I was just wondering if we could have a discussion on this quote, from Sunny King’s recent interview:
From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.
Personally I find this quote very exciting. There are many out there who believe we don’t need crypto-currencies aside from Bitcoin. That none of the changes in alt coins are significant enough. Even if this were true it would seem Peercoin was designed in such a way that it would still have a place. Some might say it isn’t actually a direct competitor to Bitcoin, that it’s designed to be used differently. Thoughts?
if bitcoin succeeds on a larger scale, it will not be decentralized anymore. the reason is, that the block chain is too big to be distributed to any client, because of millions of small transactions that contribute to the size of any single block. so people will use wallet services. the wallet service can save on transaction fees by just make internal transactions when the receiver is also a customer of the same or affiliated wallet services. in addition they can reduce confirmation delays to seconds instead of minutes.
so bitcoin will probably become a backbone currency for interbank money transfer on its own. if the wallet services would use peercoin as their backbone, they could generate income by minting stake with the capital of its customers. that means they can lower the fees and still earn more money than with bitcoin services. in addition to that, the fixed transaction fees with peercoin make it more suitable for less but larger transactions, what drives the customers need to use wallet services.
in conclusion, when bitcoin becomes a backbone on its own, still peer coin would be the better fit.
I would just like to clarify that when referring to minting stake, it is technically and legally not considered “income”. It is your share of the increase in money supply you are entitled to receive in a decentralized and fairly distributed manner. There is no real value increase, because it is exactly the same for everyone else. If the market cap stays the same and the money supply increases, then those coins you are getting are not bringing you “income” they are just keeping you at the same level.
You are wrong, if the coins minted by POS will owned by the service provider instead of the user who deposit coins.
I would just like to clarify that when referring to minting stake, it is technically and legally not considered “income”. It is your share of the increase in money supply you are entitled to receive in a decentralized and fairly distributed manner. There is no real value increase, because it is exactly the same for everyone else. If the market cap stays the same and the money supply increases, then those coins you are getting are not bringing you “income” they are just keeping you at the same level.[/quote]