Nor do I. Isn't this what I said
Are we even following/programming the sigmoid curve? I don't see in any suggested code in the RFC for safecoin to show that. Maybe as a consequence of what analysis I gave above about diminishing returns it will follow the curve in the whitepaper. I suspect it will follow a different sigmoid curve with one parameter for the small and another parameter set for the large. In other words the reasons the lower end tappers off is different to the resons the upper end tappers off.
I only see that if they act together. If a few (<10% say) decide to try this then it will have in my opinion minimal effect. Partly because people simply will not have really large vaults and it becomes a case of the tiny vault can only reduce till it hit the "resource/performance" proof that node-aging or whatever demands of nodes/vaults.
Its more a case that people will have small vaults if they can have multiple vaults/nodes on their internet links. As far as I can see for the majority the internet link will determine the number of nodes/vaults they can have and the resources the person has will then determine the size of the vaults they can have.
In effect the possibility for people to manipulate with "tiny" vaults will be minimal and only really available t those with the resources and link speeds (ie those on Gbits/s links and plenty of h/w) An I don't see those being able to manipulate the "curve" by a significant amount. Thus is it worth it to them to "waste" resources trying to and not just maximise their vaults.
I would expect that once we can obtain stats from the nodes/vaults (as promised) we will have APPs that can tell how well the vaults are performing and be able to suggest new sizing parameters to help maximise the coin earning.
Please when I see the term "tiny vault" I take that as grossly under the average, like 1/100 to 1/10000th the size. Maybe a few chunks worth up to a GB