Sunny will be sent all of these questions (along with a separate set of all of the ones that didn’t end up in the top five for each category). We’ll work with him to figure out the best method to get his answers back to the community. It’s my expectation that rather than a “chat”-formatted session, that we’ll use individual forum topics for each category, though if he’d like, we can have an individual topic for each question. I’ll document the process as soon as I’m sure of what it will be.
Thank you, everyone, for your questions, votes and patience!
Excellent work. A few comments on question layout which you may want to consider
First, please number all questions consecutively – if each section starts with ‘1’, it will make identifying questions and answers difficult
Peercoin v0.4 release
The very first question (mentioning 0.5v and developers) is not really about v0.4 – try merging this question with either question 2 or 3 in the Peercoin Development Roadmap – it is a similar topic
Swap (what are currently) questions 3 and 4, so that the two questions referring to security are together
Peercoin Fundamentals
Question 1 – this refers to the future, so is better placed at the end of this section
Question 2 – “As there are people WHO HAVE indicated…”
Questions 4 and 5 are duplicates
Peercoin Development Roadmap
Question 6 – change “Besides” to “Aside from”. I suggest changing “everyone” to “many people”, as the questioner cannot speak on behalf of everyone (even though he might be!)
Primecoin
Question 2 – it would be helpful to clarify what “adoption” means – by exchanges, shops, investors?
General Thoughts
I suggest moving questions 4 and 5 to positions 2 and 3, so the technical questions are together
Personal Questions
I would start with question 5
Questions 1 and 2 are virtually the same, and would benefit from being merged – otherwise Sunny will have to repeat himself
I should have mentioned that I plan on making some minor updates to the content and the layout before I send this on – so your feedback is appreciated.
I felt that the community should see the results as-is for the nominated questions (and if you’d like to see the overall results, here they are). My time is pretty limited, like many of you, so rather than postpone the reveal until I could make the time to do it “better,” I wanted to get the “good enough” version out and into your hands.
If anyone has time, and is interested in assisting with (or taking over completely) the updates and fixes, please let me know by PM, and I’ll give you access to the document that I used to generate the PDF. Otherwise, if there aren’t any takers, I’ll try to balance this with the priority need of getting the v0.4-compatible OS X Peerunity wallet client and daemon finished off and into the hands of those in the community who need to have it prior to the May 4 protocol switch.
Will the questions not listed here end up getting answered later? The main question I wanted answered about marketing Peercoin isn’t listed. Also, I’m assuming you don’t need my help getting in touch with Sunny about scheduling right? I haven’t received an answer about whether you need me for this, so I’m not sure.
I’ll reach out to Sunny directly, but thank you for the offer of contact, Sentinelrv.
As mentioned above, Sunny is going to be sent everything, he/she/they can chose to answer any other question (or anything that they want to let the community know about), but the expectation is that we’ll only expect to see answers for the four or five per category that the community voted on.
If anyone feels that an important question was somehow overlooked, post it here, for discussion.
[quote=“Ben, post:6, topic:2258”]I’ll reach out to Sunny directly, but thank you for the offer of contact, Sentinelrv.
As mentioned above, Sunny is going to be sent everything, he/she/they can chose to answer any other question (or anything that they want to let the community know about), but the expectation is that we’ll only expect to see answers for the four or five per category that the community voted on.
If anyone feels that an important question was somehow overlooked, post it here, for discussion.[/quote]
I really feel that we should save all these extra questions for more interviews and not just leave them up to Sunny to answer if he wants to. There’s a lot of very important stuff there. Back in 2013 we did two interviews to get everyone’s question answered. Do you think we can get Sunny to agree to do several of these to get everything answered eventually, even if they’re spread out over a couple months?
As it stands, we have 32 community-prioritized questions, so I’m hoping that this set is representative of the most pressing concerns of the Peercoin community. I would have liked to have seen more people vote, but I also can’t complain too much, considering that we had 47 unique respondents who contributed their valuable feedback.
The idea of consolidating these questions was intended to increase the likelihood that Sunny King is able to address them, by presenting them in a common location. I hope that the fact that these questions will be presented that way should not deter anyone from starting a separate topic for Sunny King, directly, if there’s a pressing question that you would like the answer to. Alternatively, if Sunny King decides that some of the questions that were not prioritized, but are still on the list are important (or will provide for an interesting response), I see no reason that those questions would not be answered at the same time.
A personal note:
Finally, if anyone has concerns with the way that the collection, curation, and selection of these questions was handled, please let me know. I recognize that this is an important activity for the Peercoin community, and that a lot of people are eager to learn more about Sunny King’s thoughts on these matters. The last thing that I want to do is impose a direction or path that the community is uncomfortable with. Between my day-job, family, and other pre-existing crypto commitments (such as trying to get the OS X builds in the hands of PPC holders before the May 4 deadline) I’m severely overbooked, but I’m trying to prioritize getting this pushed along because of it’s benefit to the community. If there’s someone in the community who has the time and desire, and who thinks they can expedite this process in ways that I can’t, I’m certainly willing to hand over the reins and step out of the way.
