Oh, and if you want to talk, then defend your reasoning for your changes. So far (AFAIK) you have just been claiming SolidCoins is so much better than Bitcoins without any real evidence.
Why 32 coins instead of 50? Just to be different or is there a valid reason that 32 is better?
Why 2%, 6%, and 10%? Like someone suggested, you could have made a constant change to cap the difficulty increase at 10%. That would have accomplished nearly the same thing as your complicated change, which could potentially introduce bugs or security holes. What's the point of 2% and 6%, other than inflating the number of coins faster than it should? Does increasing difficulty by only 2% and 6% really do anything material? Have you run simulations to see what it does? Or is just because you felt like it was the right thing.
Why 3 minutes target for blocks? Have you done network analysis to show that 3 minutes is the optimal time? Or did you just choose it because it felt right and 10 minutes felt too long? Have you analyzed how susceptible 3 minute blocks are to blockchain forking or double spend attacks?
If you really want others to believe in the SolidCoin hype, these are the questions you need to answer.
It is probably that CoinHunter did't perform any simulations or insightful analysis on the parameters he just arbitrarily chosen. Until now I didn't get CoinHunter's response for the choose of 2%, 6% and 10%.
I would like to talk about the retargeting algorithm as a physical and mathematical model other than computer science and engineering, and the fact is that Bitcoin has done all of the computer science and engineering( With respect to the correlation of block generation time and double spending attacks, it is really a problem with computer science and engineering) . According to CoinHunter's parameters, I estimate hashrate will oscillate similar to a
sin(t) fuction, and at present I have no idea that in the long run whether it is convergent and stable under complex behavior of mining.
