Suggestion for better PPC: better system for reward & less "Transaction Fee" when Trading (One that will make PPC better than bitcoin for sure)


#1

Hi,

These are just some suggestions for our future.
There are a lot of discussion about the 0.01coin/kb destruction, and I know that we are trying to have a more stable price and to become the backbone of the market, like a trusted treasury.

In the discussion below, I will discuss about our problems in liquidity and destruction of coins, and the new method that in my opinion will benefit us as a whole:

First of all, with our current system, we are trying to make people hold the coin as long as possible, which is good for some people. However, a trusted treasury & financial system also needs liquidity and volumes on the market. Without liquidity, the price will fluctuate so much when so little is on sale, this will make the coin not so trustworthy in time of needs. So, holding the coin for a long period of time has its good and bad. Too long will hurt liquidity & trustworthyness. Too short will hurt trustworthyness too when it makes the market goes wild.

We want the coin to behave like a treasury note, sure. The purpose of treasury is to increase the flow of money. The government promising an interest so that they can give a higher interest loan to businesses and entrepreneurs for the purpose of growth. Again, the focus here is to increase the flow of money from the bottom up then to the bottom again for growth (Afterall, businesses and entrepreneurs are what drives a community), and we need to make the money flowing as liquid as possible, as low commission as possible to induce growth. We will need to increase the number of stores we can spend the coin to, and this requires low commission and no destruction of coin at all. People hate losing coin, and with the destruction of coin, every transaction feels like a punishment. This punishment is good that they are saving money, at the same time it is bad because it punishes them for doing anything. Doing nothing is not a good sign of growth.

If a currency like gold is what we want, please note what warren buffet says. He says that we can accumulate as much gold as we can, and then bury it underground, and it does not mean anything in the end because the gold does not produce and bring progress. I love the proof of stake, but we need to embrace change and progress.

------------------------------------------Below is the conclusion of our discussion at the end (Spoiler)----------------
I’ll wrap this discussion up ppcman,

Thank you Sentinelrv for the accurate, and as pillow said, “THE most comprehensive” explanation for people’s concern regarding the transaction fee. In the beginning of this discussion, I felt that we had a need to lower the transaction fee for supporting microtransactions. However, after further in depth discussion, Sentinelrv had made great points, and I also come to realize that reducing the transaction fee is not necessary. The transaction fee is what makes Peercoin great and in the future, survive above all the other cryptocoin. Below is the summary of our discussion:

1 . If we are looking to process micro-transactions with smaller fees, there are solutions: [quote=“Sentinelrv, post:13, topic:4504”]
Peercoin can take advantage of second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network, which would allow Peercoin transactions to be conducted off the blockchain, bypassing Peercoin’s fee entirely. Lightning would make it possible for Peercoin to support large volumes, instantaneous transactions and micropayments. It’s basically a way to off-load the majority of the transactions onto a secondary layer that is providing a service to the network. After performing lots of transactions, Lightning would then settle on the blockchain and record the changes. This way as minimal transactions are taking place on-chain as possible.

And also as mentioned above, Peercoin is more compatible with Lightning and other off-chain networks than Bitcoin is because with Peercoin they won’t compete for fees with the ones who provide the security through minting. On the other hand, off-chain networks and Bitcoin miners will be in direct competition with one another for fees. It’s already uncertain if Bitcoin can make it after block rewards decrease to zero. This just complicates matters even more.
[/quote]

Why do we need to use off-chain solution, why don’t we simply use Peercoin network to process the transaction?

My thoughts after reading the above: Yes, Bitcoin is already on its path to centralization, and centralization is not the reason why bitcoin was created in the first place. Its blockchain size is already 110GB due to their low transaction fee in time of this writing (Check it Here), unsustainable BTW if everyone has to use that much space in their hard drive. This much space will deter Full Node adoption and increase centralization for Bitcoin; Things will get out of hands very quickly and by surprise for Bitcoin, especially with the possibility of 51% attack. Everytime 51% attack happens, people will panic sell, and investors will lose values over and over again. However, Peercoin overcomes all the above, after 5 years it only has 600MB (0.6GB) of blockchain size, and peercoin is shielded from the terrible 51% attack with its Proof of Stake System. We should thank the 0.01 PPC/kb for keeping our blockchain size small, safe, and promoting decentralization for the longer term. Blockchain is definitely not made to do smaller transactions, and if they do, they are doomed to fail very early, as fast as it is adopted.

