Also, climate change is simple fact, so fuck off with that shit. Can always depend on @Sentinelrv to bring his Nazi politics in here.
1 Like
By same logic any whale is possible security risk. Also effect of single huge output whale is nothing compared to split into optimal size holdings of 10th the size. Can you elaborate how you arrived at dead coins posing larger security risk than active coins?
I have a problem with understanding this narrative as well.
It sounds perfectly reasonable for someone to acquire 200k PPC and stash them for 20 years. Thatâs a perfectly sound use case. Why fight it?
Why is such a person presumed to be malicious by default?
P.S.
Every change to chain immutability is shitcoining 1:1. We may as well stop having a blockchain at that point because nobody would ever trust it again. We can play table tops instead.
I thought that the point of cryptocurrency is that it based on a immutable ledger and nobody can take your money from you.
2 Likes
The PoW reward is currently around 36.62 PPC which equates to 320,791 PPC a year which is ~1.09%.
People certainly wont get richer if the price is continuously suppressed, thatâs for sure. Why should new people want to buy in when they are being perpetually taxed by PoW?
Only for those who have access to ASICs and electricity that is cheap enough for it to be worthwhile.
OK, how long do you wish to suppress the price for and why should others want that?
Tone things down. Donât start make such accusatory posts. It is a fact that any UTXO can be spent by those with the required keys.
I donât get this. The active minters would always gain more than the overall PoS inflation. At most, it would be break-even if 100% of coins were minting. There is some small variation due to the stochastic nature, so Iâm talking about the mean average.
However, 1%/1% is reasonable. I just think that the removal of PoW would make an increase to 1.5%/1.5% a good alternative.
Yes, there is a security risk with active minters too which is why increasing the security level is my main concern. We know that the largest two addresses have substantial amounts of PPC so those do pose a special concern.
3 Likes
For the sake of argument, letâs split the question of how inflation impacts security into two components.
- Psychological. Someone who gains a reward feels a compulsion to spend it. This is partly why inflation can spiral, as people spend more and markets become over-liquid compared to their equilibrium point. Psychology of inflation is a big macroeconomic concern. People will hold less value in their minted coins as opposed to their original investment, and as the supply grows we may see some reversal in the security we get. I agree that this higher order term is only as strong as the overall inflation of the chain.
- The stochastic noise floor is real, and does impact chain security. It is hard to see now because the security parameter could so obviously use a boost. However, if we were to imagine a situation where a large number of minters were participating because the reward was so large, and we turned the reward up even more. The fluctuations would increase, causing the security floor to lower. Again, i agree this is a second order effect, and is not necessarily impacting the proposed numbers, which keep overall inflation below astronomical levels.
I am mostly pointing these risks out because i feel people arent doing due diligence to a plethora of issues related to hyperinflation. If there is an alternative plan to prevent hyperinflation than the 1% target, im all ears.
1 Like
Out of order.
5 Likes
I can see how miners desire to sell their rewards, though minters are more likely to hold to accumulate rewards. It seems you are speaking of both supply inflation and the price inflation here. If minters get a strong net reward, then they might be more willing to take profits and suppress the price as they could make a good return even if the price does not appreciate. However, the overall levels we are speaking of are still low and I donât see how replacing PoW inflation with PoS inflation would lead to a major price depreciation.
How would increased participation lead to more difficulty/security volatility at an overall network level? With more participants, I imagine that would make things more stable, as any individual minter makes up a smaller percentage of the total, so if they go offline, there would be less impact.
With the removal of PoW and the introduction of 1.5%/1.5%, the inflation level would still be less than today, so there should be no concern with that.
If we have a larger inflation, we can presume the price will decrease over time as the supply increases. The mechanism for this will be minters selling.
At some point, increasing rewards does not increase participation, that you previously agreed on. In that situation, increasing rewards will further increase volatility. This thought experiment is not a âlow participationâ to âhigh participationâ concept, this is keeping the articipation the same and increasing overall inflation. This increases statistical noise.
After we blow past 1%, what stops the next update from being 2%, or 3%, or whatever makes the current moment of minters happy?
