No worries no need to quote me
A few more thoughts…so unless we are radically going to shift how we recomputed the concept of difficult and block time, which I don’t think is what we are after, the issue of the diffusely readjust algorithm, is at its core, an “information delay.”
If we look at Bitcoin it is no more than a “first order” information delay. That is to say it just looks at average speed over a time period and recomputes the new difficulty (and it has always been going up). It is a simple yet efficient algorithm that works under the assumption that no massive swings will ever affect the network. While I haven’t done an inept look at the exact parameters it seems that Bitcoin would be robust in change to between 25-33% increases over the timespan of a week; again that’s just a wag, a change ± in hash power on the bitcoin network would open it to manipulation of difficulty as seen in altcoins, my point is it is not immune, it is the economics that makes this form of re-targeting possible right now not the code.
When we look at other readjust algorithms such as gravity well (and its flavors dark etc) as well as digishield etc what those are effectively are multiple information delays that are tuned with the expectation of manipulation by miners. See http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/21730/how-does-the-kimoto-gravity-well-regulate-difficulty for more information. Still this is just a smoothing function with different time parameters. I have seen asymmetric readjust algorithms but I don’t think anyone has solved the question of how do you bring a new coin to market with the existence of large computational power.
Your difficulty retarget algorithm is an information delay that you have tuned as best you can to mitigate the expected behavior of miners. However, it is still a simple information delay, that performs a buffering action.
After giving this some thought over the last few hours I have constructed an argument that it is not in the best interest of a coin like Neos to use SHA 256. By analogy take an airplane, no matter how good an airplane you build, you cannot create an autopilot that can counteract the strongest possible wind. In this analogy imagine an airplane hit by a tornado, that’s what the power of sha 256 is equivalent to these days hitting your information delay/readjust algorithm. If your readjust algo is known and the coin profitable to mine then miners can exploit the readjust algo and dump coins; we can make a very sturdy airplane(very robust code) but eventually the overwhelming hash power will be the dominant factor.
The argument as I understand it is for a coin to gain adoption we want to use the major algorithms in play sha-256 and x11 etc. However, we get insta-minned and dumped if we use those algos…its a losing proposition. In the case of DGB with 3 “arcane” gpu only algos they are still losing 20% of their coins per day to SHA256 which forms in my mind an argument for dropping sha-256.
This is a similar problem we are seeing with x-11 but because there is less power in x11 no one stay on x11 to ever bring back down the difficulty. Which has made x11 effectively nonfunctional, leading us into this situation of flash-mine sha256 about 2 hours a day and then a large oscillatory wave on the Blake difficulty.
Effectively we likely need to drop any algo where 1 person (or small group of people) could take over; as they will dump coin value. At the very least to grow we want people to mine. Interestingly enough, my argument actually implies that to grow a coin you should start with “rare” algorithms, and then add in mainstream algorithms after the coin has gained adoption. This also implies a roadmap of hard-forks, which is scary to some people as hard fork requires major community support (and fear). Effectively, adding on more mainstream algos as the coin reaches maturity and can handle the system shock. The coins that seem to be doing the best are those where people mine just below profitability but stay in for maturation.
I will sleep on this problem and see if I can construct a more concrete argument, for now if you were to make a best algo list here are my thoughts.
Neos does not need to be in the business of algorithm improvement/generation etc but we must respect the role algos have in the coin, also picking algos that are actively being developed is probably a good idea too, no one is working on better saffron Blake miners.
Drop x11, SHA-256 and Blake. (if you have to keep one keep blake but it is a “hot algo” which pushes miners away and is not actively developed)
- A CPU only algo (there are several to choose from, also this was your plan at launch but there was an existing saffron Blake miner at launch)
- Neoscrypt; tying to this might have some positive publicity.
Bottom-line if I can buy hash for .05 BTC on nice hash rout it directly to hash harder and then dump those same coins on bittrex for .2 BTC the economy will be hurt.
I realize what I have just written effectively messes up all the pools in existence etc (but x11 is broken already). Where we are at right now, probably requires getting our ducks in a row figuring out exactly the role of mining in relation to NEOs and then doing a relaunch party with a long lead time. Likely this need to be pondered as well.
Sorry I didn’t see what algos you are considering and the logic behind each, is there another thread?
EDIT: this is respect to the core coin only not the multipool; its great to have as many algos as possible on the multipool, and puts up-pressure on the coin price.
Have a good day,