Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on June 16, 2016, 12:51:30 PM

Quote from: TomHolden on June 16, 2016, 12:12:55 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on June 15, 2016, 11:07:59 PM

Why would you extend my branches if by invalidating them you would earn more coins?

I don't see why "invalidating" a branch/TDAG would enable you to earn more coins. That sounds equivalent to a double spend attack. But perhaps I'm not following you.

If 50% of coins will be generated via subsidy then every time I invalidate your branches by making them reference doublespendings. Invalidated branches = not spent subsidy.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your point. Perhaps I'm being stupid.

A broadcast transaction (be it standard of PoW) will not be accepted by the network if its ancestors contain a double spend. So any transaction fees the new transaction purported to claim will in fact remain unclaimed.

In this add-on proposal, I am not proposing that 50% of coins are generated via subsidy; rather, I am proposing that 100% of coins are generated via PoW.