Taking up Sunny’s time with this junk is a total waste of time IMO. That guy hates on every alt coin.
Yeah, he seems like a clueless guy who is dead set on spreading his baseless opinions on crypto-currencies.
How about somebody actually addresses his claims instead of just dismissing them. After reading the PPCoin white paper, the first thing that occurred to me is that those who have the most money, will make the most money, because that’s how proof of stake mining works. This is a major issue as far as I’m concerned because literally those with the most ppcoin can just sit on it and watch it grow…
Yes, the rich get richer and early adopters get the most benefit … but wait, isn’t that what Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did? How is that an issue? Should we stop using windows & facebook?
Yes, the rich get richer and early adopters get the most benefit … but wait, isn’t that what Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did? How is that an issue? Should we stop using windows & facebook?[/quote]
Let me put it this way. As a new user, I have absolutely no long term incentive to buy PPCoin as I’m at a significant disadvantage to the early adopters because my share of the total PPCoin pool will become increasingly small over time, while that of the early adopters will become increasingly large. Whoever has the most coins, will slowly gain a larger portion of the total pot by doing absolutely nothing. It’s only a matter of time before the individual with the most coins has enough to pull off a 51% attack, and the kicker here is, nobody will be able to detect this attack as he can have his coins spread out over many addresses, so nobody knows who is gaining the majority of the new coins, nor how many they have. With bitcoin, I know that my 7 bitcoins will always be 7/21,000,000 of the total pot. My coins are not going to slowly become a smaller and smaller portion of the pot, like they will in PPCoin. Furthermore, those with 1 million bitcoins will not gain any more bitcoins by just hording their bitcoins. This is effectively the same thing as the government constantly printing new dollars, and giving the majority of it to whoever has the most dollars… Effectively stealing the wealth of everybody else. This is exactly what bitcoin was created to fight against.
The only reason anybody would be okay with this model is if they owned a huge portion of the coins, or they simply didn’t understand what the implications of not owning the largest share of coins is.
Yes, the rich get richer and early adopters get the most benefit … but wait, isn’t that what Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg did? How is that an issue? Should we stop using windows & facebook?[/quote]
Let me put it this way. As a new user, I have absolutely no long term incentive to buy PPCoin as I’m at a significant disadvantage to the early adopters because my share of the total PPCoin pool will become increasingly small over time, while that of the early adopters will become increasingly large. Whoever has the most coins, will slowly gain a larger portion of the total pot by doing absolutely nothing. It’s only a matter of time before the individual with the most coins has enough to pull off a 51% attack, and the kicker here is, nobody will be able to detect this attack as he can have his coins spread out over many addresses, so nobody knows who is gaining the majority of the new coins, nor how many they have. With bitcoin, I know that my 7 bitcoins will always be 7/21,000,000 of the total pot. My coins are not going to slowly become a smaller and smaller portion of the pot, like they will in PPCoin. Furthermore, those with 1 million bitcoins will not gain any more bitcoins by just hording their bitcoins. This is effectively the same thing as the government constantly printing new dollars, and giving the majority of it to whoever has the most dollars… Effectively stealing the wealth of everybody else. This is exactly what bitcoin was created to fight against.
The only reason anybody would be okay with this model is if they owned a huge portion of the coins, or they simply didn’t understand what the implications of not owning the largest share of coins is.[/quote]
Well, you’re making some pretty drastic assumptions here. First off that whomever has the most coins now will never spend them and just horde them forever, which doesn’t seem likely.
Its worth noting that you are viewing PPC solely as an investment and not much as a currency in your analysis as well.
Also it isn’t possible for a person who controls 51% of coins to actually attack the network without also attacking her 
holdings. It literally would destroy everything she has worked so hard to build up and its just senseless. The point isn’t really a semantic one either.
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a set inflation is a bad thing, the reality is that every currency over time has and will have to expand in order to simply keep up with a growing economy. When inflation gets malicious is when its actually around 8 or 9 % and the economy is growing by ~3% annually. PPC doesn’t have an unhealthy inflation built into it. 1% annually, if the dollar or any other fiat currency did that it would be tremendously valuable today. Hyperinflation is the enemy, inflation in and of itself is not an issue.