2 . Peercoin is like a “Vault” in Coinbase (If you use coinbase.com at all) or the bank. It is meant to protect your digital assets for the longer term. Other cryptocurrency will not survive in the longer term because of what we have said in point #1. They will fall as fast as they are loved, and people will lose so much value for this very reason. While peercoin has been designed for the longer term as said in Point #1, and it will be very decentralized for a long time due to their minting incentives.

3 . Minimum Transaction fee is also adjustable (not fixed), giving a lot of options in the future.

4 . I did say that Peercoin as a “store of value” is a bad thing because it does not mean anything, not backed up by anything, not bringing progress to anyone. However, now, I think of Peercoin as a “gateway” to the digital currency world, one that will not fail me and my digital assets. I use digital currency because it is safer than the bank, safer than cash, safer than gold, and for ease of transaction around the world. However, other digital assets like bitcoin and many more are on their way to failure as discussed in point #1 & #2. When other digital currencies such as bitcoin and litecoin fails, they will fail spectacularly and quickly, and losing value is not why I put money into digital currency. I want it safe and secure, and I want to use it one day for transactions or emergencies without having any fear of it losing value. I think peercoin is the right choice for me.

5 . Also note that the more transaction we do, the better the value of Peercoin will be. Every transaction decreases the money supply, and that in turn will increase price for everyone in the community.

Thank you Sentinelrv, savereritt, and Nagalim for the discussion. I really appreciate your time and effort to answer my questions and initially, it was suggestion.


Is Nxt a fork of Peercoin?
Peercoin, 'Store of Value', and the newbie's perspective
#2

Im super confused how you would prevent people from spam-filling every block with no txn fee. Im sure every crypto out there would love to have no txn fee with no downsides. But there it is, every crypto has a fee.

The fee destruction is one of my favorite parts of ppc, actually.


#3

That’s true Nagalim, every crypto seems to need txn fee. I personally like the 0.1 destruction when I think it in the bigger picture, but somehow I keep getting reminded that whenever I do something with the coin, I will destroy something. That kind of guilt or deeper feeling. How about we say it as “Transaction fee” instead of destruction? Why not? This way we de-stigmatize it from that “destroy” word. Or maybe “Commitment Fee” or something else.

Maybe we can set it as a percentage with a maximum. If we set the txn fee as 0.1%/kb with a maximum of 0.1, I feel that it will make a difference.
Still, I think it shouldn’t be too high so we have a healthy inflation just as discussed above.A 0.1 destruction just makes people think,"Oh, what if in the future it becomes $10000, then I would have regretted losing that $1000. See this thread for example: https://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/1rsr0v/can_the_transaction_fee_be_adjusted_from_01/
Yes it is currently only at around 5 cents/transaction. I still think it is too much though. If we want price stability, the inflation and 30 days maturity time before minting is allowed should be enough (That 30 days maturity with reward potential should be enough to deter people from making speculative trade that crashes the market. The higher the reward/inflation, the less likely they will sell PPC). If it is not enough, we can increase the 30 days rule.

Sometimes it is just how we say it that makes a difference. An example in Japan: there is a name of drug back in year 2000s which name is not proper, so the sales is not very high due to people’s name bias. But they changed the name and sales increased by 5x. I forgot the name of the drug, but this may be our situation.


#4

Most people do call it the “0.01/KB fee”. Destruction is just how we talk about the technicality of it because it gets right to the difference between ppc and btc. The thing is, when you burn coins you don’t really remove any money from the network itself. Rather, you are converting your personal funds into space on the blockchain. When looking at the flow of value in this destruction event, imagine the demand for the coin remains the same but you remove coins from supply. The effect is an increase in price as you buy more coins on the market. In this way, the money is flowing from you and into everyone who holds the currency (deflationary, as you say, but driven by your need to use it).

We could modify the inflation rate, or the fee, or the blocksize. There is a lot we can do, however there doesnt seem to be a large need to change the core protocol in these ways and why over-engineer a solution? These are variables that can be changed and tested in alt-coins. We tend to be conservative about protocol changes unless it is clear that it is a good path to follow.

As for marketing, are you referring to a particular document, or just general teminology? I agree we should call it a “fee” most of the time, but terminology like “burning” is useful from a technical standpoint.


