Quote from: Eastwind on July 22, 2014, 07:45:39 AM

Quote from: mazril on July 22, 2014, 07:12:39 AM

Quote from: DarkAGeS on July 22, 2014, 07:00:38 AM

Quote from: Logicoin.info on July 21, 2014, 09:48:11 PM

Considering quick & dirty subsidy fix while waiting for pulse:
When difficulty is under 50 then reward is 20
if difficulty is under 100 reward is 10
otherwise reward is 5

I am not sure about this change. You should implement it very carefully. Or may be you should not at all.
Now reward is 6.25 and have transparent schedule of changing.
You want to increase it 3 times at once (to 20), increase inflation 3 times - what is a point?
And if hashrate start to increase - reward will be halfed. This is incomprehensible for common miners.
Multipools don't care - they have automated algorithms. All coins are in the same boat regarding to multipools.
I think every stable coin shoud touch block reward and inflation changes only in special cases - we have not such situation.
Look at vertcoin - price has fallen 10 times, but devs don't hurry to change inflation in spite of bugholders weeping.

Logicoin.info please think carefully about this moment.

upd: at least don't implement this dirty fix while waiting for pulse.
Pulse is new technology and can attract new miners and investors, but dirty fix is just... dirty

Agreed

I agree with the above comments.

I do not agree with changing the block reward hastily.

We can make the 6.25 reward lasting longer than a month and wait for the new features. This will not devalue the existing LGC and will not reduce the difficulty too much.

There is no time to hard fork the chain to implement that if we want to give 2~3 weeks notice. So the new implementation can happen after 3.125 block reward.

I would suggest making the block reward 0.1 when the reward is supposed to be below .1 after halving. A little bit inflation is healthy to compensate the loss of coins and economy growth.

We need to find use for the coins, otherwise it has no value whatever we do to the coin itself. However, if we make the coins attractive, we may find use for the coins. It is cyclical.

This is the kind of feedback I'm looking for. I only mention changing subsidy as a temporary stop gap, once Pulse is fully implemented we will get a new subsidy to go along with it.

I've had pulse running in a private testnet for the better part of two weeks now and its all looking good but I have to respect obfuscode's wishes and wait till he comes back from HOPE before I can progress any further with implementing it for a public test.

I've been away from the scene for a little while and have recieved alot of pressure to go Proof of Stake. The question I'd like to put to you guys is that if going PoS meant a coin swap would you still be willing to look at that as an option? The coin swap could be handled in multiple ways to ensure everyone gets their coins but still its not at all my prefered option.