Quote from: styxical on July 23, 2014, 09:55:50 PM

Quote from: TheCoinFinder on July 23, 2014, 10:01:24 AM

Quote from: jk_14 on July 23, 2014, 07:32:52 AM

P.S. Any opinions are welcome (because I still don't see any drawbacks, except hard fork )

So are you saying growth of coins (ie bigger subsidy) or less coins (smaller subsidy)?

The first one wouldn't make sense- and the second one has already been heavily discussed.

The network hashrate currently does not affect the number of coins mined in a day. You are aware of this?

I think he is trying to propose a model for the coin reward to be based on hash rate, and that if the hash rate were large enough the reward could be above 28k/day, but if the hash rate is small, it could go below 28k/day. It would help to stabilize the price considerably. I kind of like the idea.

I think if something like this were put in we would need to reconsider the 84mil hard cap because it could be reached much more quickly if the network grew a lot.

Also if the reward were reduced too much for our current low network rate it could look like market manipulation to outsiders, so I think a delicate hand would be required.

yes, right

if all GPU miners over the world would start mine only Vertcoin - it would be only 40k /day, not more I suppose,

so 5 long years with incredible strong network 512GH/s (comparable only to bitcoin network strength), so it means - five long years with incredible level of adoption (every GPU miner mines Vertcoin only)

Fine, that you like it.

The key thing of my idea is: investing some money from price growth, when the network hashrate grows - into the network expansion. Some positive oriented feedback (science term). Negative oriented feedback always stabilise some parameter, positive oriented feedback always help to push parameter to the limit. With our setup we would help to push network hashrate to the limit.

delicate hand is necessary, of course you are right