This interview by CoinDesk took place on July 14th, 2016 in preparation for an article. We’ve also included a pre-meeting we had in order to prepare before the actual interview started.
[size=5]Pre-Meeting Before CoinDesk Interview[/size]
Sunny King: hi guys 
hrobeers: Nice to be with you in a chat room 
Saeveritt: Hey Sunny
hrobeers: So how is this meeting organised?
Sunny King: Sentinelrv thanks for organizing
Sunny King: Sentinelrv what’s agenda today?
saeveritt: So do we know if Jacob has a specific set of questions or will it be a more of an open interview?
Sentinelrv: Before we start…
Sentinelrv: I was talking over with everybody here and we believe that it might be best to hold regular chats with you like this from now on. Would you be open to that?
Sentinelrv: Eveyone here consists of the most knowledgeable and active members of Peercointalk, so it would be great to regularly discuss the future of the network.
Sunny King: sure absolutely
peerchemist: I will take over for a minute
peerchemist: so agenda here is to prepare Sunny for the new “official story” about Peercoin, so he could relay it to the interviewer
Sunny King: okay
Sunny King: I am all ears now
peerchemist: so Sunny it is imperative that you now take the chance to mention why has PPC kept PoW - and what PoW means for us
peerchemist: PoW is our market maker, just like it is for Litecoin and others
peerchemist: it is VERY important to us
peerchemist: and now changes in Btc are reflecting on our supply, so it is important to explain why and how
saeveritt: It seems that Jacob, the interviewer, approached the community looking to write a story focuing on the after affects of the BTC halving. Since it was mainly a non-event for most crypto Peercoin has the opportunity to show its market adaptability in comparison to others.
peerchemist: saveritt, please link that graph to sunny
saeveritt: Emphasizing the importance of letting the market decide when to reduce supply rather than waiting an arbitrary X amount of blocks for reward reduction is something we should highlight.
peerchemist: https://plot.ly/~embeddedthought/49.embed
peerchemist: here it is
saeveritt: Ok you got it already, thanks.
peerchemist: Sunny, do you see it?
Sunny King: yes
peerchemist: do you see how “leftovers” from Btc mining will reduce our supply
peerchemist: and bring us closer to true PoS
peerchemist: PPC PoW is “pegged” to Bitcoin mining industry, as that industry bring more and more potent miner gear - stronger will Peercoin be
saeveritt: Yes. As long as BTC building the sha-256 mining infrastructure, PPC will continue to climb in difficulty and reduce supply. Since the BTC halving we’ve seen a coinbase reward drop of ~18%
Sunny King: who made the graph?
hrobeers: Important to note is that it lowers the maintenance cost of the network.
saeveritt: I made the graph. It uses simple curve fittting projections and I
peerchemist: this could theoretically make Peercoin take over the mining industry from Bitcoin sometime in the future. One could also say that Peercoin “leaches of” a part of Bitcoin wealth each Bitcoin halving
Sunny King: nice
Sunny King: peerchemist, this you got it
Sunny King: but only if peercoin becomes competitive vs bitcoin
peerchemist: and thanks to PoS, we dont depend on miners for anything but distribution. We have “outsourced” distribution - but not the security
Sentinelrv: Sunny, was it your intention for it to happen this way ever since you created Peercoin?
Sunny King: it’s also one of the reasons merge mining is not considered
hrobeers: correct
Sunny King: I dont say this much but be a small chance that ppc may pass btc in mining power
Sunny King: merge mining would not allow this to happen
peerchemist: yup
peerchemist: merge mining would be an “exit pump” for big holders
peerchemist: coin would die shortly after
saeveritt: True and it would only have temporary benefit of increased difficulty and decreased new supply to market. Would not be optimal in the longterm as new supply to market helps harden rising price floor
hrobeers: A nice extra of PoS is that it simplifies blockchain innovations. As everyone (holding ppc) has power to mint blocks, experimentation with non-standard transactions is easier.
saeveritt: Has anyone noticed that when there is a local peak in PPC PoW minted per day that the subsequent following days result in a price increase?
peerchemist: I dont follow PPC market that closely, you are probably only trader who is deep into PPC I know
peerchemist: so do we make fun of Etherum now?
