I mean 1% of 1ppc covers 1 transaction. Per year. My point is entirely, that 1ppc can be much more worth than 1 unit of, say, fiat, and then the fixed fee of 0.01 gets very expensive. Up to the point where the whole system is simply unusable for transactions.
And my other point is that for a real investment, the yield of 1% is comparatively low.
The txn fee is 1% of 1 peercoin. I dont understand how the price in fiat matters. The statement is that you get 1 KB/ppc/year. So if you own 1000 ppc, you can make approx 1000 free txns per year. The price in fiat is irrelevant. So yes, if you own less than 1 peercoin then you don’t get a free txn within one year. I fail to see how thats an issue.
Aside from being an implementation nightmare, doing volume-dependent fees on a backbone network is a bad idea, because then you can easily spam the chain with tiny txns. The idea behind blockchain fees is that you pay per data, not per volume. This will always be the case, and it makes perfect sense, especially when you consider data txns like PeerAssets that transact literally 0 PPC. It does not make any sense to remove the fee on those txns just because they move no volume.
No, the price in fiat (or any other cryptocurrency) is certainly not irrelevant. It’s easy to see that 0.01ppc has more value if the exchange rate grows. You can easily calculate that as 1% of the other currency in the pair… and 1% of a large number is also a larger number.
‘Value’ is an ill defined concept. For me, it’s easy to see that 0.01 PPC today should have the same value as 0.01 PPC tomorrow, no matter what the exchange rate is.
The question is not ‘how many eggs can you buy with 1 PPC’. The internally consistent question is ‘how much blockchain space can you consume for 1 PPC’ which is 100 KB, both today and tomorrow. Whether 1 PPC is worth 100 million eggs or 0.01 eggs, it has an internally consistent value of 100 KB of blockchain space on the peercoin blockchain.
The ‘yield’ of minting is theoretically 0%, even if there is a 10000% mint rate. The supply grows at the same time as your holdings, so the yield is 0% because the price goes down as you introduce new supply. So bitcoin, blackcoin, and peercoin all have the same theoretical yield: 0%.
That would be true, if peercoin would have its own eco system and would be directly valued to goods and services. But unfortunately the reality looks different… goods and services are valued against fiat, not against cryptos.
Yes, and that is the point where it all boils down. How many eggs can you buy with that coin. And the other point is, how good is the coin as value store.
Normally, the first is determined by inflation. A low inflation is healty and keeps the coin flow alive, since people realize that they will get more eggs for their coins today than they get tomorrow. The second is determined by interest, as people realize that they earn as many % per time by storing their coins rather than spending them. At some point there is an equilibrium and the currency is stable.
Theoretically yes, for deflationary currencies. But they are not really currencies in the first place, because they lack the properties above, at foremost the inflation.
Because of that, Bitcoin is a very poor currency indeed. People realize that the coin itself grows indefinitely in value, just because the supply is limited. So they store it rather than spending it, and the tx fee adds upon this. Peercoin is similar, although this is not (yet) recognized. In consequence neither of these has a stable exchange rate, and will probably never have.
But Blackcoin goes a different route, as far as I’ve read. All the coins are mined already so there is a certain amount floating around. By staking rewards, the supply increases by a definitive value, so there is a healthy inflation of 0.95%. The staking gains “interest” between 1-8% (depending on the percentage of holders who stake) which compensates the inflation, but only for those who stake permanently. So the coin has both properties, inflation and its compensation and could serve as currency and value store both. It could be useful, maybe… if it was recognized . I doubt that it will ever reach exchange rates in the 1000, though, but I don’t think that is necessary. A stable exchange rate would be much more valuable.
Looks to me like blackcoin has about the same volatility as bitcoin or peercoin.
I think we have differing opinions of the purpose of a blockchain. I think of it as an immutable ledger, with the fee and the block reward being interrelated and representing the price (in work or time, not in fiat) for a ticket to use the immutable ledger. You seem to see blockchains as investment vehicles, and I fear you are trying to fit them into old concepts that may not apply.
Yes. Unfortunately it has and the community seems to have dissolved as well. Not very comforting, actually. Nevertheless I like the idea of it, being a pure PoS coin and smart contracts platform. The features are quite interresting.
Yes, it seems we have something different in mind. I was not talking about the blockchain, I also did not question it. You are right with that statements about the blockchain and fees on that level, I see it the same way.
But for a coin the blockchain is just the vehicle, the technical ground. It needs quite a few things more to make up a useful and successful coin (and most of it is not related to technical issues). The old concepts, as you call it, are not only old, they also have proved well over generations of human beings and trading. And yes, I think they apply as well to digital currencies and markets as they apply to all other markets. Ignoring them would be a huge mistake I guess… that’s why I argue
pure pos coin are shite. Think about who the original coin holders are and how they got their coins: it cost them no tangible resources just thin air. Hence all pure pos coins are to be kept at a safe distance
Why? Just because the inventors have the advantage of earning the most coins? That is the same for PoW coins either. You can mine with your laptop as many as you like, before announcing them… so usually the inventors of the coins hold most of the coins in both systems, PoW and PoS. They’re even making this a business model nowadays ;).
