I know peercoin had a fair launch but this fact concerns me. I see it as one of the biggest detractors to the future of Peercoin if the wealth inequality were to stay in a similar range. One address owns over 10% of all peercoins. It would be better if the owner of these wallets were to separate their holdings into separate wallets because it does look bad with such a top heavy distribution of wealth. Peercoin top 100 wallet addresses hold a higher percentage than coins such as Quarkcoin and is near the percentage of Novacoin. What are your thoughts on the matter?
A discussion on this topic also taking place on reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/1tz3na/the_top_100_richest_addresses_own_6158_of_all/
Not a big deal at all. BTC and LTC were the same at similar stages of their development. LTC just crossed sub-50% recently I believe, and PPC will continue to decrease as the price goes up and initial holders cash some out.
Thats the information I was hoping to hear
Thats the information I was hoping to hear[/quote]
Just sit back and keep an eye on it 
Actually we know that at most 100 people hold 61%(there can be 20 people with 80%, 10 with 90%), some may say that’s not good but I take it as good thing for some kind of transparency.
Better ~distribution factor can be achieved by large stakeholders just by spreading their coins to multiple addresses. It’s good for PR(+coin value), like here http://www.quarkcoin.cc/2013/12/10/mythbuster-quark-distribution/ , but doesn’t prove anything.
Nice to know that PPC kings don’t hide themselves. They have better ability to invest in coin development than scattered holders - and let’s hope they’ll do so 
While it’s not exactly apples to oranges, in some ways the public nature of Peercoin transactions (and the ability to see what addresses contain X amount of PPC) is a lot like the “Forbes 400” yearly lists.
The fact that I can see that 400 people in the United States have billions of dollars more than I do doesn’t fundamentally affect how I live my life. If any of the top people on that list wanted to make a concerted effort to influence/affect the economy, I’m sure they could give it a pretty good attempt. On the other hand, it is likely in their personal interest not to try to break things, because they would feel the impact as well.
I hope these top 100 holders are giving to the community in some way rather than just hoarding their coins. If they give some ppc to Ben, Fuzzy, JBT … etc for their contributions it would actually help grow peercoin longterm by creating needed developments and thus making their vast hoard of peercoins worth more.
Also I would hope they would contribute to a peercoin faucet or giveaways to entice new users to join the community and get interested in peercoin. The strength is in the network and peercoin needs to expand its network to a larger user base
I’m copying this post I made on the Trisquel forum. I think you’ll find it relevant to this discussion.
What I would like more people to realize is that the bitcoin network and, by extension, almost all cryptocurrencies can be easily compromised. Either through blockchain spam, 51% attacks, or selfish miner exploits. (Details about these can be found on peercoin’s new website and forums) Proof-of-stake mechanisms patch most of these vulnerabilities, but they do not solve the centralization problem that ASIC’s and other technologies pose.
Yacoin is the first (and only, to my knowledge) problem to more fully ensure equal opportunity, low-startup-cost mining. It does this by utilizing a mining algorithm that changes its own memory requirements on a schedule. I think those of us who are able to understand these issues should take it upon ourselves to share our knowledge with the ignorant majority of users. Now is a great chance to reach out to cryptocurrency enthusiasts and help them see the bigger picture of the ideals of crypto-anarchy.
Thanks again.
P.S. Yacoin definitely has POS too, otherwise I wouldn’t be talking about it. In fact, it uses the updated weighting algorithm that Novacoin introduced.
I never gave rich lists a second thought, I’m only focused on what I can directly impact. The launch announcement was made over a week before deployment, I’m comfortable with however the free market sorts it out.
One needs to take into account that popular exchanges like btc-e.com hold a lot of Peercoin since they merge the Peercoins of many Peercoin users into few wallets to minimize transaction fees.
This problem can be solved by introducing decentralized exchanges which need to be part of the protocol or need to be used on top of all cryptocurrencies which support the contract function. This could also make the exchange less attackable by large institutions and the profit from decentralized exchanges should be 0 to not allow any exchange to gain too much cryptocoins over time (like it would happen for btc-e.com in some years).
I just want to point out that the comparison is not really fair between different coins. You need to consider the size of the user base. For example, if there is a relatively new Xcoin that only has 100 users so far, then of course the top 100 “richest” address will contain 100% of the total value although the distribution among these 100 users can be extremely even.
Let’s make an observation of peercoin and litecoin at the moment. According to the same site providing the 61.58% data, peercoin only has14005 adresses right now while litecoin has 284414 adresses. Therefore, the top 100 ‘richest’ addresses in peercoin actually make up the top 0.71% user tile. In litecoin, however, the top 100 richest addresses make up only 0.035% user tile. Now we look at peercoin’s 61% and litecoin’s 46% again, it kind of smells differently, doesn’t it?
A more scientific and telling measure of the extent of value distribution needs to include the size of the user base as a major parameter.
P.S. If we use the number of nodes as a measure then the difference between peercoin and litecoin is more prominent.(2455/283 v.s. 57410/5696) Peercoin definitely needs to be more exposed…
P.S. P.S. Another interesting find is about the average transaction value in the last 24 hours. Having a relatively high transaction fee, peercoin’s Avg. transaction value is a rather high $6,495 USD. Litecoin’s Avg. transaction value is a mighty $30,125 USD!(Even bitcoin’s value is only $10,680 USD) It seems all other coins’ avg. transaction values are low (~100 USD. or so.) Any thoughts?
[quote=“maka, post:12, topic:1280”]I just want to point out that the comparison is not really fair between different coins. You need to consider the size of the user base. For example, if there is a relatively new Xcoin that only has 100 users so far, then of course the top 100 “richest” address will contain 100% of the total value although the distribution among these 100 users can be extremely even.
Let’s make an observation of peercoin and litecoin at the moment. According to the same site providing the 61.58% data, peercoin only has14005 adresses right now while litecoin has 284414 adresses. Therefore, the top 100 ‘richest’ addresses in peercoin actually make up the top 0.71% user tile. In litecoin, however, the top 100 richest addresses make up only 0.035% user tile. Now we look at peercoin’s 61% and litecoin’s 46% again, it kind of smells differently, doesn’t it?
A more scientific and telling measure of the extent of value distribution needs to include the size of the user base as a major parameter.
P.S. If we use the number of nodes as a measure then the difference between peercoin and litecoin is more prominent.(2455/283 v.s. 57410/5696) Peercoin definitely needs to be more exposed…
P.S. P.S. Another interesting find is about the average transaction value in the last 24 hours. Having a relatively high transaction fee, peercoin’s Avg. transaction value is a rather high $6,495 USD. Litecoin’s Avg. transaction value is a mighty $30,125 USD!(Even bitcoin’s value is only $10,680 USD) It seems all other coins’ avg. transaction values are low (~100 USD. or so.) Any thoughts?[/quote]
Great in depth analysis
Analysis backed by statistics is always more convincing.
With the constraint of fixed transaction fee, PPCers need to maximize their transaction value.