“I would hope that our community realizes that Peercoin is failing (as far as price is concerned) because it has no true value proposition, not the lack of someone aggressively speaking about it. PPC does not store value reliably, it no longer has the benefit of being the only PoS implementation, and its community spends more time talking about potential projects than actually implementing them. As the Nu ecosystem grows I expect that many other projects and leaders (such as Ronny at CCEDK) will be speaking about the advantages they’ve found by using NuBits.”
Bitcoin, peercoin, Primecoin, dogecoin, neither has a future because they are totally opposite to austrian economics which demands stable currency.
A bunch of programmers from IT industry wanna solve the most difficult issue of another science, the crown of economics, monetary theory. This is one of the most ridiculous thing I’ve met ever.
What we need to do is becoming an Austrian economist or a believer of them at first and then begin to program, otherwise, the stupid halving reward per 4 years and other farce are inevitable.
Or are you a believer of Keynes and Friedman? Oh they believe government should monopolize the monetary, game over.
Or you IT programmers wanna develope a new economics theory of your own? I am doubt about your ability in economics at all. Just like I doubt mike Tyson can be a decent physicist.
What makes me disappointed about cryotocurrencies is that there are even 1000 cryptos, however, none of them is the implement of Austrian economics school monetary theory which is the only theory supporting private money on the earth after 300 years of economics science in human beings history.
This drives me mad to believe that the crypto world is badly lack of economics background, to be frank, most of them don’t even know what is money. I can imagine those FED/IMF experts and governments all over the world are laughing at Bitcoin which is never a good unit of account.
Assume in 2020 a company wanna use Bitcoin as their unit of account and when they discuss about a project and calculate the NPV to determine whether should they pass or deny that project. The conclusion is that, the feasibility of this project is subject to Bitcoin price volatility, if Bitcoin price drops 30% after 10 years we make profit otherwise we lose because our initial Bitcoin investment/borrow is big. This is insane.
Hayek theory was there in 1976, block chain tech was there in 2009, and nobody combine them into a revolution.
Bitcoin, with its fixed supply curve, in directly opposite to Hayek’s stable private theory, ironically, lots of bitcoin supporters regard Hayak as their spirit pillar. Yes, F A Hayek advocated for private money but not so volatile crap! He “hand to hand” teach us how to issue an stable currency while today’s 1000 crypto developers ignore it. May I say “fuck you” to 1000 crypto currencies?
But what if with 10.000 eggs in 2015 I can buy 2 barrels of oil and then in 2025 I can only buy one? Now replace oil with anything else and welcome in the financial world!
What I want to say here is: A currency will never be able to be “stable” by your definition. But can eventually be stable compared to another crypto or something else. We can create Nubits that is stable compared to the $ USD, but certainly not compared to both the $ and € at the same time!
And this is what you’ll face by creating an international currency. The purchase power fluctuates from one country to another. So your currency will also fluctuate.
Peercoin stores value in a more sustainable way compared with proof-of-work, but Tomjoad is right that Peercoin doesn’t store value reliably in a price stable way. That’s what NuBits is for. But maybe this is the way it’s supposed to be though. Maybe Peercoin was never meant to be money or a day to day transactional currency? Bitcoin has always tried to be a currency, but this will never happen as long as it has its volatility. NuBits could end up taking over the currency role from Bitcoin in the future.
Peercoin supporters also originally thought Peercoin was supposed to be a currency in the very beginning, but then that viewpoint slowly changed over time. At first people wondered how Peercoin could be used as a day to day currency because of the fixed transaction fee. The fee would prevent microtransactions. We finally realized that off-chain networks like Open Transactions could allow us to bypass the fee and it was something that Sunny hinted at in his interviews.
That answer satisfied us for a while until the release of NuBits, when we all realized how unlike a currency Peercoin really was. Sure, we could still use OT to bypass the fee, but why use Peercoin as a transactional currency or store your money in it if it sways in price? You can’t store money in something that is volatile. Sure, proof-of-stake will ensure that your money is always stored securely and in a sustainable way, but how much will the value of that money change by the time you go to retrieve it? Because of this, I don’t think many people believe that Peercoin is destined to be a currency anymore.
So without the currency role, what is Peercoin good for? That’s the $1 billion dollar question! I sure wish Sunny would chime in on this. Maybe the answer lies in building things on top of Peercoin through sidechains?
its community spends more time talking about potential projects than actually implementing them.
With the exception of several members doing good work on various projects, Peerchemist, Mably, Sigmike, kac-, Fuzzy and some others, I agree with this statement. We have no drive to recruit new developers to get things done. We talk about things a lot of times and then the discussion thread slides into irrelevancy and nothing happens because we don’t have the developers to carry them out. Most of the work that was getting done (Peerunity and Peershares) was because of Jordan’s team, but now they’re mostly committed to developing NuBits.