In the case of blackcoin it seems there was a pool and everyone could participate in a one week mining phase to generate all the coins. So they were distributed among the miners in that pool. It was scrypt PoW… But of course you needed to follow the bitcointalk threads closely to know that, which most people don’t.
Otherwise I don’t see a disadvantage over PoW or combined. The pure PoS serves the same purpose as PoW: keeping the blockchain alive. But it does it at a much lower cost and all by itself. If we take the real value of a coin as the value of the blockchain underneath (: for enabling distributed ledger services), then you get more value for the coin with a pure PoS coin than with a PoW or combined coin. So, PoW is the steam engine and PoS is the next level, the combustion engine. Or even next to the next level: the electric power drive. No question what survives in the end.
In pure PoS systems, new coins only go to existing coin holders. In a hybrid system like Peercoin, PoW injects a small amount of new coins every year into the ecosystem outside of existing holders. These new coins are sold on exchanges by miners and can go to new holders, rather than existing holders.
This continual distribution improves the decentralization of the network over time as it creates new minters that can provide security for the network. Pure PoS has no inherent mechanism to improve distribution and decentralization except hoping existing holders sell their coins on exchanges to new holders.
Also, pure PoS coins are subject to the nothing at stake attack. Our vision for Peercoin and a fix for nothing at stake is letting the majority of blocks come from PoS minters while a minority come from PoW miners, which will inject some entropy into the system. Here are a couple quotes from our core developer @hrobeers…
I believe it was Nagalim who gave me this example one time. Imagine a flower that throws off new seeds. Those seeds spread and eventually produce new flowers around the forest. The same concept holds true with hybrid systems. PoW helps spread new peercoins, which eventually produces new security providers around the world, strengthening decentralization of the network.
And yet another reason, Peercoin is currently set to take over the mining industry from Bitcoin due to the algorithms being the same. As miners are no longer able to compete, they will drop out and mine Peercoin instead, giving new use to their outdated machinery. The increased hashrate also has the effect of driving down Peercoin’s PoW inflation rate.
Fair enough, there is thruth in that. I agree to the theory.
But well… I was mining peercoin, about 4 years ago. I had recent equipment at this time, ten ASIC USB sticks and a raspberry pi. The ASICs were horribly expensive, and outdated as fast as in 2 weeks by the amount the difficulty grew at this time. I mined mostly peercoin and some bitcoin, from which I converted some to peercoin. I tried different pools, none of them is available anymore. Even the online exchanges from this time have mostly vanished.
In the end this mining was a horrible loss business. I gained something between 10 and 20 ppc in a time interval of 4 months, and by the exchange rate much less than I spent on the mining equipment. If I had simply bought ppc from the money I spent in the ASICs, there would have been much more left (and if I had done that over the last 4 years while the exchange rate was low, I would have gathered quite some wealth by today… damn)
Anyway, my mining attempt was an experience and a lesson, not more. Mining is simply a loss business for most of us, while buying at exchanges is the better option.
That suggests that buying coins would possibly lead to more spread and enthropy, just because there are more people who can afford buying (at least some) coins than people who can afford mining. And as it happens, you can buy pure PoS coins at exchanges too and the rates behave the same. So if many people buy some PoS coins and start minting, the distribution of hashing power would spread towards more decentrality. Additionally the demand/supply mechanism of market dynamics finds good exchange rates. But it needs good marketing and infrastructure, and usefulness. For instance, usefulness as an investment with comparatively high PoS returns .
PoW mining in turn always leads to a centralization towards single instances with much hashing power. The big (chinese) factories at places where coal energy is cheap. And the holders of this hashing power are the ones who get the coins. This means there is no wide spread distribution either.
So the model you suggest is working just in the beginning - when the coin is neither known nor wide spread, when the difficulty is low and everybody can mine easily without much efford. But as soon as this period is over, that means when the coin becomes recognized and the exchange rate rises, the PoW hashing rate starts to centralize and this kills the basic idea.
This was an argument already 4 years ago. The truth for me was however, that mining bitcoin was always more profitable than mining peercoin. And then changing the bitcoin to peercoin, since I liked ppc more.
Clearly many miners think in therms of profitability, so they might experience the same. But will probably just keep the bitcoin and cash it out…
Because of our dynamic PoW block reward, Bitcoin miners switching to Peercoin over time will help drive that reward extremely low, meaning less profits for miners. Also, our miners do not receive transaction fees since they’re burned, so the block reward is all they receive. Less profit for miners will most likely result in there being less mining and energy expenditure, which would make Peercoin mining more efficient than Bitcoin.