Cold minting has gone through several iterations. We actually recently had a meeting on this topic. Nagalim posted the result here. Upgrading the network to the latest BTC is the primary focus right now, but we’re still discussing the issue in the background. It might be best to ignore it for now until a final decision is made.
I’m not sure. This is a widespread myth about PoS that is used by lots of people as an argument against it. From my understanding, the problem does in fact exist in some implementations of PoS, but not with Peercoin. That is something I covered in Peercoin University. The fact that we are not subject to this makes it an advantage of ours that should be featured. I’m open to feedback though.
I think this is because some POS coins have 20%+ staking rewards, meaning those with large holdings who are able to stake continuously get a wildly increasing share of the supply. Peercoin avoids this with the 1% staking reward. I think this should be explained in the video, and it will address “rich get richer” by implication - but I don’t think the phrase “rich get richer” itself should appear.
General public has been reading nonsense about how PoS works for past 7 years. Also many new kids don’t even know about our “flavor” of the PoS as the arguments against PoS that are usually presented to them are about hypothetical PoS protocols (like whatever Ethereum is to use) and/or dPoS schemas like EOS which do suffer from perceived issues indeed (cartelization, rich get richer).
I believe it’s worth to explain how Peercoin got around those problems.
It is very likely that it will get included.
I think there is another way this happens also though. I remember Sunny was originally thinking about changing Peercoin’s PoS algorithm in favor of something else that would help boost minter participation (but at the same time it would slightly elevate the rich get richer issue). I can’t remember exactly what it was though. I believe Nu ended up using it. @Nagalim do you know what I’m referring to?
Anyway, the point is there are a number of implementations that cause this. Too high of a mint reward. What I was trying to think of above. Peerchemist’s mention of dPoS and cartelization. There’s probably no need to mention all these different cases as it would take up too much time. Simply saying the issue exists with various PoS implementations and explaining how Peercoin was able to solve it should suffice.
Nu did a fixed PoS block reward, and essentially forced minters to stake grind. The result is extreme bloat of the UTXO table and very high fees for minters to transact with their holdings.
That’s the same thing blackcoin did, and 50 of its forks.
@Chronos, so what is the next step? Creating an adjusted outline or moving to scripts? I’m interested what you think about the feedback given so far. I think we’ve covered all the major points except for the one below…
My only remaining question is what you meant by this. I can tell you what I think is meant, but I’m not sure if it lines up with what you were thinking.
Scalability means greater numbers of transactions at quicker speeds, basically increasing the capacity of the blockchain. At Bitcoin and Peercoin this is done through layer 2 extensions to the base layer blockchain. As I talked about in Peercoin University though, the people helping to run these layer 2 networks do collect fees as an incentive to operate these networks.
We’re not sure how this will impact Bitcoin yet as it would mean that miners and layer 2 networks will compete with each other for fees. If fees are pulled away from miners who rely on them for revenue to continue operations, it may impact Bitcoin’s security level. Whether this is a real concern I think is something that needs to be measured over time.
Regardless of how this affects Bitcoin though, PoS at Peercoin is efficient, which means security providers are not dependent on earning revenue from transaction fees. In fact Peercoin minters do not collect transaction fees at all (they are burned), so they do not compete with layer 2 networks. As a result, there is no threat to Peercoin’s security model and it can naturally coexist together with layer 2 networks in a way that Bitcoin may not be able to.
Effectively, that means scalability is made possible with layer 2 networks through efficient security of the base layer. Is this what you meant by that phrase?
To answer your question, @Sentinelrv, I think the potential layer1/layer2 tension in bitcoin’s future is too far afield to be worth mentioning in a Peercoin series. Let me put some thought into this.
Do you all think Perpera should be mentioned in the final video?
Fantastic feedback in this thread. Thank you. Next step for me is to integrate it, with the outlines, into complete scripts for further feedback. I’ll post them in this thread as they become ready.
If there is enough time that it doesn’t take away from other important topics, I think it would work great as a specific example to supplement the store of value argument at the end. It would show off a quick example of what is meant by storing value, document hashes in this case. Some people have confused the purpose of Perpera though, so let me post this comment that I made on our Telegram channel…
Hi @Chronos, how are the scripts coming along? Any progress on that?
Work is in progress. We will release all five scripts at the same time, so that it’s easy to tell if anything is missing or should be moved to a different video.
Planning to post the scripts this week.
Script drafts are ready. Each is in a separate topic.
- (script draft) Peercoin Primer #1: Launch
- (script draft) Peercoin Primer #2: Security
- (script draft) Peercoin Primer #3: Benefits
- (script draft) Peercoin Primer #4: Economics
- (script draft) Peercoin Primer #5: Legacy
Feel free to post specific feedback in each corresponding thread. Thanks!
Thanks Chronos. I’ll check these out later today.
I’ll need to wait until Saturday to work further on this. I’ll check out Robert’s edits on that day and try to figure out what I’m going to do with script 5.
That’s fine. Robert’s edits and suggestions are very good. Take your time.
Hi, I like this Project. I saw it already on my Hardware Wallet long ago. I have an advise for Youtube Videos.
You can make a long Peercoin video and end the video with the most important information summarized, at that point you can initiate a shortcut (see attachment) so everybody will start at the shortcut , for example this from the last Peercoin video >> https://youtu.be/x8KAsime9EI?t=190 .
I hope this is a good advise.
Also you can involve this Crypto Forum website that has many active users and a active Peercoin page >> https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/ppc/forum/BTC