#5

Yes, the modification to inflation rate may seem to be over-engineered. However, if we want to keep the price stable as the core principle of peercoin, it is very important. The value of peercoin is relative to the user as a whole in the world. When the reward of peercoin is fixed at 1%, and the real interest rate in Canada for example fluctuates, People may have to move from and to peercoin back and forth more than needed, creating a high and low season in using cryptocurrency. When our reward is 1% while the world average is 0% will make inflows to peercoin, increasing the price, but when our reward is 1% whille the world average is 5% will make outflows from peercoin, decreasing the price. In Indonesia for example, the interest rate is 6.75% and the economy is doing very good. They will be less inclined when seeing the 1% interest rate.

I feel that we have to follow the average of the user’s economic condition to keep them in by balancing money supply to the world’s supply. Maybe we create slightly less than the average to keep us more deflationary than the world but not too much. If not, we will see up and down from people coming and leaving, but not settling down in any crypto currency and not using it for the longer term, creating ups and downs in the price.

What do you think of the logic?


#6

I see peercoin more as a backbone currency like gold in that it acts like a commodity more than fiat. It represents blockchain space, which will also have a high and low season for demand. When you think about changing the inflation rate, you have to consider what it means as far as the transaction fee as a penalty for inflating the blockchain and stressing the network. I think it makes more sense to think of the inflation rate as a target for how much our network capacity grows with time as technology advances. For now, we don’t have the information required to guess at that.


#7

I like how you are approaching the issue although there is a difference between interest rates concerning the borrowing of money and supply inflation of the money itself. The Central Bank of Indonesia may have an interest rate of ~6.75% but this applies to the money being borrowed by domestic banks in Indonesia itself. The Central Bank manipulates the interest rate in order to maintain macroeconomic and financial stability. If the underlying Indonesian rupiah had an unreasonable inflation rate then the Central Bank of Indonesia would have to adjust its interest rate to account for the change. Here’s an example of the dynamic.

2008:
Interest Rate: 8%
Rupiah Inflation Rate: 10.23 %

2010:
Interest Rate: 6.5%
Rupiah Inflation Rate: 6.96 %

2012:
Interest Rate: 5.75%
Rupiah Inflation Rate: 4.30 %

2016:
Interest Rate: 4.75%
Rupiah Inflation Rate: 3.02 %


#8

[quote=“Nagalim, post:6, topic:4504, full:true”]
I see peercoin more as a backbone currency like gold in that it acts like a commodity more than fiat.[/quote]

Just in case this is not understood by greatuser, the term backbone currency comes from this quote by the founder of Peercoin, Sunny King…

[quote=Sunny King]"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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn’t be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."[/quote]


#9

Saeveritt,

Yes, as you said, inflation is different than the interest rate concerning borrowing of money and supply from central banks to domestic banks (which is then given as a loan to the businesses and entrepreneurs to grow. Normal people don’t take loan, instead they take government bonds, which the government gives back to the domestic bank at the nominal interest rate)
This is exactly why we need our own interest rate. The purpose of crypto coin is to bypass & replace the government (Central Banks) and the domestic banks. They do have some good policies like the interest rate adjustment to induce growth and test the economy. The bad policies are usually created out of self-interest. Inflation rate depends on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and the previous interest rate. CPI tells us that they increase prices because they may be struggling to profit and grow, hence they need to increase the prices.

Well, the interest rate for our coin is probably going the opposite way the normal government interest rate will be, because their purpose is to give cheaper loan, and our purpose is to give extra money to grow (Not Loan). But both will have similar end goal: to give economic incentive to induce growth. If the Central bank gives loan at lower interest rate, we give extra money at no interest. This method have flaws though. What if they do not spend the extra money that we gave. Then the economy will not grow, the interest will stay high, and as a result of new supply, the coin value will drop fast. I do not know how to solve this problem. Maybe the problem is that we should not give free money in the first place, but is that a solution?

Perhaps that extra money we gave needs to have some consequences to it, like they will need to repay something like a loan. I am not sure what.

