Quote from: cocoakrispies on April 24, 2014, 11:23:15 AM

Yes, I see that sticking "close to BTC original curve" is the aim, and can make my own decision on whether or not which level of adhesion to that is desirable. I was wondering how to mathematically and graphically verify both claims . . and was looking for a way to measure.

For all I know right now, none of the emission comes close to anything BTC ever was . . so I've decided to construct a model of both emissions using my computer . . so that I may visually observe predicted emission%/time.

This is a very engaging discussion, you both make very valid points, and it's hard not to be torn in an instance like this. With TFT's claim that there was no mistake and yours that there is, I've no choice but to make graphs.

I posted a graph, but independent checks are good. For BaseReward, TFT did >>20 in BMR instead of the >>18 used in BCN (equivalent to division by 2^2), but then doubled the block time from 120s to 60s so the overall slowdown is 2^1. Unfortunately, that's 2^1 from a very fast emission schedule of BCN and nothing like BTC (as advertised in the OP). I'm surprised he's now denying this a bug. I don't mind hashrate-based vote, though, or an entirely different solution. However, an emission "close to BTC" should be implemented because that's what we all thought we were mining.

Quote from: knightcoin on April 24, 2014, 05:29:28 PM

Quote

I also notice that there was blocks generated 12 days ago (in daemon) but the coin is launched on 18th which is 6 days ago ?

wait what? Shocked

things started smelling bad ... how did you get that information ?

print_block in the daemon gives the timestamp of a block in Unix epoch time. I see block 1 being mined on 1397818193, which is April 18th 10:49:53 GMT exactly as advertised so I don't see how that's possible.