You’re also assuming that since you don’t currently have a large market share of the coins that you never will, which is defeatist. Bill Gates wasn’t born a billionaire, neither was Steve Jobs, etc… A currency can’t be evil by design, only what it is used for can be evil. Its like a rock, its neither good nor bad until you throw it at somebody, then its bad…but that’s not the rock.
PPC is ~8months old, don’t act like the early adoption stage is over because it really isn’t. In fact it likely hasn’t started, or if anything it just did. Previous to the early adoption state in the product life cycle is the adoption by innovators.
The points in the video really aren’t great ones and they aren’t well researched. I’ll address them one by one if somebody can list them, although a quick search in Reddit will turn up the same video posted where u/robotrebellion countered every point (I think to the actual guy on the video who responds back)…that was in r/cryptocurrency and not r/ppcoin if I recall correctly (which I may not).
So I had the same question, Sunny has never answered it clearly but based on my research this is what I can tell you: Whereas other crypto-currencies are susceptible to a 51% attack, (where an attacker can double-spend coins by gaining more than 51% of the network’s hashing power), proof-of-stake cryptocoins like PPCoin are not susceptible to this attack. In PPCoin, the block chain with the greatest total coin-age is chosen by the network, preventing the possibility of a 51% attack. Because once your coin age is destroyed you cannot mine the next block to double spend. Of course this is all a theory as Sunny has never posted a PPC protocol and I believe he is in a process of re-writing it.
Also as far as holding the coins go, I think that the goal of PPC or any crypto-currency is to be a medium of exchange around the world regardless of local currency. Limited Bitcoin amount promotes hoarding (just like gold), and I believe that PPC over time should hold a more consistent value vs fiat money and people can use it as a savings tool (PoS) or a medium of exchange because it’s value vs. fiat money will be more stable than Bitcoin’s.
Well, you're making some pretty drastic assumptions here. First off that whomever has the most coins now will never spend them and just horde them forever, which doesn't seem likely.Its worth noting that you are viewing PPC solely as an investment and not much as a currency in your analysis as well.
Also it isn’t possible for a person who controls 51% of coins to actually attack the network without also attacking her
Don’t make the mistake of thinking that a set inflation is a bad thing, the reality is that every currency over time has and will have to expand in order to simply keep up with a growing economy. When inflation gets malicious is when its actually around 8 or 9 % and the economy is growing by ~3% annually. PPC doesn’t have an unhealthy inflation built into it. 1% annually, if the dollar or any other fiat currency did that it would be tremendously valuable today. Hyperinflation is the enemy, inflation in and of itself is not an issue.
You’re also assuming that since you don’t currently have a large market share of the coins that you never will, which is defeatist. Bill Gates wasn’t born a billionaire, neither was Steve Jobs, etc… A currency can’t be evil by design, only what it is used for can be evil. Its like a rock, its neither good nor bad until you throw it at somebody, then its bad…but that’s not the rock.
PPC is ~8months old, don’t act like the early adoption stage is over because it really isn’t. In fact it likely hasn’t started, or if anything it just did. Previous to the early adoption state in the product life cycle is the adoption by innovators.
The points in the video really aren’t great ones and they aren’t well researched. I’ll address them one by one if somebody can list them, although a quick search in Reddit will turn up the same video posted where u/robotrebellion countered every point (I think to the actual guy on the video who responds back)…that was in r/cryptocurrency and not r/ppcoin if I recall correctly (which I may not).
You’re side-stepping my main concerns, like everybody else… Bottom line is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (once proof of stake takes over, the fact that it hasn’t yet doesn’t matter). It is built into PPCoin. Do you deny this? Why would somebody spend coins when coins an effective means of getting more coins without doing anything? I sure as hell wouldn’t spend any of my PPCoins knowing that the more coins I have, the more coins I get. You don’t need a degree in game theory to know that the incentive is to horde coins because hording is the most efficient way of getting more coins taking absolutely no risk. So you’re answer to my assertion that PPCoin highly favors the rich and disfavors the poor is to state that I’m being defeatist assuming I’ll never be among the PPCoin rich? Nearly all PPCoin users won’t be among the PPCoin rich, so what is their incentive to use PPCoin? Hope that one day the can be in the top .1% of PPCoin holders?