Sunny King: whats wrong with ethereum?
peerchemist: just this clusterfuck with hard fork
saeveritt: Have you seen Ethereum Classic is trading now?
peerchemist: a part of community decided to keep the old chain
peerchemist: now they are 51% PoW attacking each other, that is trying
peerchemist: it is really really messy
hrobeers: hahaa
peerchemist: greed really deforms people, makes them monsters
hrobeers: that’s what I see popping around on twitter
peerchemist: manipulators on Poloniex are having one big party
Sunny King: I thought vitalik is in full control?
hrobeers: where is vitalik? classic or hardfork?
peerchemist: hardfork naturally
peerchemist: with the greedy ones, the “investors”
hrobeers:
peerchemist: Sunny I told you Ethereum is going the wrong way last time we spoke, and there it is now
Sunny King: remind me why you think it’s on the wrong way?
peerchemist: private interest over the what is right and what is wrong
Sunny King: isn’t this occurrence due to complexity alone?
Sunny King: oh
peerchemist: immutability of the blockchain is what makes it so special
peerchemist: they have disregarded that
peerchemist: so why do they have blockchain? to sell tokens it seems
peerchemist: it will resolve itself eventually, those with principles will lose as they have less money
saeveritt: I agree that the hardfork shouldn’t have been forced the way it was. They had a deadline to do it by in order to prevent the DAO hacker from being able to withdrawl ETH from the contract. It was rushed and not everyone supported bailing out the DAO in this way
Sunny King: so why are ppl stay with classic?
hrobeers: yep, history is controlled by a select group. Exactly why some people don’t like the checkpoints, however it seems like checkpoints are irrelevant, people didn’t expect that.
peerchemist: because classic is saying “we will not alter history - ever”
peerchemist: this is what I was warning a few times, that time will come when people will seek public and free blockchain - free from minority influence by big money
peerchemist: Peercoin is damn good position to be exactly that chain
Sunny King: probably tougher than that
Sunny King: PoS can be bought as well
peerchemist: that is why we have continual PoW
hrobeers: good point
hrobeers: but in the end, everything can be bought
Sunny King: i see your points though, it would be ideal to not allow capital to gain too much control over protocol
hrobeers: That’s indeed a good position to take these days.
Sentinelrv: We’ve got almost 20 minutes left before it’s supposed to start. Was there anymore interview preparation that we needed to go through? Or would you like to continue on the current path of discussion?
hrobeers: Let’s try to sum up some of the conclusions already
saeveritt: Yeah, I see most 100% PoS coins with IPO’s as something currently hyped. In the long-term continual distribution through PoW will show to harden the network in terms of decentralization and network security
saeveritt: I wish we knew if Jacob has a specific agenda for the interview or if it’s more of an open discussion
hrobeers: 1) Peercoin benefits from bitcoin’s halving by the increased PoW hashrate, reducing ppc’s operational cost by having a dynamic coinbase reward.
hrobeers: 2) PoW/PoS hybrid decentralizes the network as much as possible. Buying the network (ref. Ethereum) becomes extremely expensive and complicated.
Sentinelrv: hrobeers, what is your definition of operational cost in #1?
hrobeers: network cost
hrobeers: ~= PoW/PoS coinbase reward
hrobeers: outflux of value
Sunny King: it’s not really cost, but a way to distribute the coins
hrobeers: it is a cost
hrobeers: when used to pay for mining equipment
hrobeers: that cost is covered by the entire network
Sunny King: ok i guess you can say that, what i mean is it is not used for security of network
hrobeers: oh but that doesn’t matter
Sunny King: right
hrobeers: it’s a cost covered by the network, someone pays that
hrobeers: our inflation decreases when hashing power rises, which means that our operational cost is going down.
hrobeers: this way we can maintain a healthy network without a huge influx of money
hrobeers: like is needed for bitcoin, ethereum and alike
hrobeers: it is not equal to the coinbase rewards but it scales with them
saeveritt: in terms of operational costs shouldn’t only pos be considered since pow isn’t vital to operational security. If we were to compare with bitcoin and ethereum it would be the physical PoW infrastructure vs. virtual mining in PoS
hrobeers: 3) The decentralization makes it possible for everyone to mint a block from time to time. This simplifies experimentation with non-standard txns on the network. This helps innovation.
hrobeers: no PoW is also part of operational cost, as it forces miners to sell ppc to buy mining resources. This is a cost by pushing the coins value down.
