Stable Currency Proposal of XPM

Marketplace Primecoin
1

It seems XPM is dying with less and less activity, so is the XPM price. Recently I’ve talked with some members of this PPC/XPM community and find quite some PPC supporters don’t care about XPM. :-/ Most of members here are PoS fans, wherever on PPC subforum or Nubits forum, the discuss is going on while here is silent. Is PoS really superior than modified PoW as Primecoin? I don’t think so.

Hash rate helps Bitcoin/Litecoin/Primecoin to defend themselves when competitors/imitators come up, for example, Dogecoin is very good at marketing and its technology copied from Litecoin, as a imitator of LTC, Doge finally failed in overtake LTC because of the result of Hashrate battle.

http://www.coindesk.com/what-dogecoin-must-do-survive/

What if LTC is a PoS coin and challenged by more popular imitator —Doge? Fortunately, now we have a chance to watch such a upcoming arm race between PPC and NEU.

http://www.neucoin.org/en/

The probability of Neucoin Scam does exist, but it is also possible a “PoS version Dogecoin”, a technical imitator but with a far better Marketing. This time, without hash rate protection, PPC faces a severe competition from Neucoin. Good Luck PPC!

We need a hash rate protection to assure our genius software developers’ labor fruit cannot be easily taken by others in this open source situation. PPC/XPM/Nu supporters should unite together, at least help each other by sharing developers/source code etc. For example, if PPC becomes very successful and some PPC holders/developers get rich, they may have more fund/man hours to contribute to Nu project, vice versa. Shall we split into three independent communities as PPC-XPM-NU? And just watching sister coin fading off? No! Any coin’s failure will definitely hurt our whole reputation. People say:" Wow, PPC coin? The sister of already died XPM?" Or " XPM? Is it from the same community of successful Nubits?"

How about adding a stable unit into XPM network with the help of Nubits project opened source? I mean XPM coin acts as share concept, and a new unit with stable(anti inflation) feature plays the currency role. Assume the new unit calls Hayek coin(HYK). In this way, XPM is both Golden Standards experiment and Hayek theory trail simultaneously.

In a PoW system, the existing XPM cannot mint/confirm transaction, but XPM holders can vote by XPM private key signature to determine the transaction fee(0.01XPM now) and the Hayek coin issue.

My suggestion is below:

let Hayek coin pegged to 1 USD initially, and slowly raise buy back price to get anti inflation after succeeding maintain peg for one year.

Because of private key vote is instant, we don’t need to wait for one week like nubit system, if more than half XPM holders make a decision within 1-2 days, the motion passed. Now XPM holders vote a XPM/Hayek pledge ratio such as 100:1( as per today’s price, 2.6$:1$). I have 10000XPM so I pledge/park my 10000XPM to protocol and get 100$/HYK, I am liquidity provider so use BOT software to trade HYK on CCEDK, just like nubits LPC. 100% reserve, every HYK is back by 1 USD in my account.

I wouldn’t run off because more valuable XPM pledged in protocol, and the reason why I provide liquidity is that the XPM protocol will give me extra XPM(e.g. 5% annually) .

It is the smart contract between me and XPM protocol, the contract is short term such as 1-2 weeks. When HYK demand decrease even to zero, the XPM holders vote a ratio of 10000:1, with the old smart contract due, most HYK will come back to protocol and XPM holders get back their XPMs.

XPM holders get extra XPM by providing HYK liquidity just like PoS coin holders mint/confirm transaction and get extra PoS coin.

When the HYK demand extremely high, the capitalization of XPM insufficient, the pegging will lose because one HYK equals to 1.5 or 2 USD. XPM holders will vote for a 10:1 ratio (0.26$ XPM ->1 $), that is I have 10000XPM(266$) and get 1000HYK and sell for 1000$. I have the motivation to run off with 1000$ and discard 266$ XPM, but the free market is not fool, they know the XPM cap. is insufficient and stop buying HYK and turn to Nubits. That’s the automatically mechanism. As F A Hayek said, in this case the private money issue bank need other competitors help them and this give extra chance for new comer in the free market, that’s not bad, competition always welcomed.