“A currency can’t be evil by design” Lol are you serious? Here’s my evil currency: I own 51% of all my currency, and every transaction creates more money, and gives it to me, the owner of the most of my currency. So your share of my currency will slowly diminish over time, and mine will slowly increase over time. I’m effectively taking your money via inflation. If you don’t think this is evil, well then I’ve got a currency to sell you.
You’re right about inflation, it isn’t an inherently bad thing at all, especially in modest amounts like PPCoin has. But that’s not the concern here… the problem is that all the new money being dumped into the system is given to those who have the most money. Meaning wealth is being taken from those who have fewer coins, and given to those who have more coins via inflation. This is also how the Fed works. You don’t think this is a problem? Please address this issue directly instead of saying that this is a non-issue because people won’t horde their coins. Some people won’t horde coins But I’m not counting on the owner of the largest share of PPCoins being that stupid.
I haven’t read this whole thread yet, but that’s exactly what I was thinking. I can make 1% interest by holding my dollars in my bank account if I wanted to, but I don’t because it’s not enough to motivate me to hoard dollars. Why would this be anything different?
[quote=“Excelsior”]1% goes to everyone… it’s not the rich taking them from the poorer, it’s everyone getting 1% more of their own savings. Everyone gets the same interest. I don’t see an unfair distribution.
As far as hoarding, tell me one person with lots of money who gets excited about making 1% on their investment. None will tell you that.
A simple index fund will bring you a historical 12% in stocks and you don’t have to do anything with that money. There’s no managing. You just let it sit. So why let your ppcoin currency make you a feeble 1% by just letting it sit there when you could shift it to stocks or bonds or whatever and very likely make way more?
Economists see a steady 1% inflation as the holy grail. PPC is designed to do just that. It’s one of the reasons PPC is destined to likely take off in my opinion.
Everyone on this forum is an early adopter. Granted, nothing is certain or predictable, but should this currency do well, ANYONE here today reading these words are lucky (if they invest and hold of course).
I see ppc as designed brilliantly to grow initially based on greed principles and then stabilize into wide-spread use based on energy, ease of use, security, cost, inflation, and other principles. Sunny is a mad genius.
Not that I know anything really, but these are my impressions.[/quote]
You don’t understand. If I own 25% of all the PPCoins, then I can expect to mine 25% of all the proof of stake kernels, meaning I get 25% of all the newly created PPCoins, which is 1% of the total amount of PPCoins in circulation, not 1% of my PPCoins.
As per the white paper, the 1% newly minted coins created via the proof of stake minting does not go equally to everyone. Such a model wouldn’t even make sense, as it would defeat the entire purpose of proof of stake.
WHITE PAPER:
“Thus the more coin age consumed in the kernel, the easier meeting the hash target protocol. For example, if Bob has a wallet-output which accumulated 100 coin-years and expects it to generate a kernel in 2 days, then Alice can roughly expect her 200 coin-year wallet-output to generate a kernel in 1 day.”
Alice will generate more proof of stake kernels than Bob because she has more coin years in her wallet, and thus Alice will receive more of the newly minted coins than Bob simply because she has a larger wallet. I’m surprised at how many people have bought into PPCoin and don’t even know how it actually works.
[quote=“btchombre, post:9, topic:87”]You’re side-stepping my main concerns, like everybody else… Bottom line is the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (once proof of stake takes over, the fact that it hasn’t yet doesn’t matter). It is built into PPCoin. Do you deny this? Why would somebody spend coins when coins an effective means of getting more coins without doing anything? I sure as hell wouldn’t spend any of my PPCoins knowing that the more coins I have, the more coins I get. You don’t need a degree in game theory to know that the incentive is to horde coins because hording is the most efficient way of getting more coins taking absolutely no risk. So you’re answer to my assertion that PPCoin highly favors the rich and disfavors the poor is to state that I’m being defeatist assuming I’ll never be among the PPCoin rich? Nearly all PPCoin users won’t be among the PPCoin rich, so what is their incentive to use PPCoin? Hope that one day the can be in the top .1% of PPCoin holders?
