardware like GPUs gets faster the block reward will go up as well, but the square root means at some point it will reach a maturity point where large amounts of added hashing power have little affect on the reward.

This seems like a good enough effect to not need a block size cap. because as u said, hardware will get much faster. soon a teraflop card will be old news.

I guess you have a point... but I'd think that once this stability is reached, the coin would take on a bitcoin style difficulty management system, which would just make the hashes harder when some guy comes in with a AMD Radeon 9001X99 Super-Duper-Card GPU @ 999999999 PHs

You won't need to make hashes harder because the amount of coins in circulation will increase so much all the new minted coins will eventually add little to the overall supply.

coins that exist / minted coins

The coins that exist will always go up and up where minted coins will not go up as fast especially after many years. This will act as a natural cap and reduce inflation. After 20-40 years inflation will be less then PPCoin thus making a higher demand for existing coins.

This model could be a true solution. No need to program in reward halfs. Let the 1 rule take care of everything naturally.

[1715383593]

1715383593

[1715383593]

1715383593

[1715383593]

1715383593

[1715383593]

1715383593

[Tobius]

I think that having the supply tied by the square root is a good idea. A even better idea is to have no cap at all on coins.

After 20-50 years even though people can still mine and get a lot of coins, the inflation will be really small because the amount of coins in existence will always increase against the amount of coins mined. Because of this there is really no reason to cap or slow down the supply after a set amount of years. The volume of coins over the new coins will always increase thus decreasing inflation.

After a hundreds years inflation would be 0.0001% for example, but even this would be enough to keep people interested.

I really like this idea. If you add a cap then I think you will miss out on something important.

While the forward thinking is awesome, don't you think people would get kind of weirded out if they used to mine with 100 SQC (yes, I'm using my own name) rewards and suddenly everyone with a CPU is getting 1000 SQR a block?


I don't think perminant exponential reward growth would help the coin to be adopted and used to that it's relevent for that long, even if it's mathematically ideal

[master-P]

Hey Vorsholk I like your idea

I actually posted a similar one a few days ago https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191470
It's a little different but there are some similarities, especially the pre-mine prevention part

[Tobius]

plus, the "always becoming worth less" model of no caps and an ever increasing rate doesn't exactly inspire confidence in buyers, retailers, exchanges, anyone who expects the coin to retain some sort of value.

[MessyCoin]

How about HyperCoin?

..from mathematical hyperbola https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbola

[Vorksholk]

Thanks for all the ideas, leaning towards something without the word "coin" in the name, but not ruling anything out at this point.

I'll respond to some of the interesting issues brought up sometime tomorrow, after some sleep

Tomorrow I'm gonna make a few graphs and create some examples, propose some possible economic ideas an expected outcomes, etc. to attempt to summarize some of the constructive thinking going on in this thread, as well as alleviate some of the confusion associated with the idea of an increasing block reward.

If my math isn't failing me right now, it would be an exponential block reward, but not in the way people usually use the word "exponential" as it would not continue to increase at an ever increasing rate. until tomorrow, if you want to look up "square root graph" it will give you a basic idea of what the network block reward would look like over time as the hashrate increases.

I think it might be interesting to, in my original post, summarize some of the ideas people are proposing (limited coin mints, unlimited coin supply, a max-cap for block reward (say, 256 was mentioned), however not having a max cap on actual possible supply, etc. And then have a new thread where people can criticize the ideas, give input, perhaps some insight on magic constants, etc. Each idea has its own benefits, perhaps some hybrid system could be devised. (Limited max block reward, but max block reward increases with time? Limited maximum coins, but approaching limit coin would decrease with a square root function, in such a way that in the very middle of the time between launch and last generated coin would be maximum value, etc.) Not sure about the technical side of implementing some of this, but of course if the idea is good enough a way will be found .