Also, Apparently this guy has the same opinion as me:

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/1xbnqe/dear_peercoin/#bottom-comments
    I also said this in my first post,“If a currency like gold is what we want, please note what warren buffet says. He says that we can accumulate as much gold as we can, and then bury it underground, and it does not mean anything in the end because the gold does not produce and bring progress.”
    And that is exactly what he thinks too, that we need to use it for transaction to bring value. We need to reduce the transaction cost so that we can use it for day to day transactions. Even gold has no transaction fee if we hand over the gold just like that.

#10

Also, by lowering the fee, it will follow the principle of “Give and Take”.
Currently that 1% interest is about 240,000 coin. So total transaction will probably be around 2.4 million to keep the amount of peercoin constant.
Now if we reduce that, we may touch the bigger customer base, which is the retail. The total transaction will be higher, and that hopefully goes evens out the 240,000 coin produced. (0.01 * 24 million Or 0.0001 * 240 million is also 240,000 coin)

This is just a calculation. Is it not in the intention of peercoin developer&founder? Or the intention is to make this a store of value, while we use other coin as well to do daily transaction?


#11

I think the intention was to make the actual Peercoin network a better store of value and gold simulator than Bitcoin and all the other cryptos that are centralizing their networks trying to become the next Visa.

My reading of Sunny’s quote tells me that he meant for Peercoin to focus on becoming a decentralized backbone for people to store wealth, one that focuses on long-term sustainability and maximizing decentralized security over increasing speed and transactions or lowering fees.

Notice in the quote he calls for off-chain networks to help off load the majority of the transactions taking place. The blockchain is meant to be slow and expensive in order to better preserve the decentralization of the network. The main chain is better used as a settlement network. Various off-chain solutions that pop up like Lightning will help increase transaction speeds and lower fees. Those who want absolute security for their transactions will still use the blockchain directly if they can afford it and if not they can use a second layer off-chain solutions instead. I don’t believe blockchains were ever meant to hold all of the world’s transactions by themselves.

Peercoin is much more compatible with off-chain solutions due to its proof of stake technology. Off-chain networks require fees to run. So what you will have in Bitcoin is miners competing for fees with off-chain networks while at the same time the block reward continues to drop. It’s an unsustainable situation. Peercoin’s PoS minters do not require earning fees from transactions in order for the network to continue running securely. So unlike Bitcoin, minters who provide that security will not need to compete for rewards from any off-chain network. It is a much healthier relationship between the main chain and the off-chain networks carrying the majority of the transactions.


#12

So this is what I am getting for now: Peercoin will be like the “Vault” in Coinbase where people store their cryptovalues for the longer term (because other cryptocurrency like bitcoin is simply not built for the longer term because of their electricity consumption, future centralization, and 51% attack by miners).

One day bitcoin will fall, but for now, it is still valuable for transaction, just don’t put too much in it.
If we ever want to use cryptocurrency, it is better to take the money out from Peercoin “Vault” to other coin first. Is this what was envisioned by Sunny?

Also I read this Neocoin article: http://www.neucoin.org/en/whitepaper/
This is what they envisioned to have, but they failed. Do we currently have these system in place, or can we update this:

  • “Causing the stake modifier parameter to change over time for each stake, to substantially increase security against precomputation attacks”
  • “Utilizing a client that punishes nodes that attempt to mine on multiple branches with duplicate stakes”

#13

I think you’re on the right track with the vault analogy, but this part in bold is not exactly what I meant. There is no need to sell your Peercoins and use another cryptocurrency for transactions. Let me try to make it clearer.

Blockchains are valuable because they help eliminate the need to trust the parties that you’re transacting with. It automates the process and removes the requirement of trust from the equation. It does this by spreading the trust among a larger group of people around the world that are helping to secure the network and keep it honest. When I refer to decentralized security, this is what I mean. A blockchain network can only be fully trusted if many people are able to help to secure it. As fewer and fewer people work to secure a blockchain, it becomes centralized and trust creeps back in. The value proposition becomes lost because you once again have to trust a select few to be honest.

The thing that people seem to have a hard time understanding is that blockchains are not designed to be payment processors. They are not meant to process millions of high speed transactions like Visa or MasterCard. Any blockchain that attempts to compete with credit card networks will become centralized over time and eventually fail. Check Sunny’s quote again…

Bitcoin is already down the path of centralization in terms of the decreasing number of miners who secure the network. The increasing costs of mining are weeding out those who can no longer afford to compete. However there are other forms of centralization as well. Sunny talks about it here.

