Quote from: four3200 on April 20, 2019, 11:37:27 AM

"They don't get "charged" $1/day for holding $35k worth of UNO in any meaningful sense."

Yes HODLrs do get charged. Eventually the miners dump (to pay for their costs).
The statement is Always TRUE, the timeline is the bitch to predict.

I've seen projects defy the laws of emission gravity for years, but eventually it Always wins.

Note my bolding - even if correct the fact the timescale is highly unpredictable and makes a cost/day figure rather meaningless in my view.

I put $35k into UNO for a month - where should I send the $30?

Quote from: four3200 on April 20, 2019, 11:37:27 AM

UNO never held 'Hype' status, but it obeyed the laws of emission, it maintained a low cost POW schedule.

Go back to 2013 and see how it has slowly yet steadfast climbed past the competition, I maintain the reason is costs. The algorithm did not mint $10000s per day for the miners. So the SoV_property is directly correlated to the emission schedule.

I agree it is an important characteristic, however, I don't agree it is directly correlated or the sole factor ... I think you have to look much more broadly at the coin otherwise other low emission coins would also be performing similarly (RonPaul coin anyone?). It would be interesting to see data comparing a range of coins and their emissions schedule

Quote from: four3200 on April 20, 2019, 11:37:27 AM

Also important is that the UNO emission schedule is at perpetual or matured rate, it will not half ever again, and this makes for a much more predictable SCALE-ing up model, the other half and half again ALT experiments have not fared well, so BTC/LTC/etc may have a serious issue come 3 halvings out, whilst UNO captures the majority share of sha256 pool hash, simply because it has consistent rewards (forever) and new sha256 chains (like bch/bsv) fracture the total hash power into camps.

AuxPOW allows for a venn diagram of how the sha256 pool allocate their hash ... UNO is the shared over lap, central point of consensus.

Two bolded points:

Firstly it won't change again unless it is decided to change it again ... its already been changed once no reson to suppose it can't be changed again.

Secondly take a look at the charts on this page - https://chainz.cryptoid.info/uno/#!extraction - and tell me again that UNO captures the majority share - yes it has a lot of hash and whilst it changes a little bit - basically one or two entities totally control UNO mining. The orphans chart is also worrying ... there's quite a bit of chain re-organising going on.

Quote from: four3200 on April 20, 2019, 11:37:27 AM

Step 2.

Pegged coins are a bit of a scam. The bitcoin miners could easily start to utilize the AuxPOW windfalls as a kind of more honest preformance range "peg", since the underlining credit is governed by they who profit from receivership of the reward. This creates a situation where UNO, and all Auxsha256, in the distant future, maybe considered as a lending vehicle to the bitcoin miners.

So ... a LAW ... Eventually the miners must sell (to pay for their costs).
Couple with ... Investors buy with creditor mindset, hold until miners are flush with BTC (their product), to buy/pay back the loan.
^{*Notice that puts AuxPows inverse relation to btc/bch/dgb}

Auxsha256 coins will be a larger collective marker. But backed up by the btc/bch/ppc/dgb/bsv jurisdictions.

Don't really understand what you are saying here - what do you mean by "pegged coins"?

Overall I think merged mining is a bit of a mixed blessing, yes it means considerable hash can be aimed at a coin but I suspect it also means those who control that hash are rather indifferent to the merge mined coins.