I am not sure XPM fans even XPM developer will be interested in my proposal, but as a loyal XPMer since 2013, this is my sincere advice.

If this pegging scheme is proven feasible, in future, Nubits project team may get some clue.

Best wishes to XPM PPC Nubit!

2

No, it doesn’t. If hashing power is a big issue as you think it is, new cryptocurrencies that compete with existing ones will just use proof of stake since they know they won’t get hashing power comparable to that of Bitcoin in the foreseeable future. Your thinking is flawed. You are making the same mistake as if you thought that hand made products would be less liable to competitors because workmanship is scarce (you may say). Except for a small part of the market, customers don’t care if products are hand made or machine made, they just want furniture, clothes, buckets, tools, and so on, and so hand-made products mostly compete with machinemade products and other hand made products; just as cryptocurrencies (whether proof of work, proof of stake or anything else) compete with both proof of work and proof of stake cryptocurrencies. The exception is the “niche” market that wants specifically hand made products or machine made products; this is analogous to people who want to use specifically a proof of work or proof of stake cryptocurrency; the general public doesn’t cares about this difference unless feed misinformation by the mass media.

Also, all proof of work currencies have to compete on hash power with other cryptocurrencies that use the proof of work hardware. In this regard, competition is a bigger “problem” for proof of work cryptocurrencies. There is already software and mining pools that switches between the most profitable cryptocurrency to mine automatically, that makes it evident that there is competition for hashing power already.

Competition is much more than hashing power. Hashing power is just yet another factor in which new cryptocurrencies (that use it) have to compete with existing ones, but there are plenty already that also apply to all other currencies in general, such as popularity (especially awareness of the general public), merchant adoption, and developers; these are just some examples.

In another of your posts you made the same mistake. Whether a cryptocurrency (Bitcoin, Peercoin, Primecoins, etcetera) is proof of work or proof of stake based doesn’t matter in competition, since it will have both proof of stake and proof of work competitors. Using of proof of work doesn’t prevents the proliferation of competing cryptocurrencies in the least.

I think that the proliferation of clones and forks with small tweaks doesn’t contributes anything to society. From my experience, the only ones interested in that kind of alt‐coins are speculators and people which are so ignorant of informatics that they don’t realize how ignorant they are, and so they can’t distinguish the marketing trash that accompanies most clones from an actual technical advantage. There will be hardly a mitigation for this problem using technological means. The only way to do something about it, is to not to engage into speculation of those cryptocurrencies and sometimes make people aware that it is just a plain bet, not investment, and not something that will give society anything new and useful.

You seem to misunderstand how NuBits keeps an almost fixed exchange rate with the USD. Read their white paper for the details; compare with how BitShares does the same thing using a different method (also for other assets, see BitAssets).

Also, you are talking about open source. It is unfortunate how many people talk about open source, which ignores the ethical reason of why software must allow everyone to use, modify and adapt it to his own needs. Free software was the first movement to defend computer users’ rights, based on the ethics of the issue (the rights of the users to have control over their own informatics), and secondarily practical considerations; the open source movement came later derived from the free software movement because they don’t like talking about morals or philosophy. It’s really a pity. People who don’t appreciate their rights will soon find themselves having none. Open source promotes the mentality that software ethics don’t matter, only practical considerations do. I encourage the community to adopt the free software philosophy instead of the open source practical considerations (here, “free” means free as in freedom, one can also say “libre” and “software libre” to make it clear). Bear in mind that most free software is also open source, and vice‐versa, so the difference is mostly a matter of attitude around a very similar set of licenses and their social, moral, and practical effects.

Regards.

3

Thanks for your reply marioxcc, glad to discuss on silent XPM forum. :slight_smile: Let’s discuss, not debate.

No, it doesn't. If hashing power is a big issue as you think it is, new cryptocurrencies that compete with existing ones will just use proof of stake since they know they won't get hashing power comparable to that of Bitcoin in the foreseeable future.