Sentinelrv: Jacob said he’s currently talking to his editor and then he’ll be on.
saeveritt: Also there is consistent incentive to secure the network in terms of the ~1% minting reward. There are other PoS networks that rely on fee structure as incentive. With NXT, almost all transaction are done off chain and on exchanges so incentive to secure the network is dependent on fee volume. It’s not reliable and that’s why they need Ardor.
hrobeers: good point
hrobeers: I make it conclusion 4
saeveritt: increase on chain transactions to provide incentive to secure network other than protecting investment. Seems like supply stagnation sets when coins are being recylced between the major holders
hrobeers: these are the conclusions so far, you guys agree? Anything missing?
hrobeers: 1) Peercoin benefits from bitcoin’s halving by the increased PoW hashrate, reducing ppc’s operational cost by having a dynamic coinbase reward.
hrobeers: 2) PoW/PoS hybrid decentralizes the network as much as possible. Buying the network (ref. Ethereum) becomes extremely expensive and complicated.
hrobeers: 3) The decentralization makes it possible for everyone to mint a block from time to time. This simplifies experimentation with non-standard t
hrobeers: 4) There is consistent incentive to secure the network in terms of the ~1% minting reward. There are other PoS networks that rely on fee structure as incentive. With NXT, almost all transaction are done off chain and on exchanges so incentive to secure the network is dependent on fee volume. It’s not reliable and that’s why they need Ardor.
saeveritt: Just to be specific, make sure to make point "1)’ say difficulty rather than hashrate
hrobeers: ok
saeveritt: Perhaps let him view this too ? https://plot.ly/~embeddedthought/49.embed
peerchemist: he should see that yes
hrobeers: I’ll add it to my list
saeveritt:
Sunny King: maybe one of you guys should present the mining aspect
hrobeers: I’ll make a gist of it
Sunny King: the mining rate curve was designed with moore’s law in mind
peerchemist: now mention that if asked
Sunny King: but if price rises, the effect is similar
[size=5]CoinDesk Interview[/size]
JayCoDon: Hey everyone - Jacob from CoinDesk here.
Sunny King: Hi Jacob
Sunny King: Welcome
saeveritt: Hey Jacob
JayCoDon: How are things?
Sentinelrv: Hey
Sunny King: Good we were just having fun here
JayCoDon: You guys meet in here often?
Sunny King: it’s our meeting channel
Sunny King: yeah sometimes
Sentinelrv: Jacob, I know the meeting is with Sunny, but do you mind if others respond to questions as well. Everyone has a lot of knowledge about Peercoin here.
JayCoDon: That’s fine. I’ll just need to know who they are and what their role with Peercoin is.
hrobeers: Ok, we’ll introduce ourselves first?
Sentinelrv: Go ahead.
JayCoDon: Sure.
Sentinelrv: I’m pretty much the community manager and operate our social media channels. Others here have a lot more knowledge on the mining aspects than I do, which is why I brought them into this.
hrobeers: I’m hrobeers a developer that recently discovered peercoin. I’ve been helping peerchemist with his PeerAsset project and am developing a modular thin client wallet called PeerKeeper for an integrated experience: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4583.0
hrobeers: I made some small contributions to the official ppcoin client developed by Sunny
hrobeers: https://github.com/hrobeers/ & https://twitter.com/hrobeers
peerchemist: I am Peerchemist, a developer of Peerbox. Inventor of PeerAssets and pretty much an all rounder when it comes internal stuff like help with marketing, educating newbies (like hrobeers) and theoretizing about blockchain and crypto in general
Sunny King: hrobeers being modest, the peerkeeper is like a new generation wallet for peercoin
JayCoDon: Likely very necessary for user adoption
peerchemist: yep, PeerKeeper is the fanciest take on wallet tech since Electrum
hrobeers: thanks guys
hrobeers: Important to mention is that peerchemists Peerbox, is a full node meant for Raspberry Pi’s, is crucial for the unmatched decentralization that ppc has.
hrobeers: Running a full node that mints (PoS mining) is a very simple process for any peercoin supporter thanks to Peerbox.
JayCoDon: Alright, so to confirm: Sentinelrv is community manager, hrobeers is a developer that has made a next gen wallet for peercoin; peerchemist is a dev that created Peerbox, PeerAssets, and does some community and marketing. And sunnyking is the creator of peercoin. That sound about right?
saeveritt: JayConDon, I’ve been in contact with you before using the name embeddedthought. My role has been focused towards conducting analysis of Peercoin’s underlying economic model and providing insight for long-term projections.
