I have noticed a lot of debating about wether or not Peercoin should keep or drop PoW. There are other debates around wether or not Peercoin holders vote to change the PoS economics but it seems that we need to get some clarity on the PoW debate first.
The problem with forum polls is that they represent but a fraction of stakeholders, and perceived opinions are heavily skewed toward those who are active in the community.
Arenât all polls âa fractionâ of the whole. Besides, the active community in Peercoin is the majority. I think this has been proven with the amount of addresses moved recently compared to the amount of Pacthcoin claimed. We have to start somewhere. Unless everyone is happy with the way things are going?
IMHO, The original objective of Proof-of-Work (PoW) inflation was to ensure fair and broad initial distribution of the currency. Peercoin has successfully fulfilled this role over the past 13 years. At this stage of network maturity, with a well-established circulating supply, both Proof-of-Stake (PoS) and PoW can contribute to ongoing distribution. It is proposed that inflation originating from Proof-of-Work (PoW) issuance should remain lower than that generated by Proof-of-Stake (PoS). Furthermore, the aggregate inflation rate from both mechanisms should be stabilized on a monthly basis. A conservative, low-inflation policy is recommended until network transaction volume demonstrates sustained growth.
Peer do you have your own thoughts or do you have to use a LLM for every single post?
considering that we have next to no pow miners represented here on forum when compared to minters, itâs no surprise that results would be skewed in favour of minters.
I believe itâs worth repeating the benefits that POW brings into peercoinâs hybrid consensus.
POW blocks create new peercoins that are not held in minters wallets, but are poured into the market therefore generating transactions and market volume, allowing people to acquire new peercoins at roughly the production price. if we take POW offline, it would severely slow down the distribution of new coins, as minters are reluctant to move any coins not to reduce their chances at winning POS lottery.
Also, POW blocks are great way to keep the blockchain generating new blocks incase of POS difficulty bombs and bugs, basically a backup mechanism of continuing to commit transactions without teams intervention.
Iâm not sure why would anyone want to turn POW off, I have not heard any arguments for it from real human brains neither. Can everyone who voted for turning it off write something by themselves, without using auto predictive T9?
I canât help but feel that the desire to choke PoW supply is a cynical attempt to pump bags. I may be wrong though. I look forward to peopleâs responses.
Keep static inflation instead of dynamic inflation. Peg inflation to static number. I donât car about inflation rate but keep POW inflation < POS inflation. Network Is very weak due to Low activity. Focus on increasing Network POS difficulties and tx volume.
While i agree that focus should be on increasing minter participation, I dont see how removing pow helps with it at all. Actually, without pow inflation there will be less incentive to mint, as pow dilution will be gone.
Can you please explain why there is this interval and how a PoW block would solve it?
interval in pos blocks can happen if large minter goes offline and pos difficulty is high for others to win lottery in time. pow block creates a block and allows blockchain to move forward.
The PoS difficulty adjustment by block 828241 was almost nothing.
If a minter is large enough to cause substantial loss in minting power, then we have major concerns with concentration.
Large intervals can be expected to occur from time to time, though they are very rare. Analysis has been done on the Bitcoin blockchain: Bitcoin Block Time Variance: Theory vs Reality
Similar analysis for Peercoin would be helpful to see if there is a unique issue with protracted intervals.
Edit: In any event, the PoS difficulty shouldnât be changed until a PoS block is received. The PoW blocks should be irrelevant unless Iâm missing something.
indeed these intervals are rare and pow blocks that run independently from POS blocks allow network to move forward, reducing average block time.
What do you mean by âmove forwardâ? The network can move forward without PoW blocks. The PoW blocks add some more blocks and reduce the average interval but they do not count as confirmations.
Weâve spoke before about reducing the PoS block interval to 5 minutes or less. That would be far better than anything PoW blocks add.
Why use words like âcynicalâ and âpump bagsâ. Is it not acceptable for an investor to feel like capital is not slowly shrinking while storing it in Peercoin. Especially while they watch Gold double over the past 12 years.
Pouring coins âinto the marketâ is the main problem IMO. If they didnât then Peercoin would become more scarce on the market. Simple math says the price would increase and Minters would then sell some to take profits. Price increasing would attract more day traders which would bring more volume.
Iâm no dev but if the pioneer of PoS canât run without relying on PoW then why was it designed to eventually not have any PoW?
Why are they not represented here? Donât they care about Peercoins development?
Mining is industrialised and is big business. They mostly only care about profits. Itâs not like the old days any-more. They will mine when it is profitable to immediately sell mined PPC.
This adds liquidity, but only sell-side liquidity which serves to suppress the price. Minters will sell and provide liquidity when the price is right. It doesnât make sense to me to suppress the price in attempt to create volume.
If it was designed not to have any pow eventually, whereâs it in the code? What do you even mean by ânot to have any PoWâ
This is real volume, real transactions. What will you have when they are no longer there? Empty blocks with nothing but coinstake transactions? What are you trying to achieve
