This is comedy gold, I’ll give you that. Increasing block size does not increase transaction size (as hilarious as that concept is), instead it increases the number of allowed transactions. It would be contrived at best to force people to make transactions. If you really want to go that route, the efficient method is just to increase the fee, no blocksize changes necessary.
However, if you’re a fan of looking things up you should check out demurrage and freicoin. Increasing market velocity at the cost of ‘store of value’ is certainly a design choice some economists thing is smart. The counter statement is that even if all existing freicoin is on the market moving rather than in a wallet saving, it still isn’t anywhere near the market cap of more traditional store-of-value coins like bitcoin. Ultimately, most economists around the world agree that an inflation rate of ~2% is ideal for a broad monetary system because it simultaneously encourages market movements while also generating a base level of necessary reward through interest for something to be considered a sound investment.
? There’s tons of difference. First of all, you don’t use processing power to stake, you use time. That’s what makes it more environmentally friendly. You can stake on a laptop using 300 watts, a server machine using 800 watts, or a small ARM-based SBC that only uses 5 watts of power - all stake evenly.
There’s no “arms race” in this. A single transaction output can only stake once every 30 days, at most. For all practical purposes that actually translates to once every 90 days, or longer.
Proof of Work (that you’re advocating) creates a technological arms race. Regardless of the algorithm you use, an ASIC can be built for it. Even if one couldn’t, the arms race just transfers to high end GPUs and they become either impossible to find or the price gets naturally inflated close to their mining output.
Your original concern was with elitism, was it not? There’s nothing that promotes elitism more than Proof of Work. Proof of Stake, and Peercoin, solves that problem, the 51% problem, the energy inefficiency problem, the high “gas fee” problem, and many others.
For example, think about what I said above with regards to GPU price inflation moving closer to their mining output rather than the actual cost to build the device. Who then has the advantage and ability to bid up the cost of those devices? The countries with the lowest energy prices, which usually translates to the countries that burn coal and gas without much, or any, environmental regulations or social costs for operating. That has translated to the real world issue of mining facilities being mostly centred in China and Russia. Meaning that Bitcoin’s PoW mechanism is not just using massive amounts of power, it’s using massive amounts of dirty power.
The problems with Proof of Work are massive and are ignored at what is really an astonishing level. The world will be forced to wake up one day though, and I wouldn’t want to be holding any pure PoW coins when they do.
Look my guy, You didn’t read what I wrote. I mentioned that the portion of PoW that you are complaining about is no different then proof of stake BESIDES the environmental impact. Either way you are investing either the cost of PeerCoin or the cost of a GTX 3090 or an asic. So either way elitism is really just part of crypto currency as a whole. That’s why we have memes about fomo people that can afford to diversify will end up making more money.
Alright so I sort of lied a little bit, I’ve been reading the threads in the PeerAssets threads and I really think the increased block size could allow for larger Assets to reside on the block chain. Imagine If instead of having to sell you my car I could trade it to you over the block chain. That’s like an amazing idea the only issue right now is the amount of data we can store. If we were able to basically put whatever we wanted onto the chain without worry about nodes discarding our transactions PeerAssets could really flourish.
… and I proved you wrong. I even used an example to prove you wrong, that you quoted. It’s not just “the environmental impact”. PoW coins, like Bitcoin, have been rapidly becoming centralized to low regulatory environments - in every case to the types of governments that the world should not want to incentivize.
Whether mining with ASICs or high-end GPUs, mining has become an elitist activity. After accounting for electricity costs, only very few people are able to make more money mining then they would have made by just buying and holding the same amount of coins their miner produces - and that has been true for probably a decade. This is not true for PoS coins. I have minted blocks for a profit. Anyone can mint blocks.
PoW also has a serious issue with “gas fees”, which I also mentioned, and which you also quoted. To send PoW coins can often cost $5-$20 in fees. PoS does not have this problem. PoS doesn’t even require a transaction fee at all. A small transaction fee is only present to discourage spamming the network.
So, with all do respect, my guy, you are the one not reading my responses, and you are really trolling this forum in complete ignorance. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if you had a point, which you don’t, your proposal is to remove PoS from Peercoin, making it a pure SHA256D Proof of Work coin, which would just be a clone of Bitcoin.
Quite simply, there is no reason for Peercoin to exist without Proof of Stake. At it’s very core, that’s what Peercoin is.
I mean I wouldn’t say you proved me wrong. I admitted that there was a huge environmental impact. I’m happy with the centralization of the currency. It will stop people from being able to accumulate wealth tax free and hopefully lead to the SEC gaining the ability to tax peoples wallets. Which will be good for the economy over all. Also with wind and solar energy climbing you will have to spend less and less money on gas. Eventually BTC could be Gas free so that really nullifies your argument.