If you wanted to be eco-friendly, why not Proof of Stake (PoS) or different algorithm like scryt-n, neoscrypt, or other ASIC-resistant algorithms? Kind of seems rigged at this point to have 1 LYNX mined when there was a hard fork from Kitteh where the mining reward scheme was completely different.
Who'd want to mine 1 LYNX at a time? Even if you mined all blocks in a day, 2880 blocks, even at $0.01 a LYNX, that's $28.80. The mining incentives are just all wrong and completely skewed towards someone who owned KittehCoins.
Who'd want to mine 1 LYNX at a time? Even if you mined all blocks in a day, 2880 blocks, even at $0.01 a LYNX, that's $28.80. The mining incentives are just all wrong and completely skewed towards someone who owned KittehCoins.
Sun, The objective was to take the economics of the mining for profit concept and turn it on it's head. No one that mines this coin will make money (at least with the current valuations on the street). If the miner is interested in mining for profit, lots of of other coins are great candidates for this. The competition for more hashing power begins and an economically inefficient project unfolds. Our concept is to make it so easy for holders and interested parties to participate in this coin, and at such a low cost, that the barrier to entry would be the lowest that we could find in this space. Instead of feeding a few pigs in a sty, we are feeding bees in a hive. This provides a far more stable platform to build upon. This is the concept at least. It is often forgot in this space that no relationship exists between mining hash power and the ability for the average block time to be met - as long as the hashing power is somewhere between zero and infinity. For a long term sustainable emerging coin concept like ours, our bet is to be closer to zero then infinity. -ben
I like this approach. Good luck to all
