[quote=“sabreiib, post:26, topic:3463”]1) I like competition, so Neucoin is wellcomed! Always remember this is free market, it’s ridiculous for Cypherpunk/financial liberalists to restrict the freedom of a new coin’s birth.
I know some big PPC holders fear of being overtaken by Neucoin and they dare not to face the truth that PPC has no scarcity at all.
Good artists copy, great artists steal!
Apparently quite some people here are not familar with the history of DOS/Macintosh/Microsoft/Apple/Xerox.[/quote]
I can’t and don’t want to restrict anyone from using PoS technology for their own use. I would rather these people work with us though. It’s different when you’re a bystander and it’s not happening to you, but when you’re the one being directly copied after all the hard work you’ve put in, it just feels wrong. I guess all that can be done is for us to compete better.
I’ve never completely understood what you were talking about when you were trying to explain that Peercoin has little scarcity, but now I think I do. I read this quote from NuBoats above and it made more sense…
I think I’ve had an aha moment and I’m trying to understand this. Let me try to explain what I see now. With PoS, the only resources needed to secure the network are the coins themselves. In PoW you need high amounts of processing power that can only come from expensive computers and energy use. If an organization or company came along like the Neucoin people and were able to distribute a PoS coin to a much wider amount of people, it means they could overtake us.
The reason is because they would be distributing the resources/coins themselves that are needed to secure the network. As long as they could spread the coins to a large enough amount of people that actually minted with them, they would overtake the Peercoin network. The same thing is impossible to do with a PoW network though, because there is no similar way to distribute the resources to people that are necessary to secure the network. Distributing coin tokens to people to mint with is much easier and cheaper than trying to distribute asics and other mining gear. It’s the very reason why Neucoin could surpass us.
This is not true for Peershares however, because the value of Peershares would be tied to the valuation of a single company. There would be no reason for somebody to create new Peershares around the same company, unless it was the company itself distributing more shares in order to raise more money.
The same is also not true with NuBits, because as you’ve said before, the scarce resources in the Nu system are large amounts of fiat or even Bitcoin. The fiat in Nu is needed in order to provide high amounts of liquidity. Now that the Nu community is working on decentralizing liquidity operations, that means regular people will provide their own money for Nu’s liquidity operations. And they will do this because they’ll receive profit, similar to Bitcoin mining. This fiat/liquidity operation is what ties Nu down in the real world and prevents it from being copied so easily. Just as Bitcoin can’t easily be copied because you can’t distribute asics to people, NuBits can’t easily be copied because you can’t easily replicate its liquidity operations. You would need vast amounts of money in order to do so.
The same can’t be said about Peercoin though. Bitcoin is tied into the real world through Bitcoin mining gear, Peershares is tied to a single company’s valuation and NuBits is tied to its fiat liquidity operation. These three things are scarce resources, which help prevent each system from being easily replicated. There are no scare resources tying Peercoin into the real world and preventing its replication. Facebook or some other huge organization could create a new PoS coin and distribute it to a massive amount of people and as long as these people actually began minting with their coins, they would achieve a much higher network security level and a wider distribution.
There is nothing preventing them from doing this because there is nothing that they are dependent on in the real world. They aren’t dependent on their users having expensive mining computers. They aren’t dependent on their users having access to lots of money for liquidity operations. The only thing they’re dependent on is their users having the coins themselves to mint with, which they can easily and cheaply distribute to people themselves. This means there is pretty much nothing preventing people from replicating Peercoin’s network. As long as they have the resources and connections to do so, it can be copied. The only question in my mind is whether the massive amount of people they distribute coins to will actually mint and secure the network. If not, then this whole argument falls apart and Peercoin remains superior.
Is this what you’ve been trying to say the whole time? Any thoughts, anyone?