Why do you think there would be no more transactions with the removal of PoW?
If the price goes up, minters will be willing to sell more which involves transactions. If DLCs are successful, that would involve transactions too.
incase price going up. all those old dead wallet since 2012-2013 about to be live again.
I do believe that once miners dont sell ppc anymore as there is no pow, there isnât a market for coins anymore, as they are usually the sellers. Not that there is a market anyway at the moment but then even less.
Minters just mint, they dont sell shit.
That said, once the reward has declined some more there wont be any sellers anyway in a few years
Why would minters never sell?
I was under the impression that POW had a dynamic element, whereby it was expected to deline over time, to the point where it became negligible.
2 Likes
Rewards decline as difficulty increases, but nowhere did it say that pow is going away. Moreover, the reverse of difficulty ensures that as interest in mining wanes, rewards increase making pow profitable again and able to restart distribution. It really is a clever system and Iâm truly surprised how some people are hell bent on breaking original peercoin vision just to get the price up, not thinking it through.
1 Like
Now as for my personal problem with current pow is that sha256 is very wasteful and overall leads to centralisation, i would much rather switch to primecoin algorithm or something else that is useful yet difficult to warrant an asic.
1 Like
Itâs also weird that the people who are complaining about whale addresses and centralisation also want to end PoW. Quite the contradiction.
1 Like
Please refer to them by name, if theyâre on this forum.
Changes to the reward are not required to maintain profitability. Only changes to difficulty are required.
The reward adjustment was designed as a negative feedback to mitigate increasing energy and other resource consumption of mining as the price goes up. This had the effect of causing the reward to drop substantially early on. Many people think the reward dropped excessively leading to distribution that was too rapid.
Itâs too late to fix that.
What the whitepaper actually said about the PoW rewards:
We modified the proof-of-work mint rate to be not determined by block height (time) but instead determined by difficulty. When mining difficulty goes up, proof-of-work mint rate is lowered. A relatively smooth curve is chosen as opposed to Bitcoinâs step functions, to avoid artificially shocking the market. More specifically, a continuous curve is chosen such that each 16x raise of mining difficulty halves the block mint amount.
Over longer term the proof-of-work mint curve would not be too dissimilar to that of Bitcoin in terms of the inflationary behavior, given the continuation of Mooreâs Law. We consider it wise to follow the traditional observation that the Market favors a low-inflation currency over a high-inflation one, despite of significant criticism of Bitcoin from some mainstream economists due to ideological reasons in our opinion.
The whitepaper was totally wrong about the PoW rewards not being âtoo dissimilar to that of Bitcoinâ. Itâs true as ASIC efficiency goes up, the rewards can fall but there are other mechanisms at play and the efficiency of ASICs does not follow a simple exponential curve.
4 Likes
and this is why you proposing to stop distribution altogether? not sure i follow.
No that is not the reason. I was responding to your previous comment. Not all of the things I said should be construed as a direct reason to remove PoW right now. I was partly describing how the whitepaper vision did not pan out as expected.
It seems you want to keep PoW because it was in the whitepaper? You speak of the âoriginal peercoin visionâ. Would you like to re-introduce central checkpoints and the original 1% PoS reward?
The whitepaper was not right about everything and the design has already changed since then. A new whitepaper ought to be released once the PoS rewards have been modified and if PoW is removed or modified. The original whitepaper doesnât give an accurate view on Peercoin any more and does appear to cause confusion amongst some people.
2 Likes
I have stated the reasons why i think pow should be kept operational, itâs presence in white paper is not one of them.
Obviously youâre talking about me considering that I started this poll and the âTagging dead addressesâ post.
It may well be a contradiction⌠Or maybe they both contribute to the lack of investors here. If anyone here could put their finger on the exact reason why Peercoin is failing as a store of value then Iâm sure it would be fixed by now. Can you offer any insight? So far I donât see any points here about keeping PoW that would help turn things around. We seem to be getting nowhere even though the votes for removing it are currently 70% in favour. Most people here want change. The result is NOTHING changes and Peercoin price keeps declining. The community keeps shrinking. While investors pull their money out and move it to another store of value with stronger historical figures.
If you think I am doing all this to"pump my bags" then you are wrong. I sold 98% of my PPC after 3 years. I cut my losses. I have kept 3,000 PPC for my great, great grandchildren lol
I do care about the success of Peercoin. For me, success for Peercoin means the PPC fiat price at least keeps up with the gold price.
If PoW is going to stick around then how else will I pump my bags??
1 Like
I revoted after rereading why we should keep pow
Why No one talking about adjusting POW reward? Does some one has more data or comparison chart between inflation from POW in Bitcoin and Peercoin?
I think Predictable inflation from POW will be better fit and dynamic inflation from POS. We can Agree on fix inflation %.
Here are arguments for removing PoW.
It suppresses the price
Miners have no interest in Peercoin and wish to sell as quickly and effectively as possible when it is profitable to do so. The sale of PoW rewards obviously has a downwards effect on price.
It makes prices less stable
When the price falls, the profitability goes down for a given difficulty. This has a downward effect on difficulty and an upward effect on reward. This in turn leads to more Peercoin being sold. Therefore, there is greater suppression when the price falls and vice-versa when the price increases.
This mechanism should have an amplifying effect on price movements to some degree.
It is inefficient
The design of Peercoin allows the reward to drop as the price increases, putting a dampening effect on the increased resource consumption. However, it still uses resources, including energy, which degrades the efficiency potential of Peercoin if it were purely proof-of-stake.
It promotes both energy waste and waste in the design and manufacture of ASICs. Bitcoin promotes the latter, but if Peercoin it meant to make Bitcoin obsolete, it would be a benefit to also make ASICs obsolete at the same time.
It isnât distributed and accessible
Only big mining farms with low-energy costs can do it profitably.
PoS inflation is more palatable
Removal of PoW reduces overall inflation which makes PoS inflation more palatable for those concerned with inflation.
Optics
People perceive Peercoin as a âhybrid PoW/PoSâ coin and as inferior to pure PoS. Arguments of efficiency and criticisms of Bitcoin are undermined by the continued existence of PoW.
3 Likes
I revoted after rereading why we should drop pow.
Itâs not clear to me who âpeopleâ actually refers to. Donât forget PoS also has an optics problem. People mockingly refer to pure PoS cryptocoins as âPiece of Shitâ coins because of the baggage they carry (e.g., association with pump and dumps) and the characterization of PoS as a generalized ponzi scheme. Peercoin being a hybrid system absolutely mitigates this perception.
There are a lot of people who refer to Peercoin as hybrid PoW/PoS and they donât understand that it is secured fully by PoS.
Most PoS coins are pre-mined but Peercoin doesnât have that issue. The legacy of the PoW distribution remains even if it is ended.
4 Likes