I noticed that in Peercoin fundamentals, there are 2 duplicate questions. You also said that if anyone feels something important has been left out, to post it for discussion. This is a question I asked in the submission thread that somehow got left out of the voting thread…
"A common criticism about proof-of-stake is something that even Gavin Andresen has commented on. The following two quotes are from Gavin: 1. "I think Andrew Miller put it best: (The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake.)" 2. "The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains." Are you aware of Gavin's criticisms here? Is this a legitimate threat to Peercoin and have you already come up with a solution for it?"
I feel this is a very important question to add in. As far as I know we’ve never gotten an answer about this from Sunny. People bring it up as Peercoin’s major flaw all the time and not many people know how to respond to it. On the Bitcoin subreddit, they usually post Gavin’s quote above when people talk about Peercoin. It’s also been discussed here on the forum several times. I think it’s time we got a quote from Sunny about this issue.
This is my last issue, I promise! In the submission thread, my final question for Sunny King was the most important one for me, but unfortunately I couldn’t figure out a way to cut it down in size and it ended up being a 3 paragraph question. It actually got listed in the voting thread, but 75% of it was cut out. Because of that, it didn’t really end in a clear question, so I think that’s why people didn’t vote for it. Then I just noticed this question as one of the popular ones…
"There has been some confusion on what Peercoin is meant for. Can you give us a statement on what the intended usage is by the average consumer?"
This question is similar to the one I was trying to ask, but I’m afraid it’s too simple and we’re going to end up receiving a simple answer from Sunny. It also doesn’t explain to Sunny why we’re confused about Peercoin’s purpose. Without knowing why we’re confused, I don’t think he’s going to be able to give us a satisfying answer to this question. I want to know if we can substitute the above question with my edited version below. I know it’s long, but at least it’s not 3 paragraphs anymore. It also asks the same exact thing. It just gives Sunny more detail about our dilemma, so he can give us a better response.
"There has been some confusion over what Peercoin is meant for, which has led to marketing problems. Bitcoin is a transactional currency, so you proceed by getting businesses to accept it as payment for products and services, which generates a network effect and spreads the coins around to more people. The backbone currency idea behind Peercoin seems to confuse people though. For example, you don't need merchants if you are a backbone currency because you aren't supposed to be for daily use, but if you aren't for daily use then how do you generate a network effect and get people to care enough to adopt it? Can you give us a statement on what the intended usage is by the average consumer, so we can clear up any confusion and properly market Peercoin?"
I just spent over an hour writing and editing my most heart felt reply to Sentinelrv’s frustration, in the posts above.
It was done. Crafted. Worked on. Refined!
Then I thought to myself well I’ll just delete this one sentence. It will read better. So, I selected it and hit the backspace key to delete – ARRRGGGHH!!! – It deleted everything! EVERYTHING!!! All my work is gone!
This is not the first time this has happened!
Is there something that I am doing and not understanding? Or, is this software the worst, crappiest software I have used since the 1980’s !!!
[quote=“NewMoneyEra, post:14, topic:2258”]I just spent over an hour writing and editing my most heart felt reply to Sentinelrv’s frustration, in the posts above.
It was done. Crafted. Worked on. Refined!
Then I thought to myself well I’ll just delete this one sentence. It will read better. So, I selected it and hit the backspace key to delete – ARRRGGGHH!!! – It deleted everything! EVERYTHING!!! All my work is gone!
This is not the first time this has happened!
Is there something that I am doing and not understanding? Or, is this software the worst, crappiest software I have used since the 1980’s !!!
SHIT!!!
Sorry to vent here Sent. You deserve much better.[/quote]
Sorry to hear that.
I copy all my replies several times while editing and once more before hitting submit just in case something happens.
After reviewing Sentinelrv’s request, and comparing it against the question that was selected, I agree that they are similar enough that his refined version can be replaced in the questions that are sent to Sunny King.
Regarding the “nothing at stake” problem, it may be something that Sunny has addressed in the past, but because it has been an important criticism of the Peercoin protocol, and the fact that no one can provide a reference from Sunny that adequately can be used to address it, I also agree that it’s worth including. I’ll add it now and finish making the textual edits and fix some of the layout issues.
Expect the “final” final draft to be published shortly, and then the questions will be sent to Sunny.
Saying there is nothing at stake is false. Having your coins being used as stake, and unable to be spent, or even moved or transferred for 520 block confirmations is a temporary hardship. Your willingness to use your coins as proof and lose access to them temporarily “is not nothing” But we’ll see what Sunny says.
I agree with your assessment, as it covers one of the scenarios, but it is a recurring criticism that has never been properly addressed (or, if it has been addressed properly, it’s never been communicated well enough that a coherent defense can be presented that addresses the critics).
If we’re right, then I expect that after we see Sunny’s response and the community’s follow-up discussions, we should be able to empirically prove that it is not a viable attack vector to manipulate the block chain.
