why do we need a leader? the people have the power in a decentralized world, it is old fashioned way of thinking, peercoin is the future, turn the pyramid upside down, the leader on the bottom and the people on top
Agreed, but it doesnât hurt to have someone with incredible foresight and an amazing vision for the network. A great leader is not one who orders people around, itâs one who helps inspire people to follow them. And if that leader ever goes off the deep end, Peercoin allows everyone a voice and the opportunity to change course.
1 Like
Yes, weâd better have a leader who is selected by community.
@peerchemist, assume I want to issue a Hayek money(HYK) via peerasset. I (myself)decide how many HYK to be issue? How to manipulate the currency quantity? In real world, the central bank(FED) manipulate the USD quantity to achieve so called economics increase or social employment while in my plan, the manipulating goal is to keep the HYK buying power approximate stable.
You can issue more HYK as you please, and you can also burn it as you please. Is this enough?
How do you measure buying power?
Buying power is a very personal and cultural index, itâs different for everyone.
e.g. for smokers the price of sigarets greatly influences their buying power, while for non-smokers it doesnât.
For people commuting to work by train, the price of fuel has very little influence on their buying power.
For people living in dry areas the price of drinking water might greatly influence their buying power.
âŚ
Single person issuing a Hayek money is a bad idea, I wonder how a DAO issue Hayek coin and has decent governance to execute its monetary policy.
This is a very good question, and many economists had talked about this issue a lot, F A Hayek as Nobel Price Winner did provide his solution.
VIII. PUTTING PRIVATE TOKEN MONEY INTO CIRCULATION (ducats is a name of Hayek type currency)Constant but not fixed value
It might be expedient that the issuing institution should from the outset announce precisely the collection of commodities in terms of which it would aim to keep the value of the âducatâ constant. But it would be neither necessary nor desirable that it tie itself legally to a particular standard. Experience of the response of the public to competing offers would gradually show which combination of commodities constituted the most desired standard at any time and place. Changes in the importance of the commodities, the volume in which they were traded, and the relative stability or sensitivity of their prices (especially the degree to which they were determined competitively or not) might suggest alterations to make the currency more popular. On the whole I would expect that, for reasons to be explained later (Section XIII), a collection of raw material prices, such as has been suggested as the basis of a commodity reserve standard,1 would seem most appropriate, both from the point of view of the issuing bank and from that of the effects of the stability of the economic process as a whole.
Control of value by competition
In most respects, indeed, the proposed system should prove a more practicable method of achieving all that was hoped from a commodity reserve standard or some other form of âtabular standard.â At the same time it would remove the necessity of making it fully automatic by taking the control from a monopolistic authority and entrusting it to private concerns. The threat of the speedy loss of their whole business if they failed to meet expectations (and how any government organisation would be certain to abuse the opportunity to play with raw material prices!) would provide a much stronger safeguard than any that could be devised against a government monopoly. Competition would certainly prove a more effective constraint, forcing the issuing institutions to keep the value of their currency constant (in terms of a stated collection of commodities), than would any obligation to redeem the currency in those commodities (or in gold). And it would be an infinitely cheaper method than the accumulation and the storing of valuable materials.
The kind of trust on which private money would rest would not be very different from the trust on which today all private banking rests (or in the United States rested before the governmental deposit insurance scheme!). People today trust that a bank, to preserve its business, will arrange its affairs so that it will at all times be able to exchange demand deposits for cash, although they know that banks do not have enough cash to do so if everyone exercised his right to demand instant payment at the same time. Similarly, under the proposed scheme, the managers of the bank would learn that its business depended on the unshaken confidence that it would continue to regulate its issue of ducats (etc.) so that their purchasing power remained approximately constant.
I take back what I said here. It is more involved than just him simply being a leader who isnât doing enough. I donât think he ever planned on taking this role for himself. I created an addendum to my original post above so there is no confusion. You can find it below as wellâŚ
#Addendum Post
Some have taken my post below the wrong way, so please make sure you read the whole thing. You may want to read the original first and then come back to this addendum after. For starters, Sunny has not abandoned Peercoin, even though he hasnât posted recently. I clearly stated within the text below that he is currently working on v0.6. He told us this just last month in a meeting we had. He is currently on the verge of starting testing.
Some have also misunderstood, thinking that Sunny doesnât care about Peercoin. Itâs not that he doesnât care about Peercoin (he does). Itâs that the entire community perceives Sunny to be the leader of this project, when he really isnât. It is obvious through Sunnyâs behavior over the years (which I describe below) that he has not actively taken the role of leader for himself, and I donât think he ever intended for people to think of him in this capacity.
