I received a response from Sunny King concerning the slow development of Peercoin v0.4. I believe he understands our frustration and wanted to assure us that things are progressing. If there’s anything I’ve learned about Sunny during my time supporting Peercoin, it’s that he’s a master strategist, always thinking long-term while planning his moves. It’s best to have patience with him. Anyway, he gave me permission to post his quote when I asked…
[quote=“Sunny King”]"Thanks for your comment. The release is a bit slow. This is because I am trying to work on other aspects of the long-term strategy as well, but be assured that I am committed to continue development/maintenance of both Peercoin/Primecoin. For example, I have turned down all invitations to other currency projects due to my commitment to these two projects.
Also, I am watching the political development closely as well, as this is very significant towards our strategy for the next couple years. As you probably already realized, the real battle is not this coin vs that coin, but libertarian vs statist.
Much appreciated to hear some signs of life. And as I posted on Reddit good to hear that he is not involved in other cryptocurrencies and focussed on Peercoin and Primecoin.
I’d have liked Sunny King being amongst the Peershare developers.
But I like it even better to see Sunny King focussing on Peercoin/Primecoin and getting assisted by the Peershare project due to its relation and chosen dependency to Peercoin!
[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:3, topic:2015”]I’d have liked Sunny King being amongst the Peershare developers.
But I like it even better to see Sunny King focussing on Peercoin/Primecoin and getting assisted by the Peershare project due to its relation and chosen dependency to Peercoin![/quote]
Actually, Jordan said Sunny is contributing to Peershares as an advisor on some architectural issues.
I know, but that’s not what I consider “being amongst the Peershare developers”
He may advise and consult them, but continues development of Peercoin and Primecoin (although Primecoin already has some developers).
I highly appreciate (not that it would be required^^) staying in contact with the Peershare development!
It’s unfortunate that Sunny King sees it as “libertarian vs statist”. I believe that whatever coin actually embraces the state and regulation will be the successful coin compared to Bitcoin. Any coin that embraces government regulation (but not control or price) will emerge as the futurecoin. And before you call me nuts, I point to Vault of Satoshi. By insisting on real identification and levels of verification, they work with the system not against it. Vault of Satoshi is now one of the most reputable crypto exchanges.
If you take politics and beliefs completely out of the equation what’s left is business. And business wants stable price, stable store of value and most importantly insurance and regulation. Small government aficionados will decry this and say regulation is awful for business, but without regulation whoever lies, cheats and steals the most wins. Taxes are what matters, not regulation. Without regulation the small man gets crushed by the corporate juggernauts. For example if there was no regulation and no laws whoever had the most money could hire the best hitmen to come and rob you.
I will be watching Peercoin very closely. I certainly don’t want it to become Ron Paul coin, not because I disagree with libertarians (I do) but because I don’t make business decisions or investment based on politics.
I can see your point, but I read a different intent in Sunny’s last post. If a cryptocurrency can be designed to resist being manipulated by any party, it will be stable enough for local regulations to be built on top of it in a predictable fashion.
Rather than artificially crippling a crypto to make it attractive to a nation state or multinational organization, the Peercoin protocol is being designed to exist long into the future, where the fundamental definition of what a “state” is may be different. A country may set rules in place (that differ from a neighbor) regarding how it’s citizens can interact with Peercoin, but Peercoin itself is neutral.
There’s no reason to worry about “crippling the coin”. If you did absolutely nothing then you would not be “crippling the coin”. If he’s talking about strategy then it’s more than technical issues but marketing and branding. Hopefully I’m wrong and he’s not contemplating making Peercoin “anti-government”.
Off topic, I believe the only way to make any coin unattractive to states or multinationals is to “tax” large wallets which in crypto would mean larger transaction fees the larger your wallet became. But I suspect that would be too similar to progressive taxation and an anathema to most of you and Sunny King himself far too “liberal” for people’s tastes. Maybe the ultimate store of value futurecoin will be a coin that allows chargebacks for 30 days. If it worked for real money it should work for crypto. Perhaps one day I will launch a “liberal coin” and test my theories.
I think as you, higher fees for the rich. First here is my comment about how to stabilize money supply if the coin becomes successfull:
[quote=“whifmoi, post:8, topic:516”][quote=“whifmoi, post:7, topic:516”]I also thought a little bit about the PoS money supply. I see a problem if this coin really gets used massively. Then we had little PoS generated coins, and a lot of destroyed fees.
If technically possible, the interest could rise the more, the less PoS minters are active.
[tt]100% active minters → 1% interest a year
50% active minters → 2% interest a year
20% active minters → 5% interest a year
10% active minters → 10% interest a year
…[/tt]
The only possible way this perhaps could be applied would be to distribute destroyed coinage to active minters.[/quote]
This idea is better than I thought first. Let the destroyed coinage of the processed transactions go to the PoS minter, who minted the block. This is a little bit like a lottery, because a PoS minter with a small pocket could mint a block for a large transaction, this getting large coinage incentive. For a large PoS minter this makes not much difference. This could lead to a much wider adoption of this coin.