“A currency can’t be evil by design” Lol are you serious? Here’s my evil currency: I own 51% of all my currency, and every transaction creates more money, and gives it to me, the owner of the most of my currency. So your share of my currency will slowly diminish over time, and mine will slowly increase over time. I’m effectively taking your money via inflation. If you don’t think this is evil, well then I’ve got a currency to sell you.
You’re right about inflation, it isn’t an inherently bad thing at all, especially in modest amounts like PPCoin has. But that’s not the concern here… the problem is that all the new money being dumped into the system is given to those who have the most money. Meaning wealth is being taken from those who have fewer coins, and given to those who have more coins via inflation. This is also how the Fed works. You don’t think this is a problem? Please address this issue directly instead of saying that this is a non-issue because people won’t horde their coins. Some people won’t horde coins But I’m not counting on the owner of the largest share of PPCoins being that stupid.[/quote]
I am absolutely not side-stepping anything.
You’re looking at a 1% return on your money by leaving it sit for POS. If you can’t average at LEAST 8% on investments (of any kind) then you won’t have your money long no matter what. A 1% return on your money is VERY low and frankly its significantly lower than the risk free rate set by the market. Read: Zero risk, better returns…so why wouldn’t you spend your money is a better question. In other words, holding onto coins, even through POS, is likely the WORST way you can actually get more coins.
I think you misconstrued my point about currency, it of course, cannot be evil by design…unless of course some sort of hyper inflation is built into it. And yes, I’m very anti-Fed and the hidden tax of inflation and yes I am well aware of it. Having said that, its not the dollar that is responsible, but those behind the dollar. In either case, its sort of a moot point in my mind.
Where it concerns giving the money to those who have the most, well I’ll refer you to my first paragraph, the 1% from POS is not a good return on your money, even a guaranteed 1% is not. Again, a 1% inflation would likely struggle to keep up with economic growth, so in reality its not inflation as you are making it sound.
And I’m not side-stepping your concerns, Hording coins is the worst move a PPC holder could make. Its like having money in a savings account…why? Why have it there? You can earn more by having it work for you.
I’m not telling you that you’re wrong about the redistribution, you’re just wrong (likely) in thinking that a person who seeks to maximize his or her market share of PPC would do so by taking the least lucrative investment opportunity.
And the inflation tax of 1% here is, as you’ve noted, very modest.
*edit: realized that we have made similar arguments, I wrote this response before reading new replies to the thread so you may be tired of hearing it However, the fact that three of us independently had the same thoughts on this (unrehearsed I promise you) says something.
[quote=“btchombre, post:11, topic:87”]You don’t understand. If I own 25% of all the PPCoins, then I can expect to mine 25% of all the proof of stake kernels, meaning I get 25% of all the newly created PPCoins, which is 1% of the total amount of PPCoins in circulation, not 1% of my PPCoins.
As per the white paper, the 1% newly minted coins created via the proof of stake minting does not go equally to everyone. Such a model wouldn’t even make sense, as it would defeat the entire purpose of proof of stake.
WHITE PAPER:
“Thus the more coin age consumed in the kernel, the easier meeting the hash target protocol. For example, if Bob has a wallet-output which accumulated 100 coin-years and expects it to generate a kernel in 2 days, then Alice can roughly expect her 200 coin-year wallet-output to generate a kernel in 1 day.”
Alice will generate more proof of stake kernels than Bob because she has more coin years in her wallet, and thus Alice will receive more of the newly minted coins than Bob simply because she has a larger wallet. I’m surprised at how many people have bought into PPCoin and don’t even know how it actually works.[/quote]
I don’t really understand your concern.
Let’s say A owns 25% of all PPC and YOU own 0.0001% of all PPC. After one year both get their 1% as newly minted coins.
So after one year A still owns 25% and YOU still own 0.0001% of all PPC.
Where does the poor get poorer? In fact, both didn’t get richer or poorer at all unless the PPC economy grew or declined.