Unfortunately, because of his status as founder of the network, everyone mistakenly believes he is supposed to be the one actively leading the project. This mistaken belief causes people to be extremely disappointed when they donât see Sunny out there being active and working with the community to come up with new solutions. Because people believe Sunny is supposed to be the leader doing all these things, they have it in their mind that he is not taking his leadership role seriously enough and that his lack of communication and participation in the community is acting as a huge roadblock to progress, leading to our network being left behind and surpassed by others.
The truth of the matter is that Sunny is much more like a mysterious figure who just keeps an eye on the core protocol and never had any intention of actively leading the project. He is just a community member who happens to be the inventor of the protocol. That is all, and I believe that is what people here need to start realizing. If youâre looking for leadership and a vision for this project to follow, you should start looking elsewhere. And as Iâve stated, there are active developers such as @peerchemist that have been leading for a while now. Everyone should take more notice of what theyâre doing to help this project.
If Sunny King is not our leader, we must follow@peerchemist, and I wonder if our community reach a common view of changing PPCâs blockchain time to 5 minutes, or adding feature like lightning network, or @sigmike has finished the cold-mint source codes. Will Sunny King agree to do these modification?
Bitcoinâs governance is bad, PPCâs is even worse, we cannot even add the cold mint. It costed Sigmike quite some man hours to write those codes, for a small development community, this is luxurious,
Why should SK agree? It is a democratic system.
But this democratic system can hardly start a vote to determine whether cold mint should be accepted in PPCv6.0.
That is because no-one in the dev team is in favor of merging that code.
It is dangerous as it will lead to heavy centralization of the minting power.
And from all the others that are in favor, no-one is able to organize the vote because either they donât know how to build a competing client or they canât afford someone to build it for them.
In short: there is no vote because no-one feels like there should be one. If you do feel there should be one, feel free to organize.
But remember voting is done by having people mint with your client, not by organizing a simple poll in a forum.
To be able to organize a vote, you should at least know what you are doing.
Has PPC community ever started a voting via minting with client rather than forum poll? Except for client version voting. Iâm afraid no.
Indeed, it never happened. Is that a problem? Edit: Actually it did happen, see Edit at end of post
If there is no big disagreement in the community, why should there be a vote?
Voting means that there should be campaigns to educate voters. Imagine people not understanding the protocol to start referenda about things they do not understand, that would mean that the few people that do understand are constantly campaigning against dangerous ideas instead of doing useful work.
If you want to see true blockchain voting in action, go and take a look at what bitcoin classic and unlimited are doing.
Edit: A weak form of blockchain voting happened on PPC! Do you remember PARS? It is a client voting for relaying and minting unlimited OP_RETURN messages. It is still operational today.
PoWâs weakness is the separation of minting power and BTC holders, while PoSâs strength is the combination of coin holding and minting power. If PPC holders could vote via blockchain, the âclassic and unlimitedâ debate result had been out already.
In this early stage of cryptoworld, the most important problem is âcan they vote/make decisionâ, leave along whether the decision will be proven by future facts right or wrong.
If there is no big disagreement in the community, why should there be a vote?
Before US election, in 2016 spring, most people didnât believe Trump would become the president of United States. Before PPC community can vote, no body knows how many PPC holders like cold minting. Without a vote, how do you know there is no big disagreement at all? What if 66% PPC holders support cold mint? A surprise for you? Britexit and Trump are both surprises only after the vote taking place.
If 66% minters approve of cold minting, they can go ahead and fork. Every block is a vote on where to go next, what the next block in the chain is. Every protocol update has been a hardfork, people arenât scared of that. The reason cold minting isnât being voted for is because it doesnât exist, and isnât even theoretically well thought out yet. Even if 100% of minters were for cold minting, that wouldnât make it real, so voting on it is pointless.
Some developers worry about cold mint because it will let many PoS miners put their minting work on servers which controlled by a few big companies such as google, amazon, etc. centralization? Is it right?
Today, there are around 160 active PPC nodes at a time, perhaps after cold mint feature added, 80 of them moved to servers, but itâs also possible that new 300 nodes coming out for not afraid of being stolen private keys stored in memory.
For myself, I have windows PC, mac mini, macbook, raspberry pi. intel NUC running linux and so on⌠I will begin to mint if cold mint added to PPC. Because there is no safe OS at all, this is the overwhelming factor for my decision and for many big PPC holders Iâm afraid.
So the wishful thinking of some developers may not be the right choice.
why not run peerbox on your raspberry pi?
1 Like
Sunny finally replied to me via email as to the reason we have not seen him. The email he is responding to from me was about the new community updates and his absenceâŚ
4 Likes