Hey I’ve been doing a lot of research into peercoin. The proof of stake models just allows the alt right to get richer they are the 1% and as such have a higher stake in the economy. If we shifted the model to proof of work the left would actually have a chance to make some money to help support social programs. This is supposed to be a project driven by the people. I don’t really know how to program (except html) but I would love to take this opportunity to learn. We could also take this opportunity to increase the block size. That could allow for way more transactions to go through the network and maybe make the currency more liquid. I’m willing to do the work required to get the model changed for 10000 peercoin coins. Let me know if you have any questions.
I saw this shill post, I don’t really trust medium it’s an open source platform so anyone can post influence campaigns. Has actual research been conducted?
For example here is a medium article discussing Russian influence in social media https(://)medium(.)com
(/)dfrlab(/)russias-full-spectrum-propaganda-9436a246e970 Let me know if you need more information about russia or peercoin itself I’ve been doing mad research and I have a lot of ideas.
You do realize that Peercoin is where Proof of Stake was originally invented right?
Here’s some actual research: Actually read the post and if you don’t agree post here on why you don’t agree and we can try to explain it better.
Hey my guy, really proof of stake was invented on the NYSE. I can provide you some research if you would like but the idea was you could own shares of a company and then get a share of the proceeds. Look at what that has done to the economy
Proof-of-Stake isn’t dividend paying shares. That’s not what we claim to have invented. The invention is securing a blockchain by proving you have stake for some time.
Oh so you are saying proof-of-stake isn’t a form of revenue generation! I agree, which is why we should to swap to proof of work.
Peercoin is not a company. It’s a currency network. There are no proceeds or revenue in Peercoin. There is only a well regulated block reward based on limited inflation. The idea is to give just enough of a reward to motivate currency holders to produce blocks and secure the chain. And everyone in Peercoin has a voice through their ability to mint new blocks. In Proof of Work chains, only large miners have the ability to participate in block creation.
I’m aware of what Peer coin is I’ve been scouring the documentation and plan on making some more suggestions in the near future I was just pointing out that proof of stake is a tale as old as time. The idea of using it to secure the btc chain is a neat idea but there is really know room for growth. I have a pretty large PPC wallet (over 30k coins) and I want it to be valuable just like everyone else. If no one is willing to listen to suggestions then this is more of a koreacoin the a peercoin.
I can create an RFC but I really wanted to talk about it more before creating an actual change request
RFC is request for comments, not a change request. It is just a way of communicating what you are trying to say in a more formal way to try to make it more understandable and easily referenced. Writing down the drawbacks to your own proposal is also a really great way to play your own devil’s advocate.
The simple statement is that ‘rich get richer’ is a a logical fallacy with regards to PoS because anyone can mint and the supply grows at the same rate of coin distribution, so your total ownership over the market cap is constant (as long as everyone is minting). If anything, your argument should be that we should get rid of PoW, but we have discussed that pretty thoroughly too and there are endless threads about it here on the forum.
April foolsday was over a week ago. Lol
Okay I’ll create a Request for Comments. I want to include a swap to Proof of Work, a change to max block size and mandatory checkpoints ever 87000ish blocks. That way if something were to happen to people’s coins we could always roll it back.
Let me know if you have any comments now but i’ll post a more formal one here shortly.
How are those things interconnected, should they be separate rfcs (I know a blocksize increase rfc would probably get support of some kind)? What are the downsides to your proposal(s)? What is the burden on implementation, both developer time and on the broader community in adapting to the changes? What kind of participants and use cases do we lose and what do we gain? And finally, the be all and end all, how do the proposed changes affect security of the system (the answer better be that it makes security better). Keep in mind that if you want real consideration for your ideas you should try to be objective and level-headed and try not to ostracize your reader. You are requesting comments; defending and campaigning for your proposal is what comes after you post the exposition.
Well… wouldn’t that just be Bitcoin? Peercoin without Proof of Stake is just Bitcoin. PoS was specifically created to solve some very serious problems with PoW, such as:
Due to a PoW only model, Bitcoin is currently controlled overwhelmingly by ASIC manufacturers in China and Russia. It is currently estimated that just 1000 people own over 40% of all Bitcoins in the world. Far from a “1% problem”, that’s a 1/10^x problem.
Bitcoin is currently estimated to use more energy than entire countries - Norway and Argentina, for example. That’s hardly an efficient design, and it’s certainly not sustainable.
Given the above, Bitcoin is very, very vulnerable to a 51% attack, and I would suspect that to eventually be the pin that bursts the bubble. Time will tell.
PoS fixes all of these problems, and more, which is why it was invented by Peercoin. Nothing about it is intrinsically less equitable than any pure PoW coin. In fact, I would argue it’s more equitable since you need to participate in an arms race of specialized hardware to mine modern PoW coins, but anyone can participate in the Peercoin network with just a laptop or a $30 Raspberry Pi.
I read the transaction fees are directly related to transaction size so by increasing block size we can increase transaction size. That would increase the number transactions we can fit in a block and that would increase the number of transactions per second thus allowing us to burn more fees and creating deflationary pressure that will counter the inflationary from staking and minting.
How is joining the bitcoin arms race any different then staking except on an environmental level? In theory you must invest money(stake) in order to increase hash rates and thereby allow you to mint faster. This is really no different except proof of stake requires you to hodl as the reddit shills say which drives the prices up.