If this year all PPC in existence (let’s say there are 100 PPC) would buy 10 loaves of bread then it might be that next year
it is still all PPC in existence buying 10 loaves of bread. Just that now there are 101 PPC in existence. (It would actually be very nice if PPC would reach that point of value stability…it probably won’t, but that’s another topic)
Of course, in absolute measures 1% of 25% of all PPC is more than 1% of 0.0001% of all PPC.
But that’s true if PPC value increases or if it decreases. So A looses more if PPC declines (in absolute measures)
I just don’t get, what’s unfair about PoS
[quote=“btchombre, post:11, topic:87”][quote=“Excelsior”]1% goes to everyone… it’s not the rich taking them from the poorer, it’s everyone getting 1% more of their own savings. Everyone gets the same interest. I don’t see an unfair distribution.
As far as hoarding, tell me one person with lots of money who gets excited about making 1% on their investment. None will tell you that.
A simple index fund will bring you a historical 12% in stocks and you don’t have to do anything with that money. There’s no managing. You just let it sit. So why let your ppcoin currency make you a feeble 1% by just letting it sit there when you could shift it to stocks or bonds or whatever and very likely make way more?
Economists see a steady 1% inflation as the holy grail. PPC is designed to do just that. It’s one of the reasons PPC is destined to likely take off in my opinion.
Everyone on this forum is an early adopter. Granted, nothing is certain or predictable, but should this currency do well, ANYONE here today reading these words are lucky (if they invest and hold of course).
I see ppc as designed brilliantly to grow initially based on greed principles and then stabilize into wide-spread use based on energy, ease of use, security, cost, inflation, and other principles. Sunny is a mad genius.
Not that I know anything really, but these are my impressions.[/quote]
You don’t understand. If I own 25% of all the PPCoins, then I can expect to mine 25% of all the proof of stake kernels, meaning I get 25% of all the newly created PPCoins, which is 1% of the total amount of PPCoins in circulation, not 1% of my PPCoins.
As per the white paper, the 1% newly minted coins created via the proof of stake minting does not go equally to everyone. Such a model wouldn’t even make sense, as it would defeat the entire purpose of proof of stake. [/quote]
Can you give an example of what you mean? This is how I understand the proof of stake minting:
Lets say there are 1000 PPC in circulation now
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins)
…One year later…
There are now 1010 PPC in circulation
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins)
Sure, A gets the most newly minted PPC but his total percentage of all coins remains the same. I don’t see how this is an unfair thing.
[quote=“gliss, post:14, topic:87”]Lets say there are 1000 PPC in circulation now
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins)
…One year later…
There are now 1010 PPC in circulation
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins)
Sure, A gets the most newly minted PPC but his total percentage of all coins remains the same. I don’t see how this is an unfair thing.[/quote]
Ah, percentages percentages. That great deceiver of our time; commonly reeled out by our caring politicians to show that our long term suffering billionaires have only benefited by 1%, whereas those lazy, greedy, unemployed ikes saw their benefit handouts rise by a staggering 20% (for example). But of course, 1% of a lot is a fecking lot more. But 20% of feck all is still feck all.
So lets suppose for this exercise that PPC coins remain steadfast at $1000 each. Though perhaps I should use groats instead. Or BTC.
Under the first scenario:
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins) = $600000
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins) = $300000
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins) = $100000
And one year later?
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins) = $606000
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins) = $303000
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins) = $101000
So under this scenario, despite the percentages remaining the same, the rich got richer, because:
A profit = $6000
B profit = $3000
C profit = $1000
[quote=“glowkeeper, post:15, topic:87”][quote=“gliss, post:14, topic:87”]Lets say there are 1000 PPC in circulation now
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins)
…One year later…
There are now 1010 PPC in circulation
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins)
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins)
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins)
Sure, A gets the most newly minted PPC but his total percentage of all coins remains the same. I don’t see how this is an unfair thing.[/quote]
Ah, percentages percentages. That great deceiver of our time; commonly reeled out by our caring politicians to show that our long term suffering billionaires have only benefited by 1%, whereas those lazy, greedy, unemployed ikes saw their benefit handouts rise by a staggering 20% (for example). But of course, 1% of a lot is a fecking lot more. But 20% of feck all is still feck all.
