[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:68, topic:2459”][quote=“TomJoad, post:65, topic:2459”][…]
Peercoin is no longer an automatic choice for a successor to Bitcoin unless it finds a niche to provide value. Counterpeer/Peerparty and Peershares are two products that should be receiving much more attention from this community in my opinion.[/quote]
While I agree to the latter of this quote, I disagree partly to the first quoted sentence.
You are right that Peercoin needs to find a niche to provide value. But I still consider Peercoin the automatic successor of Bitcoin![/quote]
I don’t think that there is a clear niche. Apart from minting, there isn’t much difference between Peercoin and Bitcoin on a practical level. Even if Counterpeer/Peerparty is created, there isn’t a big incentive to use it over the Bitcoin Counterparty. Peershares does fill a sort of niche, but even that is more related to Proof of Stake rather than Peercoin itself, as it wouldn’t be secure to start a small blockchain using Proof of Work. Pretty much anything that can be done with Peercoin can be done with Bitcoin too.
But that doesn’t mean Peercoin has no value. When Sunny started Peercoin he said something along the lines of how it was to prove that energy consumption wasn’t necessary to run a blockchain. This solves the issues of centralization, tragedy of the commons, and energy wastage associated with Bitcoin’s security model, while still providing all of the functions and flexibility that Bitcoin allows.
So Peercoin’s benefits are on a fundamental level, not on a practical level. Really, Peercoin could be positioned in the way Litecoin has often promoted itself: if anything bad was ever to happen to Bitcoin, then at least we would have a mature and widely used blockchain to fall back on. Peercoin fulfils this role much better than Litecoin, as it is a completely different security model and so is a better hedge against Proof of Work than Litecoin, which only makes insignificant changes that mean it is still susceptible to any issues that Bitcoin is susceptible to.
So the plan is what it has always been: continue to develop the infrastructure around the coin and port any beneficial Bitcoin projects to Peercoin. It might not generate as much hype as all the new “features” that other coins are always shouting about, but fundamental issues are still a concern to many, as seen by Jordan Lee’s statement on why he decided to distribute dividends with Peercoin instead of Bitcoin.
The best thing for Peercoin would be convincing Bitcoin users that a strong Peercoin is beneficial for everyone, as it ensures the success of cryptocurrency even if Bitcoin fails. Though this is admittedly hard as most altcoins are usually dismissed as scams (rightfully so) and it is difficult to see any broad acceptance of Peercoin while checkpoints are still an issue. Peercoin receiving the same level of respect that Namecoin receives from Bitcoiners would be a dream.
Anyway, this is getting off-topic so here is the important thing in this thread:
My opinion is that it would be a lot of work to change the narration, and there wouldn’t be much gain from it. If people want to focus energy on a video, there might be more benefit from a new video as some have suggested. One that focuses on a different aspect of Peercoin, with a different tone that is aimed at a different audience.