YACoin HEAVILY favors miners. The issue now-a-days is that a lot of miners mine and dump (for bitcoin), not mine and hold. Why mine a coin and hold on to it when there are 10 other similar coins which could each be the most profitable at some point within a 24-hour period?

I agree that miners hold on to coins they believe will increase in value and most dump now, because few have long-term value (at least to the miners).  Miners though as a whole;  tend to upgrade equipment as is needed to stay ahead of others.  This is proven by the asics for BTC, LTC and GPU's this year being sold out at release.  Miners want the most Kh/s per watt that they run and for that to make a profit;  nothing more.  Beyond this initial precept is speculation and then assumes the miner is also an investor / speculator.  It seems odd that you can say Yacoin favors miners, when it penalizes any who have invested in top performance equipment.   The larger portion of miners represents this top performance area.



So you are predicting the future now? Based simply off of a price chart? Really? I assume you mean the value per coin compared to bitcoin, but I also assume you aren't intelligent enough to think beyond that understanding. I love how you throw "perpetually" in there btw.

I am in no way "predicting" anything and yes I connected Yacoin value to BTC as it is not traded for dollars that I know of.  If you could point me to a historical price chart for YAC / USD;  I could edit my previous link with that. 

 However, that specific statement was using the link directly above showing YAC price history.  I can reword this to: "-YAC's historical price chart shows a perpetual loss of value"


Ok now you are saying being ASIC resistant is a bad thing? But... I thought... Is this real life?

Again, not at all.  With all the hash power now around for Sha and now Scrypt;  all coins moving forward will need resistance to "current technology" to survive their starting, sure.  We can again compare this to history.  Once Asics came out;  any alt coin that was released with Sha only got raped.  Of course, we know too that's why Scrypt was developed (to prevent GPU that was overtaking BTC).  Now, look at today.  LTC is getting asics and can anyone argue legitimately that it is bad?   Similarly, moving forward;  certain Asic-resistant algo's of today WILL be mineable by asics or other not seen device.  Logic would dictate, that in a few years time;  some algorithm will take a 3rd place in crypto and will have asics (or the like). 

So, I'm pro-asic for established coins as it's necessary (I have no asics myself) AND I'm pro asic-resistance for any new coin;  however as I simply stated "why run N factors for devices that won't be efficiently mineable for such a long period in the future".    The next future algo to get asics (if it survives) is probably X11 or Adaptive N.  Most probably there will be other algorithms developed in the future too.  My issue then; is that the masses will move to the next easiest adaptable algo (Adaptive N) next, not the most difficult.   


What how?

Simple, More difficulty (hashrate) means more security regardless of algo type.   Less total difficulty (hashrate) means less security.  Security risk is proportional to value, as value increases so must security;  security is hashrate / difficulty.

Look, even you can understand this simple anecdote:

John invests thousands in GPU mining rigs. ASICs come along and make his GPU farm not worth it to mine that coin. John then thinks to himself, "Hmmmm someone should make a NEW coin that makes my rigs profitable again!"

or "Gee, those asics will run so much faster and cost me a ton less to run;  why don't I buy an asic to keep up"
or "I will just keep mining what I can with my equipment until I can't mine anymore;  I can sell my equip and get some money back when I'm done"
or "since there's so many other coins out there, maybe I will try to mine one of those for a bit"
or "I've gotten a good return on the equipment that I bought and am not prepared to invest more, as I cannot afford to lose it; so, I'm done mining."

If you look at the first rush of alt coins 3 years ago, sure a few people had your given idea;  most failed.  Again, last year another flood and yet again this year.  Some people do think about making a coin, though the majority will choose one of the other options I provided.

Loyalty tends to be with the rig and not the coin. It is called laziness--among other descriptors. It is not "we need a coin for the little guy!"

Loyalty stays with the rig because that's what money was put into.  Making sure your rig is on a profitable coin today is not laziness but ensuring a return on investment.  If you put 30,000 into a rig are you going to just mine something you "think" may someday eventually repay your investment?

NFactor changes have that effect. Your mining rig at N=11 will not be the most profitable rig at N=15. You can either:

A) Invest in the long-term viability of the coin. Maybe sell your cards and use that money to buy the most profitable gpus.
B) Create another coin that favors your already established rig setup
C) Change the rules in the middle of the game that favors your already established rig setup
D) Adjust parameters of the coin as is needed for both long-term growth / security and attract of miners looking to pay off their rigs. 

UTC has chosen C unfortunately.

UTC hash chosen D fortunately.  Do you know LTC was going to adjust parameters when needed for future technology? LTC did not, because it's now large enough to require this new technology; however would LTC have been wrong?

-snip-