Quote from: 82ndabnmedic on February 27, 2015, 12:08:20 AM

Quote from: coinsolidation on February 26, 2015, 09:23:45 PM

We have implemented the new Difficulty Algorithm Configuration on a pfennig clone called ZMark, and tested it.

The target for success was to have ZMark change difficulty to 0.018331695 at block 13680 and 0.03666338676 at block 14040

at block 13680, diff = 0.01833169, it worked: http://explorer.zmark.org:3030/block/dbb9553d686bec42bd0c1c7af42a01ca27f4ee34c6006139fb04d476d336b805
at block 14040, diff = 0.03666339, it worked: http://explorer.zmark.org:3030/block/7ed46ccad7ade4474d0205eba9e68755aa1c8428d3a146381db105d68ecabdc4

Test Passed, we can now move to implementing this in bitmark.

If you object to us making this change, please state why publicly so we can discuss.

Hey Mark - Thanks for the Update...

I would like to thank all those who collaborated on zmark. As for the proposed changes: Personally, I feel that changes at this point are premature. I understand that currently, the BTM network is not exactly healthy. However, it is doing its job, the network is slow because demand is lacking. My conclusion is that we are addressing a symptom of the problem, not the root cause. In this case, the root cause is the low demand (which has produced low supply - "a good thing IMO").

Why is demand low -> Because our project has not fully developed & launched a RFM Ready for Market product (i.e: Marking / MarkThis).

That being said, going from 4x to 2x is not that badif the only outcome is equilibrium.

Lets see what the community has so say though.

He said

Quote

can

I dont see how this cant help, but yeah duh its too soon.