Blockchains that try to act like they’re credit card networks by offering low fees and increasing block sizes will suffer the consequences when their blockchain explodes in size. This will lead to unsustainable growth that advances in storage technology might not be able to keep up with. Not only would miners need to afford better and better equipment dedicated to mining, they’ll need to afford greater and greater amounts of storage capacity to hold the entire blockchain.

Peercoin would most likely be harshly affected by this. Those who want to be able to mint with their Peercoins would need to be able to afford more hard drive space to store a blockchain that continues to balloon in size. Soon they would give up and stop minting due to the increasing costs of storage, resulting in a reduced number of people staking with their coins and securing the network. Peercoin’s transaction fee is a deterrent against centralization through explosive blockchain growth and spam transactions. Right now the transaction fee is very small and doesn’t cost so much, however once the price per Peercoin starts to increase over time, it will start to act more like a deterrent against on-chain transactions.

This is what Sunny means by backbone currency, that instead of chasing after large transaction volumes that will only centralize the network in due time, it prioritizes decentralization. We want to maximize decentralization in Peercoin by making sure there are as many people minting with their coins as possible. Threats to this goal such as a massive blockchain size have been deterred through the fixed 0.01 PPC/kb fee. And we are always working on more ways to increase participation of minting, such as making it easier to mint, making the process more secure and eventually adding mobile minting support through the PeerKeeper wallet.

But you’re probably asking what good is a decentralized network that deters large transaction volume through its fee system? That’s where this part of Sunny’s quote comes in…

Peercoin can take advantage of second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network, which would allow Peercoin transactions to be conducted off the blockchain, bypassing Peercoin’s fee entirely. Lightning would make it possible for Peercoin to support large volumes, instantaneous transactions and micropayments. It’s basically a way to off-load the majority of the transactions onto a secondary layer that is providing a service to the network. After performing lots of transactions, Lightning would then settle on the blockchain and record the changes. This way as minimal transactions are taking place on-chain as possible.

The main purpose of a blockchain should be for record keeping and acting as a distributed ledger. It can only securely function in this role when trust is removed by massively increasing the number of people around the world participating in securing the network. Thus Peercoin’s goal is to become a backbone for storing value and information by maximizing its decentralization.

As the value of each Peercoin goes up over time, transaction fees will start to cost more. This will push people to start using second layer off-chain solutions more to transact with their Peercoins and PeerAssets. In this way on-chain and off-chain networks will form an important symbiosis. Peercoin will provide a secure and decentralized ledger while Lightning and other variants provide the transaction services.

And also as mentioned above, Peercoin is more compatible with Lightning and other off-chain networks than Bitcoin is because with Peercoin they won’t compete for fees with the ones who provide the security through minting. On the other hand, off-chain networks and Bitcoin miners will be in direct competition with one another for fees. It’s already uncertain if Bitcoin can make it after block rewards decrease to zero. This just complicates matters even more.

Those who prefer the trustless nature of transacting on the blockchain can continue to do so if they can afford the fee. If not, they can use Lightning or one of its future variants, but some small amount of security will be sacrificed in doing so. However Sunny did talk about this too…

The minimum fee as well as the max block size doesn’t need to stay exactly where it is right now. It can be adjusted later on, but it should only be done if the cost of storage technology is low enough for it to be done without affecting the decentralization of the network.

Does that better explain it? I don’t consider myself an expert, because I have a non-developer understanding of things. This is my best attempt at explaining it though.

From what I recall about Neucoin their focus was having microtransactions on the blockchain, which is the complete opposite of Peercoin. As to your question about the security flaws, we did adapt after their paper was released. Peercoin uses a dynamic stake modifier now, rather than a static one like it used to.


If Bitcoin is the Honey Badger of Cryptocurrencies then Peercoin is the Tardigrade
A transaction fee (even if it is destroyed) is not an optimal solution!
#14

I believe this to be THE most comprehensive and easy-to-understand big picture overview of Peercoin that I can recall ever have read. Excellent work! It also fits perfectly with my understanding of the Peercoin value proposition and the way forward.

I believe Lightning Network to be a perfect fit to Peercoin (and even way better then Open Transactions (which pre-dated Lightning) that I’ve been talking about for years).


#15

What is the tldr; proposal or question to make it clear what we are suggesting or considering?

It makes it so much easier to scroll back and read all of that if we have the basic premise in mind.

