Lock the peercoin protocol, developers can't make protocol changes, more applications will be born

Lock the ppc protocol, developers can’t make protocol changes, more applications will be born.

Only after locking the agreement can the developer have the basis for developing the software.

If the protocol cannot be locked, enterprise-level applications are difficult to build on the blockchain.

After locking the protocol, developers can do very little development work and concentrate on developing useful application services to make the blockchain more useful.

Business and individual holders can use blockchains to store a variety of assets and materials very cheaply, because holders can obtain ppc through cheap mining, and consume ppc by storing assets into blockchains.This is the advantage of peercoin

1 Like

Large blocks and small blocks will be two different results, and I feel that large blocks can attract more market participants. Can you discuss it?

Large mining pools are free to compete and market behavior. Artificially restricting monopolies, in fact, they are building a dictatorship.

You cant ‘lock’ development. If minters want to update to new source, they will. You can stop releasing official builds, but that is a great way to be left in the dust as bitcoin continues to upgrade and the whole space with it. Rebasing to a higher version of bitcoin is far more likely to attract dev attention than if we stagnate where we are.

1 Like


Can pos miners pack large blocks? Such as a 100M block

Peercoin is decentralized network. You cannot lock the protocol, nodes will “vote with their feet” and change if enough want to.

The Peercoin team can try to lock the protocol, but it is the node operators who ultimately decide.

Of course a stable protocol is desired, and i think it has been overall very stable.

1 Like

More CSW regurgitation which have no relations or application to Peercoin. Tell me where Peercoin has steered away from the protocol set six+ years ago in any meaningful away. Tell me how block sizes would remotely matter in this context. Again, Peercoin does not rely or really care about miners since 80%+ of our blocks are PoS (security) while PoW provides effective and fair competition for distribution, but the difficulty algorithm discourages ever increasing mining power like PoW coins.

EDIT: TLDR, people complain about this like its a dish that was cooked incorrectly, but they are complaining to a clothing store. You’re probably correct in your context but this is a clothing store and its not applicable here.

Even if you could do this (you can’t), freezing development at this stage and preventing it from being able to adopt newer advancements would kill Peercoin. It would be suicide by stagnation.

our proof of stake does not set any additional limits to size of block, we can adopt 100MB blocks if there’s a need for it. please keep in mind that 100MB worth of transactions would require 1M peercoin to be burnt as fees, so whole peercoin supply will be gone in 23 blocks of that size.

may be developers has been think about these proposal。we had better wait。

Keeping open discussions is conducive to community :grinning:

Block size debate does not apply to Peercoin, please stop projecting bitcoins stuff over here.

Peercoin protocol can run blocks of infinite size and it will not damage the economics of the system (unlike the Bitcoin). However what would you do with 100 MB blocks? We’re not using our 1 MB blocks now either, not even Bitcoin-core has need for more than 1MB blocks.

I would prefer one big update per year rather than all these small updates we seem to be getting every few months nowadays. Also the fact that pretty much every protocol update at this stage requires a hardfork only adds to the inconvenience.

1 Like

It was about 16 months between 0.6 and 0.7, and it’s going to be about 8 months between 0.7 and 0.8.