[cygnusxi]

more speculation - this coins value could be closely tied to price of electricity and availability of power efficient hardware, caused by the 1 hash = 1 coin. --- more closely tied then current coins that is

low power fpga / asic obviously the big question, with all coins...

that could be a good thing because power will most likely always keep going up in price

[Tobius]

Thanks for all the ideas, leaning towards something without the word "coin" in the name, but not ruling anything out at this point.

I'll respond to some of the interesting issues brought up sometime tomorrow, after some sleep

Tomorrow I'm gonna make a few graphs and create some examples, propose some possible economic ideas an expected outcomes, etc. to attempt to summarize some of the constructive thinking going on in this thread, as well as alleviate some of the confusion associated with the idea of an increasing block reward.

If my math isn't failing me right now, it would be an exponential block reward, but not in the way people usually use the word "exponential" as it would not continue to increase at an ever increasing rate. until tomorrow, if you want to look up "square root graph" it will give you a basic idea of what the network block reward would look like over time as the hashrate increases.

I think it might be interesting to, in my original post, summarize some of the ideas people are proposing (limited coin mints, unlimited coin supply, a max-cap for block reward (say, 256 was mentioned), however not having a max cap on actual possible supply, etc. And then have a new thread where people can criticize the ideas, give input, perhaps some insight on magic constants, etc. Each idea has its own benefits, perhaps some hybrid system could be devised. (Limited max block reward, but max block reward increases with time? Limited maximum coins, but approaching limit coin would decrease with a square root function, in such a way that in the very middle of the time between launch and last generated coin would be maximum value, etc.) Not sure about the technical side of implementing some of this, but of course if the idea is good enough a way will be found .

Well, good to see that we're actually trying something different here You've totally captured my interest. Looking forward to it

[NickCoin]

that could be a good thing because power will most likely always keep going up in price

What if we one day finally get energy to become free? (Like free wifi internet in Singapore, for example).

[drawingthesun]

plus, the "always becoming worth less" model of no caps and an ever increasing rate doesn't exactly inspire confidence in buyers, retailers, exchanges, anyone who expects the coin to retain some sort of value.

The rate of increase is via square root, then the rate won't increase as much at the hash rate increases. This will mean when the hash rate is a thousand times higher the rate may only be 200 times higher, or something like that.

And because the rate cannot increase without bounds this will act as a natural dampener. Eventually the amount of coins will dwarf the minting rate. Eventually the minting rate will be so small that the currency would have the same deflation effects as Bitcoin, just not as pronounced.

[digitalindustry]

SqrtCoin?

SQrtCoin (SQC) ?

(Remember, currency symbols are three characters not two.

Unless you're aiming at XSC ? (The X means worldwide, pretty much.)

-MarkM-

I like Squirt coin ! - do i have to give my credit card details but to get it?

: D

[drawingthesun]

While the forward thinking is awesome, don't you think people would get kind of weirded out if they used to mine with 100 SQC (yes, I'm using my own name) rewards and suddenly everyone with a CPU is getting 1000 SQR a block?

If you used to get 100 per block and now its 1000 per block, that means 40 times more hashing power was added to the network. This doesn't seem to bad does it?
Remember 10 times hashing power will not get 1000 per block because its by the square root, so you need a lot more power to get to 1000 per block.

[Luckybit]

Maybe SquaReCoin (SRC) ?

Or RooTCoin (RTC)?

Or SQuareRootcoin (SQR) ?

-MarkM-

Rootcoin

[Tobius]

While the forward thinking is awesome, don't you think people would get kind of weirded out if they used to mine with 100 SQC (yes, I'm using my own name) rewards and suddenly everyone with a CPU is getting 1000 SQR a block?

If you used to get 100 per block and now its 1000 per block, that means 40 times more hashing power was added to the network. This doesn't seem to bad does it?
Remember 10 times hashing power will not get 1000 per block because its by the square root, so you need a lot more power to get to 1000 per block.

