Will minters ever be able to earn a higher rate of interest? It seems to me if there is a small percentage of the Peercoin money supply which has owners who are minting, then shouldn’t they be compensated by a rate of interest which is proportionate to the amount of slack they are picking up for everyone else? I would think they should be paid more interest than just 1%. Once the number of minters rises, the interest rate falls. This would be a more market oriented model in my opinion.
A agree with the principle and like your proposal. Although people say if it isn’t broken don’t try to fix it. It would require a reasonable change in the protocol and the consequences of that needed to be thoroughly thought through. We already have a couple of threads with many proposals on how best to improve participation of minters (increasing security, rewards, improve user-firendliness, etc) and some are already implemented (e.g. Minting menu item in Peerunity wallet). We just need to make sure we pick the best proposals to achieve our objectives.
I also think it would be better if there would be 1% of all coins available for minting and the 1% is then split up between all minters.So if just 50% of all coins are used to mint you would get 2% of your coins instead of 1%. Just like a block is split up between all miners no matter how much people are mining. That would get more people to mint ppc and would secure the network even more.
So if a coin is spent before 30 days are over the 1% of it go to other minters.
This sounds good and I like the idea. But there is problem in long time, because some people irreversibly loss their coins. Imagine that the lost coins are 50 % of money supply in far future. These coins should be ignored, but you are still counting them. So even if all holders of the coins that are not lost mint, the effective inflation to the rest of the coins is 2%. With more and more coins being lost, the inflation on the not-lost coins is effectively increasing and the currency becomes more inflatory. (OK, maybe this is problem for the next 50 or 100 years to come, but I would still think about it.) Possible solution would be, as sigmint proposed somewhere, that coins that are unspent for 10 or 20 years cease to exist, so we would get rid of the coins in lost wallets. But this might be not good for marketing reasons as people might not like their money would be lost if unspent for too long. Another solution, probably easier to accept, would be not to count stakes older than ~5 years to money supply for any purpose. They would still be spendable, but wouldn’t be used for calculation of rewards of minters, and other calculations based on money supply that are in other proposals.
With this correction, I really like this idea. Another thing is, how to do it technically. Today, the reward is proportional to your coinage, which is simple to calculate. How should we decide who is active minter and who is not and how to calculate the rewards to achieve the redistribution? There was this proposal by mhps, which is one option, but the calculation doesn’t seem very robust - it should be easily seen that the system of deciding the rewards cannot be cheated in any way.
Btw. I do not think that our problem is that people are not minting enough. I think it is rather that people are able to claim too much minting reward if they solve block by big stake, instead of producing many block by the stake. As long as there is this possibility, increasing reward will not help much anyway. Optimal block should be secured by ~400 PPC now (active money supply / blocks in year). If someone finds block with 400,000 PPC stake, we are “missing” 999 blocks he should have secured by his big balance in that year. (The blocks are not missing for real, because the POS difficulty decreases to compensate, but this is what lowers the security, IMHO.)
I take this back, at least partialy. It is a problem, but not so severe as I have thought it is. Also look here.