I share that gut feeling. It will weed out those who accumulated quite a bit but are here for the investment. Not to imply there is anything wrong with doing that, but MNs should lean towards those with earnest to see the concept / project succeed outside of monetary gain.
the issue i have is there are cetain miners on the leader board (maybe 20 ?) that are getting MASSIVE amounts of new coins. if you look at the latest transactions on the explorer you will see payments of 10-30k per hour or less!
(go to leader board then sort by hashpower or by user name, you will see rows and rows of machines from single users....looking at you 'tonywon' whoever you are
Its these players that can flood the exchanges with huge quantiles and keep the prices depressed. result is a bible at the biblepay site costs 20k+ coins. thats an impossible amount of coins to get on a regular machine without going at it for months. months of mining for one bible?
i thought the intention of the 'biblehash' was to prevent monopolistic abuses like this from miners. on further thinking this is probably unpreventable by Rob despite good intentions with the idea. you are just going to have an establish population of miners from other coins that have massive hash power to throw at any new coin that comes out.
still i think there could be some improvements to the algo to prevent 'overhashing' from one person. probably too late now since the cat is out of the bag so to speak.
I agree with a lot of what you've said. But one, you cannot really prevent larger miners without damaging your ecosystem unless you have a great plan. Everyone having 300 coins a day mining on a basic Celeron won't provide enough liquidity to the markets. And to prevent large miners, well, that's an arms race which ultimately means you'll either ruin the system for everyone EXCEPT the large miners who will find a workaround (and that's not to accuse tonywon of doing anything wrong) or you'll have a fair system but spend all your IT time keeping it fair and probably make mining so convoluted that no one but the large miners will figure it out. Since the coin is CPU only, setting up a mining farm isn't ideal but the barrier to entry is pretty low. Buy a few Dells with Xeon processors on eBay or Craigslist and fire them up. But even though it's fairly simple, you're not likely to see a warehouse full of CPUs mining away, so the coin is still pretty resistant to a monopoly.
Right now a person moderately confident with computers could set up the wallet with a bit of phone help. So you could guide your college buddy through the setup, or your brother or mom. And they could run the miner at genproc 2 or something and probably never notice any slowdown on their old Celeron. Sure, they'll not be getting more than 20 or 30 coins a day, but they'll expend no effort. So over time they'll amass a pretty good sum and they can sell it, or donate it to support the orphans, or buy that bible or pay a preacher for essentially no cost other than waiting.
One thing about a larger stake (which again, monetarily is pretty low by comparison to other MN coins) is you reduce the number of casual miners (see above) that will try and run a MN. As m4tsby notes, you need the MN holders to be invested in the success of the coin and it's mission, not just invested monetarily. The MN governance system needs a majority of the MN to be active and reading and intelligently voting on proposals. Too low a stake in my mind gets too many people involved that have little real interest in the coin.