Sabreiib, Sunny seems to disagree with you below. He says that transactions fees can’t sustain Bitcoin’s security level. It might work if the mining generation amount was kept constant, but then that would weaken Bitcoin’s scarcity. It simply costs too much to sustain pure proof-of-work systems like Bitcoin long-term. He then says Primecoin is designed to do the job better and that it has a “reasonably good” scarcity property. Finally, he goes on to say that Peercoin would be the best candidate because it can maintain high security levels without reliance on transaction fees and also that it has a strong scarcity property. Just as MasterofDisaster said above, Peercoin is scarce. It’s hard to mine and easy to sustain, just like gold.
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:1, topic:1921”]JustaBitofTime: Coolbeans94 wanted to know about Peercoin’s long term approach, he asks “Is its design more for long-term security and sustainability? How does that relate to Bitcoin’s longterm vision?(Coolbeans94)”
Sunny King: @Coolbeans 94. Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin’s future.
Sunny King: @Coolbeans 94. 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.
Sunny King: @Coolbeans 94. Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM’s inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that’s only from architect’s point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.
Sunny King: @Coolbeans 94. PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency.
Sunny King: @Coolbeans 94. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.[/quote][/quote]
Sentinelrv, I agree with SK about XPM is better than BTC if XPM grows up, but disagree the PPC’s future.
- Scarcity. As we known, this is basic economics concept. Scarcity is “necessary condition but not sufficient condition” to being valuable. Fresh air is critical for us without it we die but fresh air is not scarce so it has no price. When we check the PPC design WITHIN its whitepaper, it is scarce, however, if we put the whole society as our scope, Can PPC stop its copy cats?
2）Reduction to absurdity. Let assume XPM has grown up now and each XPM equals to $250. What’s the copy cats response to XPM? They rush to github download XPM newest software and modify some minor factors and claim their YPM is as good as XPM, just like what 500 PoW altcoins did to BTC in 2013-14. However, the free market don’t buy it because the hash rate/mining rigs behinds XPM is far greater than counterfeits(YPM). Copy cats can copy open source software freely but can NOT point guns to every XPM miner’s head to force them shift hashrate from XPM to YPM network. Last two years, LTC and Doge tried to compete with BTC but their hash rate(security) never close to BTC, that’s the reason BTC keeping scarcity. Is there any PoW coin whose hash rate near to 300P now? None. The copy task is difficult, if not impossible.
For XPM, its unique computing and supply curve besides potential side chain may incentive XPM mining(GPU, perhaps future ASCI ) and grow up, XPM may rebuild “Gold Standard” in future.
Now let assume every PPC equals $250. Those copy cats rush to github and download SK’s latest PPC version and modify some factor of course including name, the counterfeit called “QQC”, they intentionally set a very high PoW Sha256 difficulty and give out one third of all QQC to people on internet and shout " let’s PoS mining", thanks for SK’s design, the QQC network is same power efficient,decentralized environmental friendly and SECURITY.
People would doubt what’s the difference between PPC and QQC? Why PPC =$250 while QQC=$1 since both have almost network? If PPC fails to keep scarce, $250 is impossible. Gold Standard is unreachable.
Cryptocurrency is open source, author anonymous, they must hook something in real work to prevent copy cats, BTC has mining rigs/hashrate, Nubits has Fiat/BTC in their system, but what does PPC have in real world? Peerbox? Personal Computer? No. Because copy cats have those too.
