i agree graham ... but how? ...
Good answer, nice to get some mature discussion going ... aaaand I'm glad you asked me that question
Where Spreadcoin is now reflects Mr Spread’s original notions (emphasis mine):
I want to make this coin for solo only mining without any pools (mining will be made in a such way that miners will be able to consistently steal money from the pool). With blocks generated every minute even with thousands of miners you will still be able to get block once in several days (if you have average hashing speed). There will be no concentration of mining power in large pools as in Bitcoin and there will be no multipools. We can than advertize it as being more decentralized than Bitcoin. Mining will be more like a lottery which may be more interesting or in contrary distract people form mining (however, if you mine for long time than you don't actualy need any pools).
and
The general idea is ...
Given all this I don't expect that anyone will create a pool. But if someone will then I will modify whatever miner software will be used for it to implement the stealing described above, we may expect that most pool miners will then switch to this cheating version which will make this pool useless.
no real data on what the community actually wants ...
That is true to a large degree and it's possibly the reason that the one-sided nature of the perspective is so easily overlooked. For me, there are several readily-identifiable communities directly involved, usually interdependently but each with their own set of objectives, some of which are in tension with another sector's objectives. There are (broadly) miners, investors, speculators, supporters and merchants. And, as you observe, we're in phase 1, a long way to go before, e.g. Spreadcoin denominates someone's paycheck.
Speculators want instability in exchange rates, it's their prime opportunity to earn. Investors typically play the long game looking for consistent stable growth. Merchants hate speculative exchange price instability because it plays merry hell with their prices. Miners are okay with or without stability, just as long as the coin remains profitable to mine. Unfortunately that profitability is at the mercy of exchange rate speculation. atm, supporters don't often have cause to care much about the exchange rate as it has little effect on their intra-currency trading (except for causing wild swings in merchants' prices) but they do need a wide range of engaging opportunities to acquire small amounts of the coin and to disburse small amounts, ditto.
For a coin to have any chance of long-term success there must be a balance maintained between the objectives. If any one group gains dominance that's pretty much it for the coin; the dominant group will promote its agenda at the expense of the other groups which will then start haemorrhaging members.
There've been around 2160+ altcoins launched so far. The scant number of successes can be counted on one hand, if one is generous about a definition of success. I see this as eloquent testimony that achieving a sustainable balance is nigh-on impossible.
so why make something more difficult to mine or accrue?
Bring a necessary balance.
... especially when all that going to happen is what already HAS happened ... and will again ... trade back for fiat by the vast majority ...
Yes, that's typical elsewhere but has been far less so with Spreadcoin. Freedom from the vagaries of overwhelming multipool influence seems to lend a stability to Spreadcoin. I'm aware that, pedantically, the “no pools” phrase has been demonstrated false but a point-scoring attitude sadly fails to acknowledge the essential success of Mr Spread's broad aim in sheltering the coin from megapool influence. fwiw, I believe that's the general perception and why there is so much residual support for the coin; there are only a few people motivated to adopt a pedantic criticism, most others will appreciate the success of the overall aim - “no concentration of mining power in large pools”.
There's so little hard data about the community that it's impossible to determine whether this perception of Spreadcoin being a more equitable coin is just that, a perception and no more --- or whether it is a reality (arising from the consensus perception, ofc), in which case there's an emergent brand value, right there. The freedom from multipool influence is undeniably now an actual part of Spreadcoin's historical narrative, part of the heritage of the coin and part of its story (c.f. fallingknife's blueprint). Crucially, the “no large pools” aim is a rare pro-balance influence.
It's oblique but ... Spreadcoin is seen as giving the little guy more of a chance because of what “no pools”
betokens of the coin.
Cheers
Graham