Bitcoin is brand new phenomenon, other PoW coins thought they would be as successful as BTC so that they choose PoW, but THE FACT tells us that it is POSSIBLE BUT NOT EASY.

Only those PoW with strong innovation(such as XPM) and good marketing(such as Dogecoin) can set up their own position or even overtake BTC.

Litecoin, not much innovation, it is the second Scrypt algorithm coin, the first scrypt coin(I forget the name) was badly premined so abondoned by free market. Litecoin’s marketing is ordinary, worse than Dogecoin.

Dogecoin, the technical innovation is little, but with very good marketing. If LTC is PoS, I belive Doge will overtake LTC on Capitalization and trade volume.The hashrate plays critical role in protecting LTC when chanlenged by Doge. You may disagree with me, so let wait and see whether a PoS Neucoin with good marketing can rasily overtake PPC on security(wide distribution, and minting nodes number).

Primecoin, with very good innovation(hats off to Sunny King), but with bad marketing. I still believe Primecoin can build up its own status in future.

You see why those PoW fails to get close to BTC’s capitalization. It is POSSIBLE BUT NOT EASY. The high hashrate of BTC/LTC add extra difficulty for newcomer to replace them.

How about overtaking an original/No1 Capitalization PoS coin(PPC)? It is POSSIBLE AND RELATIVE EASY. The wolf is coming:

PPC → LTC
Neucoin → Doge

Now a PoS imitator(Neucoin) is trying to overtake PPC, let’s wait and see.

Except for a small part of the market, customers don't care if products are hand made or machine made, they just want furniture, clothes, buckets, tools, and so on, and so hand-made products mostly compete with machinemade products and other hand made products; just as cryptocurrencies (whether proof of work, proof of stake or anything else) compete with both proof of work and proof of stake cryptocurrencies.

Yes, customers don’t care about hand made or machine made,but they care about QUALITY. For cryptos, the quality is relate to security(and some other factors),which is hashrate for PoW and minting nodes number for PoS.

Why PPC has NOT reached to BTC’s security level? Why only 1 or 2 seed nodes off line and makes PPC network unstable? Why there is only several hundreds complete nodes after almost 3 years?

A PoS version Dogecoin(Perhaps Neucoin, or a new comer)may reach 10000 complete nodes and same security level of BTC. During this process, PPC is vulnerable without hashrate protection.

However,due to relative easy to fork a PoS coin than PoW, there will be many PoS imitators, and leads to diversion of sources and make time consuming original PoS innovation exposed to lots copy cats.

Open source promotes the mentality that software ethics don't matter, only practical considerations do. I encourage the community to adopt the free software philosophy instead of the open source practical considerations (here, “free” means free as in freedom, one can also say “libre” and “software libre” to make it clear). Bear in mind that most free software is also open source, and vice‐versa, so the difference is mostly a matter of attitude around a very similar set of licenses and their social, moral, and practical effects.

I like free software and open source community. However, Crypto currency is business, not free, you cannot build up a currency with completely/almost free system. Satoshi opened BTC source,software section is free, but the minting ASCI hardware section is not free, assume that BTC’s software/hardware/power is completely free, and how can you maintain BTC’s price as high as 300$ since people can rebuild lots of copied/same security BTC system easily?

Firefox is free, but google pay lots money to firefox because the default search engine on firefox is google not bing. You see, firefox is NOT completely free, there is expensive part in firefox’s ecosystem.

Scarcity, I mean substitutability. If you wanna PPC/XPM successful, you must make sure that they cannot easily replaced by competitors, otherwise they are always cheap, however, Sunny King is trying to rebuild Gold Standard on intenet, isn’t it? He said PPC/XPM are simulating gold. Is gold free? How can your cheap/easily replaced crypto store value? Those customers’ hard earned money dare not enter such eaisly replaced system.

Regards!