Sentinelrv: I like to pass this meme around in regards to Peerbox.
Sentinelrv: http://i.imgur.com/LSeqOaX.png
peerchemist: oh and I also package binaries for Ubuntu/ArchLinux and other Linux distros. I could use some interest in that filed (users)
hrobeers: @JayCoDon, I guess it’s close enough
JayCoDon: @saeveritt Ahh, you’re the guy who kept reminding me that there were posts on my thread. Thanks, mate!
saeveritt: JayCoDon, Anytime
Sentinelrv: Saeveritt is also creating Peercoin Wisdom here: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4471.0
JayCoDon: Very cool.
saeveritt: Thanks Sentinelrv for grabbing the link.
Sentinelrv: PeerAssets link is here: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4566.0
Sentinelrv: And Peerbox: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2932.0
JayCoDon: Alright, so let’s start from the top. From a mining perspective, after Bitcoin’s halving, the hashrate spiked quite significantly, from ~500TH to over 3.5PH. That has since dropped back down. My understanding on the distribution of new peercoin is that it is based entirely on difficulty. 1. Am I right about that? 2. Can you (anyone) talk to how the hashrate fluctuates in comparison to what the difficulty is? Do you see big ri
Sunny King: yes it’s based on proof-of-work difficulty
saeveritt: To give you a visual representation of how BTC’s halving affected PPC’s coinbase reward I’ve prepared this graph. https://plot.ly/~embeddedthought/49.embed
JayCoDon: But with bitcoin, the reward is constant. Is peercoin’s dynamic?
Sunny King: we talk about proof-of-work difficulty here as there is another proof-of-stake difficulty in peercoin
Sunny King: the difficulty adjusts gradually every block, to make the average 10-minute block interval
JayCoDon: The PoW doesn’t actually do anything to secure the network, right? That’s the PoS aspect?
peerchemist: PoW is distributing coins
peerchemist: proof of fiat burn
peerchemist: PoS is for security
Sunny King: in the case of the havling event of bitcoin, our difficulty adjusted upward, but slower than the spike of mining power of course
JayCoDon: I have heard complaints about PoS not being as secure of PoW. You’ve staked your currency’s security on that. Why are the concerns about PoS being not secure unfounded?
peerchemist: Peercoin has proven that PoS can secure the network, it is around for almost 4 years
Sunny King: I think both systems have uncertainties, proof-of-stake is a more complex technology, we think it’s competitive to PoW security wise
hrobeers: If a fair distribution mechanism is used (PoW) the network is more decentralized. We don’t have all our chain securing power localized in some regions with cheap electricity.
JayCoDon: So by using a PoS mechanism, electricity isn’t an issue, thus allowing for more decentralization?
peerchemist: exactly
saeveritt: To answer your question on the dynamic reward: Rather than waiting an arbitrary X amount of blocks for reward reduction, peercoin’s coinbase reward is inversely related to difficulty. This lets the market decide when to reduce supply and it will naturally decouple Peercoin from other competition that is not as adaptable.
JayCoDon: To follow up on that saeveritt, there can be different amounts of coin created each day, but on the average spread out across days/weeks/months, it’s about the same?
hrobeers: Don’t forget that it is key to distribute the coins fairly, a large IPO where the developers hold a large portion of the Stake is a security risk.
JayCoDon: Oh, I completely agree with that @hrobeers
hrobeers: That’s where we use PoW for, just like bitcoin.
hrobeers: The amount of coins created is largely dependant on the PoW difficulty
JayCoDon: As difficulty goes up, reward goes down; vice versa?
hrobeers: correct
JayCoDon: So pre-bitcoin halving, miners were earning more coins than post-halving?
Sunny King: that’s right
saeveritt: JayCoDon, Yes there can be different amounts created each day. The spread out is about the same in terms of weeks but the average for a given period continually declines as time progresses due to increasing difficulty.
JayCoDon: So is there a pre-determined maximum?
hrobeers: I’ll give sunny more chance to answer here, as it is his interview.
JayCoDon: You’re all welcome to participate. I’ve got some good questions for Sunny later on.