1 Like
Why is bringing up politics not out of line but expressing my distaste in discussing politics in this thread is?
Stating âAlso, climate change is simple factâ is fine and is relevant to the topic given the lower energy consumption of PoS. The rest of the comment is not.
3 Likes
Shoot the messenger.
This thread is too political for me, i wont be commenting here anymore.
Sorry guys, I didnât mean to derail the thread. I was just trying to talk with pennycap about PoWâs effect on Peercoinâs efficiency/sustainability narrative. I was actually trying to argue in favor of making that narrative more consistent by dropping PoW, so we can market to the world about this topic more easily. Please ignore my comments and continue.
1 Like
I voted âYesâ because I am open to changing the parameters, especially when the inflation targets are still so reasonably low.
Controversial topic, though, could take years to sort out.
1 Like
Aside from other points, thereâs a perception issue, in that that early large inactive accounts might cause future investors to be jittery. The early inactive accounts have not been a problem so far, but Peercoin has been ignored by the crypto mainstream. As and when Peercoin starts making strides, that changes circumstances and so may awaken the owners of those accounts.
That awakening may not happen, and it may not be a problem if it does; but the fact that itâs in the future creates uncertainty in the present, and that can hamper the wider engagement Peercoin needs to break out. This is all hypothetical, but something to be taken into account.
while some paranoid people might get triggered by dormant large addresses, thatâs no different in any other coin. it really isnât a problem itâs hyped up to be for the holder of the coins.
what i was interested is in perceived security risk that was alluded to. I canât logically arrive to the same conclusion with regards to inactive coins, to me any large holdings should pose same security risk regardless of their last activity. what matters much more is how many outputs address has and how close the chunks are to optimum at large. coin mature fully at 90 days, after that it doesnât matter if itâs 91 days or 9091 days, probability of minting 100 peercoin output is roughly the same.
1 Like
The top two addresses have 6.17% and 6.07% of the coins respectively. This is much more concentrated than any actively minting addresses and they would pose a threat if they arenât lost. The concern is purely about concentration.
1 Like
Why would large holder of the coin act against it?
Doesnât matter. All that matters is they could.
If those coins are legally tainted in some way, it might be difficult to extract value from the coins anyway, so the holder might instead choose to run an attack. They might refuse to accept future forks. They might run probabilistic re-org attacks. They might even act against their own interests; we canât guarantee anyone is rational enough to exercise good behaviour.
Edit: If we assume a security level of 10%, the 6.17% address could gain up-to 38%. Assuming 26% blocks lost due to optimisation, it would be 31%.
Using 31% in this calculator: Bitcoin Confirmation Risk Calculator there is a 15.62% reorg risk at 6 confirmations. At 30 confirmations the risk is 0.03%, or the risk is 2.98% if they gain 38% minting share. Youâd need 73 confirmations to get the risk down to 0.03% at 38% share.
So we would need accept substantially higher confirmations to avoid risk of transaction reversal from the top address at the current security.
Hopefully people now understand the problem we are talking about.
1 Like
Whether it is Nagalimâs suggestion of 1%/1% or Matthewâs suggestion of 1.5%/1.5%, I think the target should fall somewhere within this range (and in my opinion, all PoS without PoW).
Let me ask this. Are we trying to track 1% simply because itâs in the whitepaper and part of the original design? Here is what Sunny said in the whitepaper about why he chose that numberâŚ
It seems to me the part that Sunny is stressing here is that Peercoin should be a low-inflation currency. Yes, he chose to launch with 1% because he had to pick a number, but I think the main focus here should be picking a rate that honors his stated objective of having low inflation.
We have made the argument in the past that 2-3% is acceptable because it simulates the annual growth in the supply of gold. Our total inflation is currently on target at 2.49%âŚ
Here are some other quotes of Sunny comparing Peercoin to goldâŚ
It seems to me that the 1.5%/1.5% option gets us closest to 2-3% inflation (excluding PoW). Does this argument make sense to anyone else? 2-3% is still considered low inflation I believe, and it would be closer to gold than the current 1% target.
This is what Google says about itâŚ
2 Likes