What to use for payment or as currency

I have read many times, that Peercoin should be seen and used as store-of-value, like gold. But what cryptocoin, or if so, how should Peercoin be used for payment? What is the recommendation?

You can use any as payment, there are no rules or regulations on how should you use your crypto.

I know there is no rule. I asked for recommendations. Is there another decentralized, attack resistant, fast, energy ressources saving coin OR method how to use Peercoin for that purpose (payment)?

I would recommend it be applied to a wide range of market options. As an example, I grow food in my backyard and have a few customers whom I’ve exchanged food for Bitcoin. (Yes, I have pointed out that my preferred crypto is PPC but BTC will do) As for other ideas or recommendations for its use, I’ve pondered at times, should I go into real estate and acquire a multi-unit building, I would accept PPC as a form of rent payment. I look at some of the landlords I’ve worked for with some 100 + units and just think.

But those are just two of many, many examples I would imagine.

*edit - I’m sure others have their own very different ideas.

Well, you are telling me, that you would use PPC for payment. But others, for example Peerchemist, say, that PPC is only useful as a store-of-value. Because Peercoin is very slow for transactions (compared to other digital payments today) and the relatively high transaction fee is also a point against its usage for payment. Because IF Peercoin would be used for payment, its blockchain would grow big like the chains from other coins. Thus: No benefits compared to others.

This is the reason, why I asked for recommended alternatives. Bitcoin is widely accepted and not to slow. But every Peercoiner says, that Bitcoin is bad, because it will die after explosion of its blockchain and centralization.

Im not sure what discussions you’re referring to, but we definitely aren’t calling peercoin a store of value. For example, in the OP of the following thread, i describe a pivot from exactly that terminology.

1 Like

Peercoin should really be viewed more as a bond-equivalent. It provides a fixed risk-free rate of return (in PPC). That’s where the value is in this blockchain.

I am not sure where did you get this but you got it wrong.

Peercoin is better transnational currency than Bitcoin, it’s cheaper, it’s faster and it can hardly ever be fully utilized as Peercoin block size can be increased tomorrow to accommodate to the new demand. We don’t have to keep artificial limits on the block size.

Also, we don’t fear blockchain size increase. We welcome it.

Yes, I would use it for payment as I would also use it as a store of value to mint it for its reward for contributing to maintaining the network.

There is a great talk I listened to by the Beyond Bitcoin Community entitled “E2 - Block Explorer - Block Party #1 - Peercoin’s 4th Birthday Party with Sunny King” ( https://m.soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/peercoinbirthday ) where very early on they touch on this point to some respect. I would point to minute 9:08 for my exact reference to this, additionally I’ll point to a quote by Sunny King that was shared around minute 23:25 about his definition of a backbone currency and how it applies in Peercoin case.

By the way, in this interview the topic of the block size is also addressed towards the very end, well at least using the numbers at the time of the interview but at least one can get an idea of the difference in block size between Bitcoin and Peercoin. The impression I got from it was that there is definitely room for growth.

Isn’t one of the arguments for Peercoin I hear all the time, that its blockchain is so small. And that it doesn’t need expensive specialized hardware to maintain the decentralized network. I thought, that the small blockchain was one of the reasons, that cheap devices (with little storage space) could be used to maintain the network.

As I understood, Bitcoin’s blockchain is big, because it is used a lot (many times more transactions per day as Peercoin). As a consequence, more data (transactions) have to be stored. If Peercoin would be used as much as Peercoin (as currency), then the same would happen to its blockchain size.

What am I getting wrong?

The fee structure is different. I would guess that most bitcoin txns have been done at near-dust volumes. This is hard to tell because of the change address, in addition or other complexities. Also, fees are recycled in bitcoin, in peercoin they are destroyed. To blossom to the 100GB chain that bitcoin touts (approx anyway), at a rate of .01 ppc/KB (the minimum fee, most txns end up burning more than this because they dont use up the full KB), we would need to see at least 1 Million PPC burnt from supply.

1 Like

Whaaat? You said

most txns end up burning more than this because they dont use up the full KB

They burn more because they don’t use up the full kB? Maybe you meant they burn less? So the fee is not per transaction, but per kB. So if the transaction is 250 Bytes, it only burns 0,25*0,01 = 0.0025 ppc, right? This is an incentive for making small transactions, right? And of course few transactions. So it is independent from the amount of ppc sent.

It could be 0.01 PPC for each begun kB. Then it’s more than 0.01 PPC per actually used kB, if the kB is not fully used.
The source code should provide you with this answer. I don’t know it. I just interpret @Nagalim’s statement

A 250 byte txn costs 0.01 ppc. 0.01 is both the minimum fee and the per KB cost over 1 KB.

So if the size is 1.1 kB, it costs 0.011 PPC?

1.1 KB will cost 0.02 PPC.

I mention fee resolution in this old thread:

Note that I’ve changed my opinion about stuff a lot since that thread. But the principle of fee resolution is still an interesting parameter.

For others reading this: The source code shows, that the transaction fee is computed like

src/wallet.cpp:1205:int64 nPayFee = nTransactionFee * (1 + (int64)nBytes / 1000);


src/util.h:41:static const int64 CENT = 10000;
src/main.h:35:static const int64 MIN_TX_FEE = CENT;
src/main.cpp:66:int64 nTransactionFee = MIN_TX_FEE;

If one knows that the smallest value Peercoin can represent is 10¯⁶, then CENT = 10000 means, that the minimum transaction fee = 10¯⁶ × 10000 = 0.01 (which is usually called cent, hence the variable name).

That means, that Peercoins are represented internally as integers, and that one Peercoin is 1000000 (a million) of this smallest values.

Back to the calculation of the fee: The number of Bytes (the size) of the transaction is divided by 1000. That means that if it is equal or more than 1000 Bytes (= 1 kilo Byte = 1 kB), it will cost more than the minimum fee. And it will always cost the minimum fee, because the first summand is 1.

Another interesting thing is, that the smallest amount of Peercoins you can send/spend is 0.01 PPC. This you can read here:

src/main.h:39:static const int64 MIN_TXOUT_AMOUNT = MIN_TX_FEE;

I hope that was clear.

Some examples:

  • A transaction with a storage size of 1 Byte will cost 0.01 PPC
  • 100 Bytes will cost 0.01 PPC
  • 999 Bytes will cost 0.01 PPC
  • 1000 Bytes will cost 0.02 PPC
  • 1001 Bytes will cost 0.02 PPC
  • 1999 Bytes will cost 0.02 PPC
  • 2000 Bytes will cost 0.03 PPC
  • 99999 Bytes will cost 1.0 PPC
  • 100000 Bytes = 100 kB will cost 1.01 PPC
  • 1 MB will cost 10.01 PPC

Remember, only the size that the transaction occupies in the blockchain is relevant for the fee. It is independent from the amount that is sent.

All that being said, I think it is obvious, that Peercoin can not serve as a day to day payment option, because the fixed fee of 0.01 PPC and the minimum transaction amount of 0.01 PPC motivates to transfer the highest amount possible per transaction (in order to have a relatively small fee). And if the value of Peercoin grows, the 0.01 minimum transaction amount limits the possibilities of buying food, sweets or a coffee with Peercoin. I mean, if 1 Peercoin = 1000 $, then 0.01 PPC would be 10 $ —a quite expensive cup of coffee or tea.

1 Like

Peercoin is better suited for larger transactions. This is by design to minimise the size of the blockchain and hence maintain decentralisation.

I wonder how decentralisation could be maintained when an increasing blockchain size is welcomed?

It is welcomed by the community and regulated by the design.

1 Like