Sunny King: yeah don’t worry it’s our interview
Sunny King: there is a preset maximum for the minimum difficulty of 1
JayCoDon: And final question about mining before we move on: Is there a maximum number of Peercoin that will ever be released or, if mining gets to difficulty of 1, will it just be the 1% PoS reward?
JayCoDon: So no true maximum, but a tightly controlled inflation rate that people can verify
hrobeers: correct
hrobeers: the transaction fees are burned
hrobeers: so we can even get deflation
JayCoDon: So 1% growth, but all fees are burned, which should counteract that 1% growth.
JayCoDon: That’s interesting.
saeveritt: Eventually the rewards from PoW mining will converge towards 0. After this all that will be left is the ~1% annual inflation. There is a 0.01 ppc/kb fee for every transaction that is destroyed that helps counter the inflation
JayCoDon: Very cool. Alright, I understand those mechanics now.
JayCoDon: Next question: Why peercoin over another cryptocurrency, primarily bitcoin?
peerchemist: but lets be fair and say that mining will probably never stop, diff will always be above 0
hrobeers: so you pay per use of the network, but you don’t pay the miner, you pay the network.
hrobeers: (0.01ppc/kb)
hrobeers: mining will never stop indeed
peerchemist: Peercoin was my first crypto, as it seemed fair (unline Bitcoin). Simple answer here.
peerchemist: *unlike Bitcoin
JayCoDon: What makes bitcoin unfair?
Sentinelrv: NXT for example uses PoS, but their security model is determined by gaining fees. That becomes a problem when the majority of transactions are on exchanges where no transaction fees are paid. Peercoin has a more consistent security model in that it does not rely of fees. They are instead destroyed.
peerchemist: that is how it seemed to me back then in early 2014. It was just felt too centralized, as in big miners rule everything
peerchemist: now I know far more, but that was my inspiration on why to enter PPC instead of any other crypto
JayCoDon: What problem does peercoin solve that a different cryptocurrency couldn’t?
peerchemist: decentralization of the control over the network
saeveritt: JayCoDon, To add to Sentinelrv’s comparison to the other widely known PoS, NXT. For PPC there remains consistent incentive to secure the network in terms of the ~1% minting reward. The NXT networks relies on its fee structure as incentive. With NXT, almost all transaction are done off chain and on exchanges so incentive to secure the network is dependent on fee volume. It’s not reliable and that’s why they need Ardor.
Sunny King: Actually peercoin solves several big problems
peerchemist: please continue Sunny
hrobeers: My reason for peercoin is that there isn’t a large outflux of money due to mining. The mining cost is covered by the entire network after all.
hrobeers: yeah continue
Sunny King: One is that energy is not required to achieve decentralization
Sunny King: Other is that it opens up the whole blockchain ecosystem, in that now ppl don’t need mining power to jump start new blockchains
Sunny King: so in my opinion PoS is a huge step forward for blockchain tech
JayCoDon: From a participation perspective, what does the average person who may not even care about mining gain? What problems are solved from that perspective?
hrobeers: Let’s say we want to use the network to distribute computing power. PoW would compete with the usefull work for resources, which pumps up the price of the usefull work.
hrobeers: a bit like how biofuel competes with food production.
Sunny King: It enables new applications to use its own blockchain much more cost effectively. For example, there is a peershare project in our community that enables any DAO to run it’s own blockchain
Sentinelrv: Yes Sunny, energy is used to distribute new currency fairly, however it is not required in order to secure the network, since PoS takes care of that by itself.
JayCoDon: Is peercoin’s single most important feature its PoS mechanism?
hrobeers: it’s economics are as important
JayCoDon: Please elaborate.
peerchemist: more important than PoS
peerchemist: Peercoin inovated far more about “mining” actually
peerchemist: Sunny please elaborate on how was mining reward algo chosen
peerchemist: moore law and all
Sunny King: Yeah the mining rate and curve is designed more natually than bitcoin’s, but I would agree that proof-of-stake is the single most important contribution to blockchain tech in general
hrobeers: can you explain the parallel with moore’s law?
Sunny King: basically like saveritt said earlier,
Sunny King: mining rate is inversely realted to difficulty
Sunny King: so if assuming Moore’s law, then the mining rate would continue to drop geometrically
Sunny King: In short, Moore’s Law would ensure the PoW inflation to be similar to bitcoin’s
JayCoDon: As reward drops, PoW drops as well?
