Wait, so you are complaining that they are halving the coin?
That as a result of the halving the rewards are going to be not enticing enough for miners to continue to mine?
What is going to happen then if the rewards aren't halved? Have you done the same mapping? Just curious..
I think he's stating the fact that the halving is too aggressive. I'd have to agree.
And it's a good question. Was any math done on the halving, or was it just arbitrary numbers that they came up with? The fact that we will be at 1 coin per block in two years.... how is that any different than mining out the coin within the next year or so, and a year later mining for the 0.1 in TX fees? The coin was scheduled to halve at 840k blocks, which would would leave 280k blocks left to mine with a 240POT reward. We were a long way out from either of those, but there is this sense of needing to "fix" it now and make radical changes. The propaganda-like fear of ASICs and the ignorant posting of Reddit comments like "just halve it already before it's too late" and "the coin will die if we don't halve it right now".
Instead of all this halving talk, there should have been talks about what different approaches would look like over time. A 5-10% reduction in rewards every 2-4 months would have been a more gradual approach. Hell, even extending the block time to 60 seconds instead of 40. In the long run, that's a lot of time added to mining. That's something to the tune of 200 extra days worth of block time over the next 870k-ish blocks.
The new halving schedule will make a 50% reduction every 2 months or so. The market shock alone every 2 months is going to drive people away. This coin is going to halve, and it's going to halve fast. Anyone that thinks the market, or the miners, are going to tolerate that kind of change is fooling themselves.
My 2 cents...
-Fuse
I won't deny the sarcasm with what i said, but i was also sincerely interested. Because yeah, the picture he was painting is the same picture as if the coin was not halved at all. I am not doubting that an over zealous halving can have the same negative impact that not halving the coin could have. Would be interested to see which one is more damaging.
One halving a year, the first halving more than a halving, perhaps a quartering? If the goal is to extend the rewards of mining to something palatable for the next few years, what is a sustainable rate? They can reduce the rewards to anything though, right? Everyone always refers to it as halving, but i think it needs a lot more than just that for the first round. There are plenty of coins out there right now, if people want them. I guess the bigger issue is will the miners still hang around. Logically speaking they are all still receiving the same proportional rewards relative to their mining power. As long as miner x isn't mining blocks at 420 reward while miner y only receives 105, why wouldn't they stick around. Same difference.
I see such an intense halving as a way to make people feel as though there is a squeeze for the coin, to put pressure on them to mine. They do the shot clocks on every infomercial these days, call now in the next 10 minutes! Do it once, give people a chance to mine a bit, do it again further down the road. I would rather see a huge cut up front and then nothing for a long while, like a year+.
I can't say i have read anywhere on what their exact plans for halving are. I am still optimistic that they are going to heavily consider alternatives though as the initial halving schedule was far too intense and nearly nullifies the whole ordeal of forking the coin to the begin with. If you only extend it by a couple months, why bother?
Does the amount of hash on the coin determine how fast it is mined out? Is the difficulty what is supposed to counter the hash to maintain the desired block timings? So it really shouldn't matter if there is 10 mh/s or 10000 mh/s. Am i over simplifying that in my mind or is that an okay way of looking at things?
