It is proposed to allocate ten percent of the proceeds from the mining to the foundation

Miners delegate all their power to pools.

Then this would give us a new reason to setup an official Peercoin Team sponsored mining pool.

Wait, your logic here is that we want to set up a pool so we can force them to vote the way we want? That’s a really terrible long term strategy.

Mining should be treated as third party to the hodler/minter community. If we want changes, we push them out to the pools for them to adopt. Besides, we tried running our own pools, like hrobeers’. No one wants the responsibility.

Of course not. It would just be setup for miners who want to vote along with the team. Nobody is forcing miners to use this specific pool. Anyway, it was just an idea.

1 Like

It’s a good idea let the miners vote

Miners don’t vote by choosing the pool, they vote by choosing the coin. We don’t have to ‘let them’ vote, they vote with their feet.

After hearing some of the concerns about the miner tax we were previously talking about, I withdraw my support for the idea. The foundation is still brand new, so let’s see what it can do with the funding it currently has before we consider making major changes like this.

3 Likes

The idea of creating a regular source of income is by no means bad, but I’m not sure a 10% tax/voluntary donation by miners is the right way.

Why miners? Why not spenders of PPC - or holders who mint - or holders who do not mint? Any category can be chosen, so to single out one group is arbitrary.

Mining is part of the PPC eco-system, and the incentive to mine is the reward of receiving Peercoins. The proposal is altering that slightly to say that part of the purpose of mining is to fund the Peercoin Foundation. This might muddy the dynamic of mining.

I think key aspects of the PPC eco-system should be kept independent from the financial considerations of the Peercoin Foundation. The Peercoin Foundation is not Peercoin. That is not to say the Peercoin Foundation cannot seek donations, but this should be separate from the mining and minting processes.

2 Likes

I propose a new decision how to fund the Peercoin Foundation. I propose to take 5-10% from addresses with no transactions in last two or three years. It solves a lot of problems at once:

  • the lost private keys and dead coins
  • the growth in the number of transactions
  • the funding of the Peercoin Foundation
  • etc.

I suppose this is the place to chime in :slight_smile: I’d help with working on a simple donation button in the Client’s Help Menu that fills in The Foundation address and modest donation amount in the standard Send Transaction window when clicked. I’d vote “No” for any changes outside of that admittedly narrow scope :sunflower:

7 Likes

This is not possible to “take” lost funds or “dead” funds. We don’t have those private keys.

The only way would be to do hard forks marking them invalid and giving new funds to others. At that point, you’re not using sound money, you’d be like Ethereum!

3 Likes

This is possible to take without private keys, if that will be in a new protocol. We can’t know that lost funds or not, but if there is no transactions in last two years, so 5% goes to the Peercoin Foundation.

If a new Peercoin protocol means taking existing coins away from holders, count me out, from the sound money perspective. It becomes just a cool tech project.

Bitcoin is the gold standard for cryptocurrency as sound money, and no one ever considers protocol updates to take Satoshis “dead” coins. That is why.

Peercoin’s reason for being is to be a better Bitcoin while saying close to the Bitcoin model. Maybe eventually replacing it when PoW-only becomes a problem. It should stay that way.

3 Likes

I don’t say to take all dead coins, but only 5 % to the Peercoin Foundation every year.

My wallet only mints and doesn’t transact, so it would affect me. It would negate all my PoS earnings. This is probably the most offensive way to do it.

1 Like

The minting transaction would be counted too

I am firmly against breaking immutability on the Peercoin chain.

Seriously though, why do you all want a contentious hard fork? What is it about Foundations that make crypto communities want contentious hard forks?

6 Likes

For the record, I agree with @Nagalim here.

Quote:

And yet in Silicon Valley “failing fast” is heralded as a virtue and, sometimes, even failing slowly can have unforeseeable benefits. Cutting-edge products may die an embarrassing death, but they often also lay the groundwork for better, more well-timed ideas that flourish later on

At the very minimum, Peercoin was a proof of concept that Proof-of-stake is feasible.

@ppcman, how about you write up a grant request and a plan for exactly what you want to do and maybe the foundation will help pay for it.