Dude, read the white paper
Read it. That’s why I am asking
The section “Block generation under proof of stake” should tell you how PoS does targets and difficulty. If you need to learn about PoW targets and difficulty, I suggest you read satoshi’s Bitcoin whitepaper. In PPC, PoS targets 10 min while PoW targets an hour.
Edit: sry you asked about inflation. Thats the first paragraph of “other considerations”. PoW inflation decreases every time thediff goes up 16x. PoS is of course variable such that minters get 1% returns per year.
I think I stopped minting in 2015 or 2016 because i thought 1% was way too low.
Why cant we just make it like 10%?
Also talking about centralization.
Peercoin is supposed to have chosen PoS because it is robust against centralization and enables decentralization and network security.
The PoS diff and coin distribution shows that it has failed, isn’t it?
10% inflation indefinitely would be quite a lot. The supply would double every 7 years. Do you want more rewards or sounder money?
Centralization as in ‘if these maybe 70 unrelated, delocalized, largely anonymous people colluded they could succeed in destroying their assets’ is not the same as ‘If the Chinese government decided on a whim tomorrow to seize the exchanges / mining farms / asic manufacturing…then, uh… nah, that probably won’t happen’
PoS difficulty (relative to total supply) doesnt take into account how many coins people have lost the private keys to, which is not small for a coin as old as peercoin. Just as an example, there are many unmeasurable quantities here.
I want to make money for my wealth.
What do you mean by sound money?
Can a PoS 51% attack occur in Peercoin?
Studied it but it was a long time ago
51% is tyrrany of the majority. It can occur in most any consensus system.
crypto_coiner 10% inflation annually forever is not a long term design for a store of value. Are you just trolling, or are you really that short sighted?
Although, I do think one day increasing the mint reward to 2 or maybe even 3% annually could encourage people to pull their money off exchanges… which might be nice. But it might also encourage large holders to look for any excuse to make a contentious hard fork. Maybe … we’re just speculating at this point. 10% would be suicidal I suspect.
1 Like
There are requirements from us in order to raise the number of people minting with their coins. We need to make it more secure for people who are afraid of getting hacked and losing their coins. We need to make mobile minting possible as well as making minting easier so installation of a desktop client isn’t necessary. That will be taken care of with the PeerKeeper wallet which has been under development by @hrobeers for a while now.
Most of all, we need to make Peercoin useful through projects like PeerAssets. That will help us increase demand and the price. An increasing price will lead to an increasing node count and more people that will want to mint. 1% might seem like a tiny amount at .80 cents per coin, but it would be a lot at $1,000 per coin. Tell me you wouldn’t mint for 1% at $1,000. If you owned 30,000 coins, that would be interest reward of $300,000. We can get there eventually, but this is just an extreme example that shows minting incentive will increase as price increases.
As for distribution, as Peercoin increases in price, the distribution should even out more as holders take profit and coins get transferred to other holders.
But then again, why 1%?
I once owned 30k PPC…
Not only that, but Peercoin completely survived a multi-year collapse in value from the high point of the 2013 bubble, which put the price per coin over $8 to a low of around $0.20 cents. It came out the other end completely unscathed and the network ran smoothly the entire time, all thanks to our hybrid PoW/PoS model. This event really tested the limits of our security protocol and has helped prove just how sustainable and cost efficient the network is to run.
So did I. I had to buy them all back plus more after wasting so much money on NuShares. Luckily I was able to get back in before this recent price rise.
A pure POW model would have had a rough time adjusting to a price swing of 40 to 1. POS has no problem. Next has a pure POS model, price swings aren’t a problem for chain validation, but pure POS is a problem for initial distribution, which NXT suffered the consequences of in the BTER hack. But you’re free to evaluate NXT on its own merits, NXT doesn’t have to be garbage for Peercoin to be elegant and useful.
POS was peercoin’s innovation though, so it’s fair to say that it is 'Thanks to our POS/POW hybrid (that wild price fluctuations aren’t a security issue)
2 Likes
Can you elaborate on why exactly?
Because it is the main selling point of Peercoin and people just dont care
That’s not the main selling point of Peercoin … for instance, you could clone peercoin and you’d have something just as good technically, and yet , I wouldn’t buy it, but, I digress.
Let’s say you’ve invented crypto_coiner_coin and it’s the chosen protocol to lead us all out of the darkness, whatever… it’s super efficient and feature rich, everyone loves it. And it’s proof of stake, great. So … we flip the on switch and … you have all of it? You send it out to all your friends? You hand it off to some exchanges? Whatever, anything you do sort of sucks, nothing seems fair or safe. Maybe in 10 years that wouldn’t matter - in Nxt case, it did matter, because a metric fuckton of it ended up in a hacked exchange which basically compromised the security of the network and they had to rollback. You can call that growing pains if you want, i’d call it poor design choices coming home to roost. (Also the incentives are totally misaligned, would you prefer to buy into a new experimental protocol that starts out where no one has anything and everyone hopes it succeeds, or where the developers printed all the money into their own pockets and you’re hoping they didn’t just do it to get rich quick and are going to stick with it for the coming years.)
I think the hybrid system also solved a lot of theoretical problems for pure POS , l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶(̶l̶o̶n̶g̶e̶s̶t̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶h̶o̶w̶ ̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶m̶e̶a̶n̶i̶n̶g̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶p̶u̶r̶e̶ ̶P̶O̶S̶)̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶’̶d̶ ̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶a̶l̶k̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶t̶t̶l̶e̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶c̶h̶n̶i̶c̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶n̶ ̶m̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶e̶l̶a̶b̶o̶r̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶.̶ (I was incorrect, but someone who knows more about it could tell you how pure POS ‘lacks entropy’)
They get bought by anyone at a price regulated by ppc pow difficulty and btc mining cost, i.e. late comers don’t necessarily pay high prices to acquire peercoin.
1 Like