Sunny King: No it’s inversely related, difficulty goes up, reward drops
hrobeers: but the same hashrate get’s cheaper over time
JayCoDon: I meant for bitcoin’s
peerchemist: what hrobeers said + due to moore’s law
JayCoDon: Ahh, okay.
saeveritt: If we focus on what a store of value represents we must think long term about how different economic models will compete with one another. When a cryptocurrency that has a responsive economic model is in direct competition with one that is more rigid and pre-defined, the market will discover use case. We are just now seeing that PPC’s current inflation rate is already lower than btc’s, ltc’s, and nmc’s will be by 2020. Dyna
Sunny King: for bitcoin it’s a different matter though, that’s due to a lot of miners becoming unprofitable
JayCoDon: Hence why they moved over to peercoin to begin with
hrobeers: correct
peerchemist: and PPC will allow them to be profitable for some more time, unlike BTC which sharpely discards them
hrobeers: so coinbase reward drop, will lower the outflux of money for mining, unless if the price goes up accoringly.
JayCoDon: I’ve heard miners talk about the shock of going from 25 to 12.5. Peercoin’s more dynamic drop in reward as difficulty goes up is less shocking. Alright, I understand that.
JayCoDon: Alright, changing topics 180 degrees. What is Peercoin’s approach to hard forks? As we’ve seen with Bitcoin/Ethereum, they have taken two very different approaches with the former being ardently against while the latter has forked because of a hack.
peerchemist: we were just discussing that while waiting for you
peerchemist: due to PoS, our chain goes where ever big holders (big stakers) want it to go
Sunny King: I think we are more flexible than bitcoin in this respect
Sunny King: we typically runs an upgrade window less than 3 months
JayCoDon: Interesting. @peerchemist_ … Isn’t the big holders controlling the destiny a risk of PoS?
Sunny King: so for incompatible upgrade, users have a couple months before they are on a desuppported fork
JayCoDon: @sunnyking Do you not allow for soft forks at all?
hrobeers: big holder have interest in well being off chain, unlike the big miners
peerchemist: it is fundamental tradedoff. With PoW you outsource the security and flexibilty to 3rd parties to prevent big holders from “taking control” and with PoS you keep the security within the system and rely on economic sanity of “big holders”
saeveritt: Much less of a risk than what a conglomeration of centralized miners pose due to the holders having stake in the network.
JayCoDon: But in the instance where a DAO like hack occurred, the big holders could ruin Peercoin’s immutable nature by forking because they were likely impacted the most, no?
peerchemist: in the case of ETH/DAO I guess our stakers would react the same, yes
JayCoDon: I’m asking because we see that with Ethereum. 2/3rd of the Eth in the DAO were early-mined Ether, so they were obviously incentivized to hard fork to get their money back
peerchemist: * same as Eth miners
Sunny King: There might be such possibility, that big holders want to participate in the decision making of upgrades
Sunny King: So far we haven’t encountered such problem
saeveritt: Its a question of whether the majority of stakers share the same incentive to bailout a DAO type organization.
JayCoDon: Wouldn’t they because they likely are in that DAO?
JayCoDon: 2/3rd of ETH in DAO were majority stakers.
peerchemist: interesting JayCoDon, than in that case it could get interesting if so many “old coins” are stolen as then the smaller fish would dominate the staking for a while and could fork the chain. Due to the destruction of so many coin days
JayCoDon: Hmm … Interesting.
hrobeers:
JayCoDon: Alright, here’s my “tough” question for Sunny.
peerchemist: omg 
saeveritt:
hrobeers: losing your coins, results in losing your power.
saeveritt: and soul
peerchemist: coin days are just as important
saeveritt: most definitely
hrobeers: correct
JayCoDon: Sunny, you’re the Satoshi or Vitalik of Peercoin. You’re the “benevolent” dictator of it. People follow you. I am of the opinion that the reason Bitcoin has been so successful is because Satoshi went away; because that founder went away, so he couldn’t influence decisions. You likely are a big stake holder and undo political pressure could force you to do things that are not in the best interest of Peercoin.
JayCoDon: even though the fork was probably not the right thing to do. Do you believe that makes you a potential security risk?
