Peercoin Development Brainstorm

I think we should have a serious discussion about what the community wants to see in Peercoin, as well as the qt wallet. I have seen ideas such as making proof of stake easier, and improvements to the design of the wallet. It would be best if we could establish which of the communities idea are easy or hard to actually code and implement, and what the priority each feature should have for development.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We need in-client coin control. Like this but customized to the peculiarities of proof of stake: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0

FuzzyBear was talking about porting Armory over to PPC but to me it makes more sense to have the functionality in the main client. That way all PPC users have access to it.

[quote=“calian, post:2, topic:179”]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We need in-client coin control. Like this but customized to the peculiarities of proof of stake: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0

FuzzyBear was talking about porting Armory over to PPC but to me it makes more sense to have the functionality in the main client. That way all PPC users have access to it.[/quote]

Yup i agree this coin control would be great and (i believe it is about to be released in 0.4) access to the debug console from the Qt is really needed to.

In porting PPC to Armory this is no simple task and I was merelyt voicing that if a dev wants to have a go I can show them a few things but lack the time and python knowledge to do this any time soon.

Only repeating the issues I said in the other thread:

  • Make “reservebalance” parameter editable in the QT client.
  • Unlocking the wallet for minting only in the QT client.

Then I second the coin control idea. Also the cold-locked transaction feature would be very nice.

One bug I think is very importent to correct in the next release:

When minting PoS blocks, the Display for coins in stake is not working correctly. The total balance+stake is much less, then I really have. After restarting the walllet everything is fine. But not, when I permenantly run the wallet. This makes people feel they lost coins and this is the worst thing that could happen to a cryptocurrency.

Porting to Armory is to ad hoc. Please add something similar too

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/API_reference_(JSON-RPC)
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Original_Bitcoin_client/API_calls_list

:-*

I think peercoin should get a hold of bitcoincard.org they are about being green like ppc. Look at bitcoin card, if you have not seen it all ready cool stuff.

[quote=“ASIC PPC, post:7, topic:179”]I think peercoin should get a hold of bitcoincard.org they are about being green like ppc. Look at bitcoin card, if you have not seen it all ready cool stuff.[/quote]I mean if people want plastic wallets I can make some right away. Bitcoincard is not actually real.

Agreed on coin control. Would like to see a counter as to when the next set of coins are eligible to be used for minting via proof of stake, just as a wallet management tool, along with the total coin age of the eligible coins when they are ready to be used.

ZeroCoin ‘Type’ option

Personally, I’d like to see an * option * to send a transaction through something similar to zerocoin. When I spoke with the Zerocoin team months ago, they said making it a toggled option was quite reasonable. I know there’s some people that are gung-ho anonymous transaction and others that rather not go down that path. A toggled option in the wallet seems like a solid compromise.

If I could develop for Primecoin or Peercoin, I would change the mining system…
As I understood the Miningsystem from it’s origin to Bitcoin:
-> 1 after all coins are out, the transactionfee pays the miners to generate new blocks, for transaction
-> Peercoin pays interestrates of 1% instead of that?
I dislike that stakeholding, because of letting my computer on all the time to get the rate and ->

-> 2 I would erase the interestrate and adapt with primecoin -> generating unlimited coins, to make mining attractive
-> 3 Add a new kind of mininer that is called heater -> takes transaction fees and burns it + get an amount to make heating attractive

I’m just thinking to adapt the fiat moneysystem to bitcoin, so I need the heater… The heater could make the money value more stabil and is generating transactionblocks like the miner…

How difficuld would that changes bee?

To prevent that the heater nows exactly how much money he gets, we could cumpute a client parm, to make the heater rate more democratic…
If you find that prices are rising to much -> don’t ask the union for your wage, lower the heater rate instead…

[quote=“calian, post:2, topic:179”]I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We need in-client coin control. Like this but customized to the peculiarities of proof of stake: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144331.0

FuzzyBear was talking about porting Armory over to PPC but to me it makes more sense to have the functionality in the main client. That way all PPC users have access to it.[/quote]

+5 for this.

Peercoin needs to capitalize on easier proof-of-stake minting. Right now, procedure is for geeks only, but that’s the most important thing that differentiates it from Bitcoin. Also, easier minting would mean many users would not be willing to daytrade or sell PPC, so it means sell orderbook would shrink meaning the price rise.