I see it as just a narrative of what the benefits of Peercoin currently is… But by speed reading it almost looks like the 0.01 transaction fee is called into question.

The longer the text, the more you lose people.

Just giving my initial thoughts…


#16

I’ll wrap this discussion up ppcman,

Thank you Sentinelrv for the accurate, and as pillow said, “THE most comprehensive” explanation for people’s concern regarding the transaction fee. In the beginning of this discussion, I felt that we had a need to lower the transaction fee for supporting microtransactions. However, after further in depth discussion, Sentinelrv had made great points, and I also come to realize that reducing the transaction fee is not necessary. The transaction fee is what makes Peercoin great and in the future, survive above all the other cryptocoin. Below is the summary of our discussion:

1 . If we are looking to process micro-transactions with smaller fees, there are solutions: [quote=“Sentinelrv, post:13, topic:4504”]
Peercoin can take advantage of second layer solutions such as the Lightning Network, which would allow Peercoin transactions to be conducted off the blockchain, bypassing Peercoin’s fee entirely. Lightning would make it possible for Peercoin to support large volumes, instantaneous transactions and micropayments. It’s basically a way to off-load the majority of the transactions onto a secondary layer that is providing a service to the network. After performing lots of transactions, Lightning would then settle on the blockchain and record the changes. This way as minimal transactions are taking place on-chain as possible.

And also as mentioned above, Peercoin is more compatible with Lightning and other off-chain networks than Bitcoin is because with Peercoin they won’t compete for fees with the ones who provide the security through minting. On the other hand, off-chain networks and Bitcoin miners will be in direct competition with one another for fees. It’s already uncertain if Bitcoin can make it after block rewards decrease to zero. This just complicates matters even more.
[/quote]

Why do we need to use off-chain solution, why don’t we simply use Peercoin network to process the transaction?

My thoughts after reading the above: Yes, Bitcoin is already on its path to centralization, and centralization is not the reason why bitcoin was created in the first place. Its blockchain size is already 110GB due to their low transaction fee in time of this writing (Check it Here), unsustainable BTW if everyone has to use that much space in their hard drive. This much space will deter Full Node adoption and increase centralization for Bitcoin; Things will get out of hands very quickly and by surprise for Bitcoin, especially with the possibility of 51% attack. Everytime 51% attack happens, people will panic sell, and investors will lose values over and over again. However, Peercoin overcomes all the above, after 5 years it only has 600MB (0.6GB) of blockchain size, and peercoin is shielded from the terrible 51% attack with its Proof of Stake System. We should thank the 0.01 PPC/kb for keeping our blockchain size small, safe, and promoting decentralization for the longer term. Blockchain is definitely not made to do smaller transactions, and if they do, they are doomed to fail very early, as fast as it is adopted.

2 . Peercoin is like a “Vault” in Coinbase (If you use coinbase.com at all) or the bank. It is meant to protect your digital assets for the longer term. Other cryptocurrency will not survive in the longer term because of what we have said in point #1. They will fall as fast as they are loved, and people will lose so much value for this very reason. While peercoin has been designed for the longer term as said in Point #1, and it will be very decentralized for a long time due to their minting incentives.

3 . Minimum Transaction fee is also adjustable (not fixed), giving a lot of options in the future.

4 . I did say that Peercoin as a “store of value” is a bad thing because it does not mean anything, not backed up by anything, not bringing progress to anyone. However, now, I think of Peercoin as a “gateway” to the digital currency world, one that will not fail me and my digital assets. I use digital currency because it is safer than the bank, safer than cash, safer than gold, and for ease of transaction around the world. However, other digital assets like bitcoin and many more are on their way to failure as discussed in point #1 & #2. When other digital currencies such as bitcoin and litecoin fails, they will fail spectacularly and quickly, and losing value is not why I put money into digital currency. I want it safe and secure, and I want to use it one day for transactions or emergencies without having any fear of it losing value. I think peercoin is the right choice for me.

5 . Also note that the more transaction we do, the better the value of Peercoin will be. Every transaction decreases the money supply, and that in turn will increase price for everyone in the community.

Thank you Sentinelrv, savereritt, and Nagalim for the discussion. I really appreciate your time and effort to answer my questions and initially, it was suggestion.


Combine a (Point of Sales) system with Peercoin
Hiring a Marketing/PR Person