Sunny King: Satoshi is surprising, I actually don’t mind giving more and more power away to other capable community members, i think that’s also healthy to the development of the project
Sunny King: though I don’t plan to disappear suddenly like Satoshi did
Sunny King: It’s a bit strange that you abandon such brilliant invention so completely?
peerchemist: yeah, you will just slowly fade to 0
Sunny King: at least I have a bit trouble understanding
peerchemist: unlike satoshi, who went from 1 to 0 in single block
hrobeers: The community is also innovating outside the core protocol and Sunny is doing a great job, so there is no reason to overthrow him.
JayCoDon: Are there safeguards in place in the event that sunny does disappear?
JayCoDon: A sort of “passing the torch” akin to Satoshi and Gavin?
hrobeers: Some developers have knowledge of the PoS workings and are able to sustain development
hrobeers: but the code is very close to the bitcoin code.
peerchemist: why did no one understood my joke about sunny not leaving at once but slowly fading to 0? 
JayCoDon: Peerchemist, I have it noted to try to fit that into my piece.
Sentinelrv: Like Sigmike, who is also a core developer.
Sunny King: The main issue is competent leaders that can take over in such case
peerchemist: yeah, Peercoin is “cheap” to maintain
hrobeers: parallel to PoW 
peerchemist: yep!
hrobeers: we have a handfull devs that contributed to the code and are capable to continue the work.
saeveritt: peerchemist, I did Thought it was funny because bitcoins reward drops abruptly like Satoshi and peercoins declines slowly over time
peerchemist: oh sorry I thought you’ve missed it out
peerchemist: but I would like to note that we lack devs
hrobeers: I for example run a modified ppc client on my peerbox.
peerchemist: devs who could handle bigger projects
peerchemist: we have just enough devs to keep the lights on, not to evolve into something bigger
Sentinelrv: This question can also be related to synchronized checkpoints, which critics of proof-of-stake say is used to keep the Peercoin network running correctly.
Sentinelrv: Sunny controls the keys to checkpoints, so the network is dependent on him at the moment I feel.
Sentinelrv: I think we should talk about that, as checkpoints will soon become optional with v0.6.
hrobeers: it isn’t, the community can already ditch checkpoints today at any time.
hrobeers: it will just become more simple
Sentinelrv: Also, one of our Peershares networks Nu has run without checkpoints since September 2014 with no trouble.
JayCoDon: Can you quickly explain what these checkpoints are?
peerchemist: sunny, pls
Sunny King: yeah there isn’t anything that I control that cannot be overriden via an upgrade
hrobeers: it’s a common misconception.
hrobeers: Sunny you explain checkpoints?
Sentinelrv: It is one of the main criticisms of PoS, so I felt it should be addressed.
Sunny King: the checkpoint system is an additional temparary safeguard
saeveritt: As I understand it, checkpoints were only needed for ensuring network security during the first couple months where security was PoW dependent during initial distribution before PoS security took over
Sunny King: it definitely needs it as it’s too easy to attack PoW new blockchain
JayCoDon: And what were the checkpoints specifically?
Sunny King: peercoin’s PoS only turns on after one month
hrobeers: checkpoints are a way for sunny to broadcast attacks on the chain
peerchemist: checkpoints are pointers to “correct” version of the chain and can be used to reconfigure a network in case of major problem
Sunny King: it synchronize the network, basically ‘freeze’ the blockchain so it cannot reorg beyond it
hrobeers: so that clients can follow sunny’s advice not to follow the incorrect chain
Sunny King: just like the hard checkpoint in bitcoin
Sunny King: but it’s not coded into the source but broadcasted from a privileged node
hrobeers: but a client implementation can easily ignore the checkpoints from the point they get abused
JayCoDon: So if sunny abuses those checkpoints, the client implenetation can just ignore
hrobeers: clients should actively choose to ignore them
peerchemist: yes, just then someone who is not the sunny must build the binaries and help to deploy them
peerchemist: for example I could switch over all Peerbox nodes in about 15 min to version who ignores sunny and his checkpoints
JayCoDon: Very interesting.
hrobeers: same would be true for peerkeeper backend
hrobeers: (once in browser minting is implemented)
Sunny King: It was kept for a while as we also want the coins to distribute more evenly , avoid possibility of 51% attack, also other vunerabilities
saeveritt: yes network security has definitely hardened thanks to continual distribution
Sunny King: but in any case it was never an essential part of the design so it can be disabled freely
JayCoDon: Final question. The market cap has stayed relatively constant over the past few months at ~8-10 million marketcap. What does peercoin need for it to start increasing in valuation again?
