Quote from: 111magic on January 10, 2018, 04:45:13 PM

Think the main issue is clear for everybody. Because huge miners use huge hashrate the blockreward drops & smaller miners will not receive enough rewards.

Wasn't that a design goal of the coin?

Quote from: ronnylov on January 10, 2018, 05:18:59 PM

Maybe creating a coin that increases the block rewards when difficulty gets higher could be a solution? The higher hashrate the more coins are produced. The price will decrease when more miners come because there are much more coins produced (inflation). Miners stop mining and less coins are produced. Less new coins on market make price higher. Hopefully price stabilize and miners get rewarded in a fair way. Mining difficulty would stabilize and not rise to infinity. Why is no such coins created? I know most coins are for Quick profits and intended to rise in price as fast as possible. But why is there no coins designed to have a constant price? This would make the coin more suitable for payments because we know the value of the coin. It could be a success for real usage and as a reference coin. When more people want to use the coin for real payments the price will rise but then more miners come to rescue and keep the value of each coin stable. The supply is created by the miners and the demand is for supply is created by users. If setup correctly it should even out.

Is that a crazy idea?

This proposed solution is to make so many coins through hyper-inflation that it loses its value, and people stop mining it. This sounds to me like the end of the coin. What will bring value back after people stop mining it, when there are still millions(+) of already-mined coins out there?

Quote from: Iame3 on January 10, 2018, 05:25:37 PM

The higher hashrate the lower reward and vice versa? It would be very green. Then again, how recognize mining of the same person to multiple wallets.

This is currently how the network works. On an individual level, with an anonymous and decentralized currency, this is not practical (someone with high hash rates can just create multiple low hash rate instances).

Quote from: cryptoaficionado on January 10, 2018, 08:44:48 PM

Maybe make block time / rewards equal to the number of nodes supporting the network? The more nodes, the higher the rewards across the network?

Doesn't this trade mining power for node-hosting power? In any event, you have the same problem as above: Let's say that the minimum system requirements for a "node" is one Raspberry Pi Zero. Someone with the power of 1,000 Raspberry Pi Zeros can just divide their computing power to run 1,000 nodes, and earn 1,000 times a single Raspberry Pi Zero.

Mining, as it stands, is basically a lottery anyway, but people with more tickets (computing power) have a higher chance of winning. In addition, Magi has the built-in protection that as more tickets build to the next drawing (current network hash power), the reward for winning goes down. As such, it creates a communal incentive not to overload the network.

I'm not a Magi developer, but it seems to me like the basis of the coin was not that every miner gets an equal reward, but rather that everyone on the network needs to work together in order to make it worthwhile to be part of the network. As a result, there isn't much to do for someone (or some groups) who brings a lot of hash power to the network, other than to hope that they give up. Maybe that was a flaw in the design, but that is the design...unless I'm missing something.

I would also add that people are complaining about low block rewards, but forgetting how much value 1 XMG has gained over the years. Would you rather 40 XMG worth (for example) a total of $0.01, or .4 XMG worth a total of $0.60? Lower block rewards due to higher network hash values means reduced availability of 1 XMG, so the overall value per coin should go up (if people find value in such a coin).