Can any professional tell me, if this is technically possible?[/quote]
Now we could modify this the way that the own coinage is not added as reward, but subtracted. (or perhaps nullified)
But IMHO I do not believe in this world the elites will share parts of their wealth.
About the fee. I believe that the transaction fee should be inn relation to the cost of the transaction to the network in general, in stark contrast to the fee being in relation to the value of the coin transacted. In my mind its not a rich vs poor thing, it is rather that the system should be built so that the cost of its use, is what it cost to use. Ineffiecency should be penalized and efficiency promoted. Doing it any ither way, I believe the system will eventually die (because inefficiency never last in the long run). Morally sound or not, has nothing to do with it. Just my 2 satoshis.
Oh and will am at it. I inclined to agree with Sunny’s view on the political theater, as something that one must keep an eye on. Being interested in the history of money, I’ve learned that time and time again, the rulers of this world use money as a instrument of control. Handing over the power wielded by central bank, to a decentralized currency system doesn’t really fit into that picture. Who knows, I might be wrong but we know for a fact that US is performing open market interventions, they yield curve is being manipulated openly and tell now tell me why the price of bitcoins would be any different? Even some “bitcoiners” complain that the price of bitcoins is too volatile.
Now let’s go bananas and speculate wildly for a moment, posing one of those What if’s? What if the US regulators welcomes an entity such as the SecondMarket bitcoins exchange, because such an entity would fall totally within reach of the regulatory body. In such a system, bitcoins derivatives such as vouchers could be introduced into circulation and a stock pile of coins be held in storage, hidden away from circulation. Through the endless power of the printing press, new dollars could be printed to push up the price and given that the treasure trove of bitcoins is great enough perhaps even suppress it. What would have then, is the speculative price decoupling from the free market and much like people have been eyeing MtGox, people would look at the price fixes by the SecondMarket bitcoins exchange. Since the regulators have been informed that they can not control bitcoins per se, next best thing is perhaps to do what they do with gold.
Nothing really new under the sky here. Would it work? I don’t know. Will they do it? I don’t know. I’m only a mad man writing random garbage on the internets.
Still I think I understand some of the reasons why Sunny want to remain anonymous and is keeping an eye on the theater. I mean, who knows what they will come up with. I mean, if they fail to control the price of bitcoins they could actually just pay a visit to two or three of the major PoW pools, at gun point force them to accept some new Bitcoin protocol changes, hard fork it and do what they can to crush peoples belief in the “decentralized nature of the network”.
Yea like I said, just a random internet lunatic rambling. Nothing to see here, move on. :
EDIT: I guess I’m also putting across here, some of the reasons as to why I find proof-of-stake a most interesting mechanism to enforce the integrity of the system (though I got to admit that I do see some issues with exchanges holding a lot of those coins).
And we should also stop wasting network capacity by introducing some form of smart fee.[/quote]
The fee is not and should not be a cost factor of network efficiency. The fee is and should be large enough to inhibit spam and dust, but small enough to not inhibit legitimate use.
There’s no reason to worry about “crippling the coin”. If you did absolutely nothing then you would not be “crippling the coin”. If he’s talking about strategy then it’s more than technical issues but marketing and branding. Hopefully I’m wrong and he’s not contemplating making Peercoin “anti-government”.
Off topic, I believe the only way to make any coin unattractive to states or multinationals is to “tax” large wallets which in crypto would mean larger transaction fees the larger your wallet became. But I suspect that would be too similar to progressive taxation and an anathema to most of you and Sunny King himself far too “liberal” for people’s tastes. Maybe the ultimate store of value futurecoin will be a coin that allows chargebacks for 30 days. If it worked for real money it should work for crypto. Perhaps one day I will launch a “liberal coin” and test my theories.[/quote]
@bhldev I have read this your post repeatedly many times and I fail to be able to understand it. Rather than trying at substantial effort to parse each thought, I would like to freely admit that I have no monopoly on reasoning. No one does. That’s why we test our ideas on reality: to tell if we are thinking correctly, or not. So, this cryptocurrency innovation is a great way for us to put our ideas onto the anvil of reality: to tell if our ideas are good or not. Sunny has his ideas and you have yours. I suggest to you that you should actually do what you want to do:
Doing this will prove the rightness or wrongness of your thoughts.
I wish you well, and best to you.
And we should also stop wasting network capacity by introducing some form of smart fee.[/quote]
The fee is not and should not be a cost factor of network efficiency. The fee is and should be large enough to inhibit spam and dust, but small enough to not inhibit legitimate use.[/quote]
Why should the fee not be tied to the efficiency/cost? I’m willing to change my oppinion and learn if you don’t mind elaborating on a persuasive argument (or ref. to a good text about it).
