today I have been reading the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peercoin .
Well, this article is terrifying me. We are selling ourselves undervalued.
(hopefully I do not offend any member here…)
But it is even worse, it contains misleading statements like:
“is designed to eventually attain an annual inflation rate of 1 percent.”
As far as I know, we designed some kind of inflation, since we needed a incentive for proof of stack. But we hope that eventually peercoin will not experience inflation nor deflation.
I would rewrite many parts of the article, but my English is too bad. So I need community help.
Here is my action plan:
In this thread anyone should make suggestions what should be changed . And then we decide what to change.
Typing “peercoin” into google, wikipedia is the second hit. So we should be concerned.
===Steady inflation===
Peercoin is designed so that it will theoretically experience a steady 1% "decentralized" inflation per year, yielding an unlimited number of coins. This is a combined result of the proof-of-stake [[Mint (coin)|minting]] process, and scaling of mining difficulty with popularity. Although Peercoin technically has a cap of 2 billion coins, it is only for consistency checking, and the cap is unlikely to be reached for the foreseeable future. If the cap were to be reached, it could easily be raised, hence for all practical purposes Peercoin can be considered to have inflation of 1% per year, with a limitless money supply.
to sth like:
===Steady inflation===
In order to have an incentive for the proof-of-stack process new coins are created. These coins are distributed to the stackholders proportional to their stacks, which they put into the proof-of-stack process.The number of coins created during this process causes an annual inflation rate of 1 percent. This inflation process can not directly be compared to fiat inflation, since the new created coins will be distributed to all proof-of-stack participants proportional to their stack. Hence the proportion of the total money supply you hold keeps the same as long as you participate in proof-of-stack process.
I know Ben is going to be starting our own Wiki for Peercoin. We could use a lot of stuff from that on Wikipedia, but we might not have the time to wait.
I find it funny that people emphasize that bullet point about the inflation considering every other mint-able crypto-currency will have very high inflation for years to come.
Well the current wikipedia article does not even mention the word backbone currency.
So I would like to add sth like:
===Philosophy===
The creator of Peercoin, Sunny King, and the Peercoin community are promoting their cryptocurrency as a backbone-currency.[reference to www.peercointalk.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=679.0;attach=116] This means that Peercoin is designed to be highly secure and sustainable. Via the innovative proof-of-stack method Peercoin is allowed to be more decentralised and therefore harder to manipulate than pure proof-of-stack currencies. Furthermore, proof-of-stack consumes much less energy as proof-of-work. Since Peercoin is intended to be backbone-currency, it discourages mirco-payments by a transaction fee of 0.01 Peercoin. As a result the blockchain size grows slowly and less resources are need to maintain a network node. These facts allows Peercoin to be more sustainable.
The Peercoin community thinks that in the future Bitcoin may experience issues. For example, in the future minier will no longer be rewarded by new created coins, but by transaction fees. Therefore mining could become less lucrative. As a result it could happen that only the most efficient miners keep mining and may gain a majority in miningpower. Then the network would no longer be decentralised.
Furthermore, the massive use of energy could become a problem as it pollutes the enviroment and causes unnessesary costs. These theoretical problems are addressed by Peercoin.
Please let me know whether this is crap ???
Please rephrase my sentences if your English is better than mine!
In my opinion our wikipedia article should be rewritten in a more neutral tone. It currently reads more like an ad than a wiki article, it has been flagged by wikipedia for this.