So lets suppose for this exercise that PPC coins remain steadfast at $1000 each. Though perhaps I should use groats instead. Or BTC.
Under the first scenario:
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins) = $600000
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins) = $300000
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins) = $100000
And one year later?
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins) = $606000
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins) = $303000
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins) = $101000
So under this scenario, despite the percentages remaining the same, the rich got richer, because:
A profit = $6000
B profit = $3000
C profit = $1000[/quote]
You’re not taking into account the free market and price adjustments. Using your example, here’s what actually would happen:
1 PPC = $1000
A has 600 PPC (60% of all coins) = $600000
B has 300 PPC (30% of all coins) = $300000
C has 100 PPC (10% of all coins) = $100000
And one year later? Free market forces will push the price of a PPC relative to the dollar down by 1%. **
1 PPC = $990.099 ** ($1000 / 1.01 = ~$990.099)
A has 606 PPC (60% of all coins) = $600000
B has 303 PPC (30% of all coins) = $300000
C has 101 PPC (10% of all coins) = $100000
Everyone still has the same purchasing power.
** This is of course assuming that the supply of dollars are fixed, which we all know is not true, but one could substitute something that has fixed supply such as BTC and the logic would still apply.
Well, if you favor communism, we might just never agree. But then: What do you expect from money anyway? Can you explain to us how a cryprocurrency should be designed to make your thumbs go up?
Well, if you favor communism, we might just never agree. But then: What do you expect from money anyway? Can you explain to us how a cryprocurrency should be designed to make your thumbs go up?[/quote]
My thumbs are up Brenzi! I was merely using that as an example to show absolute value, rather than relative worth. And as you say in an earlier post, “But that’s true if PPC value increases or if it decreases. So A looses more if PPC declines (in absolute measures)”.
I’m certainly no communist. Now, if you were to accuse me of Marxism…
This is an old but good thread. I’d like to comment the above common thought that since rich PPC holders and poor holders both get their 1% POS per year, in percentage terms the rich don’t get richer.
The problem with the arguement is that the poor will need a larger part of his PPC for circulation – to buy bread and fuel for the family example, if PPC is widely adopted as a medium of exchange for goods and services. The PPCs in circulation don’t get to generate POS. So if PPC is to become a real currency, instead of a pure savings currency, then the rich will get richer.
[EDIT: the following paragraph was based on wrong numbers. See corrected analysis here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322051.msg3454125#msg3454125 ]
I remember something like 40% of PPC currently in existence were mined in the first month after the intruduction of PPC. Since most new coins are minted by POS now, it surely looks like most new coins in the future will go to those who mined in the first few months, FOREVER. The wealth gap will increase because this process is self-feeding (even not considering compound interest).
If you want to create a booming economy, you need to have money that is worth working very hard in order to get. PPC serves this purpose.
First of all, there is nothing wrong with being rich. Riches are not evil, it is the people (or the spirits that influence them) who can use the riches either for evil or for good. Money is simply a tool. So there is nothing wrong with rich getting richer. Let’s say I am extremely rich, and I use it for good, would you be against me being able to get richer so I can use it for good and to help people? If you want to help somebody, you can’t give away what you don’t have. You need something of value, and the more you have the more good you can do.
So, if you want to help the poor, the first way to help the poor, is don’t be poor. You know? If you want to help someone spiritually, you better be spiritual yourself. You can only give away what you have.
Yes, it is true that there are a lot of rich people who use riches for evil, but there are also rich who use it for good.
It is equally true that there are a lot of poor people who use what they have for evil or for good.
Second of all, at what point do you define “rich”? Rich is relative. Many people in the world don’t even have a toilet, a bicycle, or more than one pair of shoes, etc. You may think you are poor, but to someone else, they think you are rich. So who get’s to decide who is rich?
The morality of people is a matter of spirituality.
PPC is completely fair. If someday, you do not like the fact that someone is rich with PPC, nothing is forcing you to accept them. Just create your own cryptocurrency they way you want it (unfair) if you think it is better.