Let me rephrase that. It's not the changing reward that bothers me, it's the huge drop in the curreny's buying power that would come with the application of this system beyond when it's unnecessary, aka the early stages. If 10x reductions in buying power kept happening, people would stop using the coin.

[Tobius]

Name suggestions. I need them. Thanks

=> ZenCoin

I'm in. Supporting the coin as the designer. let me know if you need logo designed.
Sample work - I converted Feathercoin logo to vector lately:

Nice work with it!

[hanzac]

I like your idea. How about the name Plaincoin? [PLC]

[drawingthesun]

Let me rephrase that. It's not the changing reward that bothers me, it's the huge drop in the curreny's buying power that would come with the application of this system beyond when it's unnecessary, aka the early stages. If 10x reductions in buying power kept happening, people would stop using the coin.

Ah ok I see what you mean.

Those 10x reductions in buying power require at least a exponential increase in computing power. So for a 10 times reduction in value the amount of hashing power must increase to the power of 2. So the network would reach a equilibrium where the coins lose value a rate that is slower by the square of the network hash rate.

So for your coins to be worth less, the currency must as a whole be much more attractive. So you can't just sit on them and get rich but they are holding value relative to network hash rate none the less.

If people decided that the coins were worthless, then the network would not have a increase in power because people wouldn't care as much meaning your coins would gain in value again because more miners have left.

This is the reality for a early adopter: Mine thousands of coins in the first month and expect to get rich. The early adopter does not get rich because now many more people use the currency. However if the adopter kept mining for a few years, those exponential increases in network hash rate have to slow down because its physically impossible to keep increasing exponentially.

(remember a exponential increase in hash power does NOT result in a exponential increase of minting, its far less)

The only time a coin increases exponential hash power is in the first months which is considered a pre-mine by most accounts. This coin would be more equal in that 10% of all coins ever to exist would not be created in the first week.

If you wanna strike rich with this coin you need to mine throughout its first few years until the minting starts to pale in comparison to the overall supply of coins.


Remember the coins cannot constantly keep losing 10% of their value, that would require a exponential increase each time in hash power. Look at Bitcoin, Bitcoins growth in network power is at most barely 30% up each time, most of the time its around 10% increase. If this coin was at the current size of Bitcoin in terms of hash power then your coins would be very very stable. A 30% increase DOES NOT means a 30% increase in coin supply but just 5.4% increase.

And as I would predict, after 10 years the increase in supply would start to slow down in relation to the overall supply. Does this mean early adopters cannot just mine a million coins and sit for 3 years and then just sell them and be a millionaire? Yes, I don't see this as a problem. If you do then your just chasing a get rich quick scheme which is the moto of all the Alternative coins at the moment. Even Bitcoin.

[drawingthesun]

Good luck but I feel the more altcoins there are, the more it undermines preexisting ones.

Survival of the fittest, if someone comes to market with a coin that really changes things and makes for a better system than Bitcoin, it would trash all the alternatives. But that's to be expected. If your alternative coin is at risk because of new upcoming coins then you have to ask: what did your coin bring to the table in the first place?

If FTC or CNC are at risk of losing value just because of another clone, then what merit did they really have?

Take Litecoin, Litecoin moves based on Bitcoin and no other Alternative coin is causing it risk of ruin, so there you have a somewhat trusted and stable coin in comparison to FTC and CNC. FTC is already worth as much as a PPCoin so if its value does drop don't be surprised.

Then again PPCoin has its own issues. Yeah its innovative but POS has bugs and the check pointing is still putting a lot of people off.

I really don't mind all the new alternative coins, we can watch for the ones that really offer something better. (Offering something new is not really the goal, well it shouldn't be, something better should be the goal)

[LiteBit]

Basecoin

[termhn]

Parabucks PRB (from parabola)
ExponentialGreen EXG (like exponential growth, green dollars) I kinda like this one especially the abbreviation.

My names without "coin." Wil be keeping eye on this.

One with coin
Quadraticoin QDC