hrobeers: that’s a common misconception on the internet, that checkpoints centralize the network. But the DAO hardfork has shown that abuse is just as easy without checkpoints.
peerchemist: Peercoin needs fresh blood, more developers, more ideas
Sunny King: I think the community is doing great projects, that’s the most important aspects
Sunny King: we grow the ecosystem, make it more useful for all kinds of purposes
peerchemist: but if we can sustain 10M cap, than let is be. I choose that over bloated 150M cap which just awaits to burst
Sunny King: then the market would reflect
hrobeers: there are huge bubbles going on, we prefer to build a sustainable chain
Sentinelrv: I believe we need more project development around Peercoin like PeerAssets. Peerchemist, if you’d like, could you explain your project and why you believe it will bring more value to Peercoin, including the fact that it will help with deflation of the supply.
hrobeers: the is capable of surviving a second internet bubble
peerchemist: I can explain, but I guess that is best to be left for some other time
saeveritt: I believe all that it needs is time. If you reference the graph I linked to earlier there is a significant drop in block reward from May 2015 to the end of July 2015. If you look at the subsequent price response the cycle becomes apparent. During this time Peercoin went from $0.21 to a high of $0.75. The market determined that with the new reduction in supply, the price would average around $0.40 and has maintained that for
saeveritt: Since PPC has reached a stage of maturity (thank you btc halving) to where it’s block reward has encountered another significant drop that mirrors the may 2015 fall, I believe we will find a new price floor very soon and it will correlate with the percentage change in reward
hrobeers: The point is that many coins are killed these days by investors and big money
peerchemist: ie, thanks to our economic model we do not have to run to get new fancy features and keep the speculation bubble going. We are running a marathon, and we are always close to the top even in this early days
hrobeers: Ethereum being the perfect example
saeveritt: Yes, economic models designed to endure bubbles and adapt to fluctuating market pressures will show longevity
JayCoDon: Very good. This should be good enough for now; this was really enlightening. If I have further questions, I’ll send them to Sentinelrv to get them answered.
peerchemist: also sanity of Peercoin is attracting the right minds, at least it seems so to me
hrobeers: I have one thing I’d like to add as developer
JayCoDon: Sure, go ahead
hrobeers: This is key for me: The decentralization makes it possible for everyone to mint a block from time to time. This simplifies experimentation with non-standard txns on the network. This helps innovation.
saeveritt: Enjoyed the questions, Jacob. Thank you.
hrobeers: I’m impressed by the questions, they were very good indeed.
peerchemist: I am glad I have participated, cu around Jacob
Sunny King: Thanks Jacob for a great conversation
Sentinelrv: “The right minds” Yes, I always feel as if peercoin always attracts the most level headed and logical people compared to most other crypto communities.
JayCoDon: And just to make one point: I know everyone is excited about CoinDesk writing about this, but I make no promises. I have a tentative yes from my editor, but until he sees the piece, nothing is for sure. But I’ll do my best.
hrobeers:
saeveritt:
Sunny King: appreciate it
JayCoDon: Talk soon, guys.
hrobeers: Thank Jacob, I think I have to take a subscription to your articles.
Sentinelrv: Thanks!
Sunny King: Thanks everyone
Sentinelrv: So how did it go you think?
peerchemist: that went well
peerchemist: I think we have suceeded in what I have wanted to do
peerchemist: to give out a fresh image of Peercoin, a community of smart and passionate people
hrobeers: I’m happy
hrobeers: we gave it our best shot.
peerchemist: yeah I think we gave him enough to write a damn good story
Sunny King: I think it’s probably one of the best participated meetings we have ever did
hrobeers: I can’t imagine how we could have done better
Sunny King: everyone is well heard
Sentinelrv: And we should do more I think.
saeveritt: I enjoyed reading all of your responses and answering as well:)
hrobeers: we also sounded like a team
Sentinelrv: I will ask Jacob if we could possibly post the chat publicly if/after his article is released.
hrobeers: I’m off
hrobeers: cu guys
Sunny King: bye hrobeers
Sunny King: I need to go too, peerchemist I will drop you email later
Sentinelrv: See you Sunny.
saeveritt: Bye Sunny. Enjoyed the chat.
Sunny King: thanks guys enjoyed the meeting very much
Sunny King: talk to you soon
peerchemist: cu sunny