4

[quote=“sabreiib, post:3, topic:3433”]

Open source promotes the mentality that software ethics don’t matter, only practical considerations do. I encourage the community to adopt the free software philosophy instead of the open source practical considerations (here, “free” means free as in freedom, one can also say “libre” and “software libre” to make it clear). Bear in mind that most free software is also open source, and vice‐versa, so the difference is mostly a matter of attitude around a very similar set of licenses and their social, moral, and practical effects.

I like free software and open source community. However, Crypto currency is business, not free, you cannot build up a currency with completely/almost free system. Satoshi opened BTC source,software section is free, but the minting ASCI hardware section is not free, assume that BTC’s software/hardware/power is completely free, and how can you maintain BTC’s price as high as 300$ since people can rebuild lots of copied/same security BTC system easily?

Firefox is free, but google pay lots money to firefox because the default search engine on firefox is google not bing. You see, firefox is NOT completely free, there is expensive part in firefox’s ecosystem.

Scarcity, I mean substitutability. If you wanna PPC/XPM successful, you must make sure that they cannot easily replaced by competitors, otherwise they are always cheap, however, Sunny King is trying to rebuild Gold Standard on intenet, isn’t it? He said PPC/XPM are simulating gold. Is gold free? How can your cheap/easily replaced crypto store value? Those customers’ hard earned money dare not enter such eaisly replaced system.[/quote]

I see that you either didn’t bother to read in full what I wrote, or you are conflating freedom with zero price, otherwise you would have realized free software means free as in freedom and that it is not about zero price; free software and business are not mutually exclusive at all (See the previous link and Selling Free Software if you can be bothered to do that). I even have put a link to a document that talks about free software (in case you didn’t knew about it), even if you searched “free software” in Wikipedia you would have realized this.

[quote=“sabreiib, post:3, topic:3433”]A PoS version Dogecoin(Perhaps Neucoin, or a new comer)may reach 10000 complete nodes and same security level of BTC. During this process, PPC is vulnerable without hashrate protection.

However,due to relative easy to fork a PoS coin than PoW, there will be many PoS imitators, and leads to diversion of sources and make time consuming original PoS innovation exposed to lots copy cats.[/quote]

Here you are just repeating your idea that proof of work currencies are less prone to competition. I already explained why this is not the case: proof of work currencies compete with both proof of work and proof of stake cryptocurrencies. The fact that they are proof of work doesn’t alters what the competence is, it does not makes proof of stake competition go away. In any case, hash rate or coin age spending rate is just a small part of what competition must get in order to be successful, you are ignoring other factors that I already mentioned. You don’t seem to grasp this, you just kept repeating the same unsubstantiated belief accompanied with non sequiturs.

It is pointless that you invite people to “discuss” if you are not going to bother reading what they write and you are going to keep repeating your ideas, despite arguments made to the contrary, but in any case, that is the reason of why I am not going to continue posting in this thread. I am posting this message in the hope that you will learn to discuss more intelligently, and also so that you know why, if you reply, I’m not going to reply to you in turn.

Regards.

5

I think PoW is more subject to competition and replacement than PoS. Here’s why:

Imagine many miners supporting PoW (example: Litecoin). Another PoW coin also becomes popular (Dogecoin). It’s easy for those who own mining equipment to switch to the new chain, leaving the original chain with less support. One caveat is SHA256d vs Scrypt vs another algorithm: mining hardware might not be interchangeable between PoW chains. Merged mining also complicates the issue. However, the overall result is that PoW chains are not safe from competition because the hardware can quickly switch to new chains.

Now imagine many minters supporting PoS (example: Peercoin). Another PoS coin also becomes popular (Neucoin). It’s not easy for those who own PPC to switch to the new chain. They must sell the old coins on the open market, which may be a taxable event, and is subject to exchange failure, slippage, and any other number of negative risks. Then they must buy up stake in the new chain. Result: PoS chains are more safe from competition because the stake owners cannot quickly switch to new chains.

