Some of you may be familiar with the new “Bitcoin” Protocol Layer called Mastercoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0) which is currently under development. If you read about it I think you’ll agree that it is is a very interesting project for many of reasons. It does not need to rely on Bitcoin as it’s backend as mentioned at the following links:
http://wiki.mastercoin.org/index.php/FAQ#Does_Mastercoin_have_to_run_on_top_of_Bitcoin.3F
Mastercoin is an open-source project so we could create a fork to ride on top of Peercoin instead. (I wonder could you create an implementation of Mastercoin which rides across both the Bitcoin and Peercoin blockchains (or indeed any number of cryptocurrencies)? I don’t see why not.)
I would like to open the discussion about this idea, particularly about whether or not Peercoin is better suited as a backend for Mastercoin. The guy in this video alludes to Mastercoin (he’s written about it here - http://gendal.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/decentralised-digital-asset-registers-mastercoin/#comment-10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDO7TDMlxsY&feature=c4-overview&list=UUYuBZVt_S82TGwoEgNqN8yg and he’s very much of the opinion that an alternative cryptocurrency can come along and steal Bicoin’s thunder if it is better designed and can support Mastercoin-like functionality.
My initial thoughts would be as follows:
Instead of having an exodus address to generate “MasterPeercoins/MPPC”, have it such that they are generated by POS minting instead. So to create MPPCs one must first invest in the Peercoin network and as a reward earn the MPPCs. This could drastically accelerate POS security of the network.
Can anyone explain how the fixed Peercoin transaction fee would affect a frontend protocol layer? I think it would be a positive thing but I can’t quite explain why.
[size=8pt]Also, the naming/branding of Peercoin/PPC would no longer be much of an issue if it’s predominantly a backend.[/size]
Discuss.