Quote from: sublok on February 24, 2014, 07:32:16 AM

Quote from: awesomeperson451 on February 24, 2014, 07:12:53 AM

The problem, if I'm understanding this correctly, is that there isn't any known good way to figure out which blocks are anomalies or not without making the process predictable or easily exploited. I've got an idea for a new block reward equation that I think avoids being either one of those: Just take the original equation, Height % Difficulty, and replace height with the newly found hash of the block you are determining the reward of. This way, no one knows which blocks will be anomalies until after someone mines a block and it gets accepted by the network, and every client on the network will agree with each other since the network difficulty and the block hash in question are already agreed upon in the first place. And because the scrypt hashing algorithm has been proven to be completely unpredictable, there's no way to ensure that the next block you mine will pay out, and there's no way to exploit the system that is more efficient or profitable than just mining legitimately.

Code:

uint256 prevHash = 0;
if(pindex->pprev)
{
prevHash = pindex->pprev->GetBlockHash();
}

int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees, uint256 prevHash)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;

//check value out

Thats in essence what i was getting at with the prevHash

Aww... I was so excited that I had an idea, I forgot to read everyone else's suggestions. Also, I'm not good at reading C++ and I don't know enough about the existing CGA code to know exactly what the hell you're talking about, so can you tell me if your code is determining the reward before or after the block is hashed? Sorry if that's a stupid question, but that's the only possible problem I can see right now-- if the reward outcome of block 2 is based on the hash of block 1, it's just as easy to predict whether block 2 will pay out as it was before.