6
Also, you are talking about open source. It is unfortunate how many people talk about open source, which ignores the ethical reason of why software must allow everyone to use, modify and adapt it to his own needs. Free software was the first movement to defend computer users' rights, based on the ethics of the issue (the rights of the users to have control over their own informatics), and secondarily practical considerations; the open source movement came later derived from the free software movement because they don't like talking about morals or philosophy. It's really a pity. People who don't appreciate their rights will soon find themselves having none. Open source promotes the mentality that software ethics don't matter, only practical considerations do. I encourage the community to adopt the free software philosophy instead of the open source practical considerations (here, “free” means free as in freedom, one can also say “libre” and “software libre” to make it clear). Bear in mind that most free software is also open source, and vice‐versa, so the difference is mostly a matter of attitude around a very similar set of licenses and their social, moral, and practical effects.

I’ve read these

Free software is a matter of freedom, not price. But proprietary software companies typically use the term “free software” to refer to price. Sometimes they mean that you can obtain a binary copy at no charge; sometimes they mean that a copy is bundled with a computer that you are buying, and the price includes both. Either way, it has nothing to do with what we mean by free software in the GNU project.

Open source software

The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free.

We prefer the term “free software” because it refers to freedom—something that the term “open source“ does not do.

For cryptocurrencies, the “zero price”/“freedom”/“open source” make little difference, Neucoin team can download PPC source code from Github freely and without paying money.

I guess if MS/Apple open windows/Ios/Macos source code, there will be many competing OS based on them.

BTW, I am one translator of Nubits whitepaper in last Sep. My worry about Nubits is how to decentralized its LPC(liquid provider custodians). So I give out a pledge solution rather than Nubits’ mechainsm.

The fact that they are proof of work doesn't alters what the competence is, it does not makes proof of stake competition go away. In any case, hash rate or coin age spending rate is just a small part of what competition must get in order to be successful, you are ignoring other factors that I already mentioned

As Dan Kaufman from Neucoin team said:

How can one judge the potential of any coin other than bitcoin to achieve network effects? I would look at their team, their financing/investors, their distribution strategy, their marketing plan, their product development plan, their technology.

I agree with him that a lot of factors involved in a seccessful cryptocurency, techonology(PoW,PoS) is just one portion.

I think PoW is more subject to competition and replacement than PoS. Here's why:

Imagine many miners supporting PoW (example: Litecoin). Another PoW coin also becomes popular (Dogecoin). It’s easy for those who own mining equipment to switch to the new chain, leaving the original chain with less support. One caveat is SHA256d vs Scrypt vs another algorithm: mining hardware might not be interchangeable between PoW chains. Merged mining also complicates the issue. However, the overall result is that PoW chains are not safe from competition because the hardware can quickly switch to new chains.

Now imagine many minters supporting PoS (example: Peercoin). Another PoS coin also becomes popular (Neucoin). It’s not easy for those who own PPC to switch to the new chain. They must sell the old coins on the open market, which may be a taxable event, and is subject to exchange failure, slippage, and any other number of negative risks. Then they must buy up stake in the new chain. Result: PoS chains are more safe from competition because the stake owners cannot quickly switch to new chains.

Chronos, I agree with you that both PoS and PoW coins have to face severe competition, what I mean is the RESULT of competition.

What BTC/PPC are tring to do is building gold standard on internet, isn’t it? Even PPC/XPM has a quantity limit, Sunny King said he is simulating gold. Bitcoin fans say they are gold 2.0.

Is gold scarce? PoW coin (Bitcoin) can be scarce, but PoS will never be very scarce, only a little scarce. In PoW’s world, only one or several coins can become gold 2.0, the result of competition is that :only several can be successful. Others are cheap as copper,aluminum.

In PoS’s world, before PPC becomes gold, many “Neucoins” always come and get same quality as PPC, thus all PoS are copper 2.0. Gold 2.0 is alway a dream in PoS world.

Let’s wait and see.

Nubits is not typical PoS because there is scarce USD/BTC in system, what Nubits does is NOT to build Gold 2.0 on internet after all. There is no upper limit of NBT.