... it will always be the same story, a symetrical solution (diff rise and decrease) won't work it will keep reacting the same way over and over again, 12% 6% 2% 20% won't do anything other than, making the cycle longer (flatter) or shorter / per 36 blocks, in fact and in worst case scenario, due to a lower number the diff will just keep decreasing in a much longer periode of time (if in the 36 blocks we don't reach block target time that is)
I proposed a solution to force the diff to an equilibrium, which is to have whatever limiting function for diff increase SMA36 6% or 12% or whatever, but for diff decrease leave it without any limited, which means that each time profitability pools will leave the coin, on a block the next block diff will drop to the value it should be on this will force those pools to mine the coin again, and over time it will find an equilibrium.
You are right in stating that having a simple moving average is not a ideal way to reach equilibrium after spike hashrate changes. However, the problem currently is not symmetry -- the current solution is asymmetric at 12% up and 10.7% down. The problem is that the change is ALWAYS pressed to the limit (because of the initial cliff it fell off from 108+ to under 1). The difficulty spends little time in the narrow 24% band around 10 minute blocktime where there is usable feedback, and instead races through until it hits a harder stop near 1 or over 100 difficulty.
An EXTREMELY simple solution to this is to start to back the change away from the limit as blocktime approaches 10. This can be implemented by changing the current diff change factor from:
This is also wrong for several reasons and the fact that diff exceeded the initial 108 and by a huge margings proves that the algo is not solving this issue at all. Also I'll let you answer this on your own, what would be the difference if the initial diff was 50 instead of 108 or even 25 for that matter? What you need to take into consideration and I feel this is one of the model flaws is that profitability pools, don't switch after a SET block they keep mining as long as the coin is profitable so if the 36 average makes the increase of the diff slower (due to the lower average) they'll keep mining longer, intel they'll reach the same point of non profitability and leave and the same story with start over again. (You are bound to have a diff peak higher than 100+)
Also 10.7% down did I miss something? and this is even worse, it means that the diff takes longer to go down than to go up.
As for your graph with your poposed solution, I don't get how diff doesn't go below 50 it will never be the case with the current "loyal" hashrate unless you set a diff hard limite (which is a huge risk! and can kill the coin and it's not the case from your equation), let's just be clear the point of the 12% limite value, is to make the coin reach the profitability and orbits around it aka the profitabilty pools join the diff goes up progresively without peaking up and reaching the potentiel maximum value, profitabilty pools leave, and diff drops again till an equilibrium is found, but what I don't get is the 36 average value what does it do here this value for me not needed
KGW? Is a proven solution,so why do we need to invent the wheel all over again?, heck some don't want anything to do with the wheel, and we are going backwards, it's like using antic egyptians (Pharaoh era) techinics to move heavy stuff and trying stuff. we are better off taking the solution that works as a starting point and try to improve it and build on it (isn't this how we humains managed to advance this much)