But what if with 10.000 eggs in 2015 I can buy 2 barrels of oil and then in 2025 I can only buy one? Now replace oil with anything else and welcome in the financial world!
What I want to say here is: A currency will never be able to be “stable” by your definition. But can eventually be stable compared to another crypto or something else. We can create Nubits that is stable compared to the $ USD, but certainly not compared to both the $ and € at the same time!
And this is what you’ll face by creating an international currency. The purchase power fluctuates from one country to another. So your currency will also fluctuate.[/quote]
I just raised a simply example of 10 eggs. For professional definition of “stable currency”, plz refer to chapter XIII “denationalizationof money”.
As Hayek said:
A stable value ofmoney’
But some prices always change on a free ma.rket. We will sometimes feel that the value of money has remained approxi- mately constant although many prices have changed, and at other times that the value of money has definitely decreased or increased, although the prices of only a few important commodities have changed but all in the same direction. What then do we call, in a world of constantly changing
individual prices, a stable value of money?
In a rough sense it is of course fairly obvious that the
command over commodities in general conferred by a sum of money has decreased if it brings a smaller amount of most of them and more of only a few of them. It is then sensible to say that the command over commodities has remained about the same if these two changes in command over commoditie&
just balance. But for our purposes we need, of course, a more precise definition of ‘a stable value of money’ and a more exact definition of the benefits we expect from it.
…
(You’ll find his answer in this chapter)
Obviously, most crypto world programmers don’t know the definition of “stable money” in Austrian economics, let along releasing a stable currency implementing that.
That’s the tragedy of crypto world, they wanna solve the economic issue and wanna make a money revolution, however, they don’t read correct economics books, even Sunny King is trying to simulate gold, but gold is failed and doomed for ever. Ironically , Bitcoin and peercoin are proud to become “Electronic gold”, do they know gold is bad money at all?
In this way, Peercoin would become similar to NuShares I think. The NuShares blockchain is like a backbone from which pegged currencies and other assets can be built on top of. The value of the entire NuShares network and everything built on top of it (all currencies & assets) is displayed in the price of individual NuShares.
Owning Peercoin would be similar to owning shares in the network. Peercoin would be the backbone of the network, while all the exciting stuff gets built on top of it in the form of sidechains. Sidechains would prevent the main blockchain from growing too much in size, unlike the NuShares blockchain where everything is under one chain. With more useful things being built into Peercoin sidechains that satisfies different needs, the value of the network itself will rise and that will be displayed through the rising price of individual Peercoins.
I’m basically just throwing out ideas here. I’m not totally sure how all this would work, but it should give Peercoin its own purpose outside of the currency role.
I’ve had the pleasure of watching sigmike in the NuBits community. I am convinced that he is one of the most talented cryptocurrency developers in the world and we are very lucky to have him on our team.
My comments should not be interpreted as a slight on any individual contributor within in the Peercoin community - it is more a commentary on Peercoin’s present lack of a coherent, articulated strategy to compete in the constantly evolving cryptoeconomy.
I think many people are realizing this. Progresses (if technically obscure) have been made in this direction such as OP_RETURN and ppcd by the developers.
An advantage of peercoin is that it is similar to bitcoin except for the POS part. For better or for worse peercoin is The POS Version of Bitcoin. Many features made on top of the bitcoin network can be relatively easily ported to peercoin. This cannot be said on other POS coins such as nxt.
Bitcoin is even worse than fiat for it’s volatility, Bitcoin is not money at all.
An obvious inflationary or deflationary currency will send wrong price signal to economic entities and mislead social resource to the wrong fields and eventually get crisis.
The capitalism economic crisis/circle is due to bad money such as gold or fiat.
Austrian economics is only allied for crypto believers, other economics schools are their enemy. Without decent theory, the IT engineers can only make electronic toy rather than serious currency.
CEO: our investment is 10000btc last year and now have 14000btc . Bravo!
CEO: wtf, the btc price drops 40% within several days, our hardworking becomes zero profit. Our project decision is totally fucked by btc volatility.
That is result of using btc as a unit of account, disaster! I truly believe btc will fail as a currency. Btc, if you regard it as a currency, it will be the worst one in history.
Introduction of the blockchain and BTC could rewrite economic theory from the beginning!
This is something the world has never faced before. Lets see how it evolves.
[quote=“thehuntergames, post:18, topic:3226”]When you study economics, you ll get a degree titled Master in Philosophy, not science. That should give a clue.
ps: stop saying bitcoin is deflationary, it is inflating at a current rate of 11%ish[/quote]
You even don’t know what’s deflation.
Inflation or deflation is the relationship between currency and commodity not money supply itself.
Although total Bitcoin supply increase 11% every year before next reward half, the demand has driven btc deflation to 1000% level already.
How many ounce gold could you buy with btc in 2011? And how about in 2014?
