Quote from: strelok369 on January 07, 2014, 09:46:33 PM

Guys, (only watch topic a little, but not read, difficult exams) i think you are go
around POS(proof of stake), when mining more simple on wallets(addresses),
which have more coins (i can mistake, but something like this). It have positive side "mine to keep",
but a negative too "mine to keep to mine to keep" or simply currency turns into "bag of gold" for dark
day and don't circulate (no reason to spend money). It's a mechanism, which known for some time.

I'm understand, that your mechanism is different, but it's realy hard to differ "loyal" miner from jumper.
The hashing is like roulete the target diff hash can be found on first millisecond or after hundreds of
years of calculations the question of probability. The output of hasing function (if we will give it any
input sequence(exept inverse hash function, existence simple form of which is question of crypo resistance))
made to be most alike random seqence with uniform law of distribution of probability to prevent
"attack of days of births"(it's code theory slang, so i can mistake with translation).

So(for clear crypto currency theory we need to examine only cases with solo mining)
If miner is "loyal" it's not prevent him from not founding a single block (try to solo mine BTC on cpu now,
my lost 100BTC Sad

) before diff recalc. With pools simplier, but it's a question in relative "loyal"/"jumping" pools
hashrate and scale of network. What the source diff recalc purpose in synthetic model(every agent
have the same hashrate)? Exactly: for network scalability.

Hi Strelok369,

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Yes, in a sense you are right, that if everyone just mined and kept coins, the coins may become of little use, because nobody would be buying or selling them. This is not what I would consider an ideal situation either. But what I am proposing is that the artificial boost in the number of people engaged in mining and immediately dumping, due to a flaw in the difficulty reward mechanism, is actually causing an excessive number of people to mine coins purely for the reason of dumping it immediately on the market and by eliminating the ill effects of this flaw, we can reduce (but not eliminate) people mining and putting coins on the market. This would diminish the supply somewhat, of the coins entering the Exchanges, and reduce the downward constant pressure on coin prices (relative to Bitcoins and Litecoins, both of which people tend to hang onto more), which could allow the coin to join Bitcoins and Litecoins, in accumulating value without this dumping negative price pressure.

Incidentally, I also noticed Litecoins are starting to climb higher on some profitability charts - I predict Litecoin itself will not be immune to the negative effects of wild difficulty jumps, there are quite a few gigahashes out there that are roaming the lands looking for easy difficulty levels, and once LTC is affected, it will either cause LTC to go down in value due to dumping on market activities (joining other altcoins in having this problem), or LTC will implement a loyalty reward type mechanism, to maintain its value. It would be kind of ironic if after proposing the mechanism here in the Catcoin thread, if LTC were to be the first to implement the mechanism. But they may have to, to avoid getting sucked into the wild difficulty swings, which could occur if LTC stays near the top of the profitability charts for any significant duration.

For everyone reading this - I had some thoughts today as to how Catcoins can start benefiting from the logic of loyalty credits, leading to more modest difficult level changes over time, even before implementing any coding changes in the coin itself - by having one or more pools implement some simple logic/policy changes - to reward loyal miners at the expense of opportunistic ones. I will post more on this a bit later.

Etblvu1