I am seriously curious what the consensus is w.r.t. shutting of pow.
As a regular PC cant mine anymore and only pools get to mine some, we should have a poll of something…
Consensus for phasing out PoW could easily be tested by releasing a Peercoin version with a PoW coinbase reward of 0 PPC.
But I doubt that it’s the right time to do that now and I hope the majority would choose continuing PoW.
And I find it dangerous risking a fork!
I prefer to let protocol changes be done by the Peercoin core development team (Sunny King, sigmike) for some more time.
I’ve made some posts about PoW difficulty and the resulting coinbase reward. As I’m on my mobile phone right now, I can inly offer to link this information later.
But in short: mining Peercoin is very much different from mining Bitcoin (in terms of reward and the resulting economical implications).
We still need PoW for coin distribution (although the distribution is already suffering from the low block reward)!
The influence to the PPC price by miners can’t be that big; per day only roughly 1000 PPC are mined.
The big dumps are rather from people who mined or bought them some time ago.
…and that is also good for distribution.
Don’t get frustrated by low prices.
Peercoin doesn’t need high prices to be sustainable.
If you consider the price low: buy!
Here some math regarding PoW difficulty, reward, economical effects: http://chatboxhistory.peercointalk.org/?Pagenumber=687
edit:
I decided to paste the math here, because the chatboxhistory seems to have no search option. I’ll format it once I have a proper device to enhance the readability…
As the economical incentive to mine PPC depends on the price per PPC as well as the price depends on those who mine and sell/trade the PPC and I can’t tell which of the feedback mechanisms is leading the price development, I try to focus on other numbers.
Say at a point of time t0 there’s a hashrate x0 that creates a reward of y0 PPC per given time frame and an income per hashrate z0 = y0/x0.
If the hash rate x1 is 16 times x0 (the difficulty 16-folds), the reward y1 gets reduced to 0.5 * y0 and z1 = y1/x1.
The resulting income per hashrate z1 is tiny compared to z0.
z1/z0 = y1/x1/(y0/x0) brackets only to increase the readableness…
with x1=16x0 and y1=0.5y0 z1 compares to z0 like this:
z1/z0=0.5y0/16x0/(y0/x0)=1/32
If the hash rate is 16-folded the income per hash rate is reduced to 1/32.
Either this disincentivizes miners to join the PoW process or it forces a rising PPC price (32-fold if the miners want to have the same revenue than before the increased hash rate).
And because I recently crunched some numbers that dealt with hash rate from Bitcoin being redirected to Peercoin:
if only 10% of the current BTC hash rate would be aimed at PPC, this would put another 30,000 TH/s to the PPC PoW process.
Taking into regard that if the difficulty goes 2^n, the derived coinbase reward is 2^(-n/4).
With a roughly hundredfold of the hash rate, n is approximately 6.64. So the resulting coinbase reward is 2^(-6.64/4)=0.316.
Compared to the current coinbase reward of ~78 PPC the resulting coinbase reward would less than one third of that, below 26 PPC.
…just in case some wonder whether a 16-fold of Peercoin PoW hash rate is realistic…
It could be done with the blink of an eye…
[quote=“thehuntergames, post:17, topic:3134”]sorry to say but they are related.
The control loop will try to have a 1/12 ratio of pow blocks by adjusting the pow diff
the pos diff is adjusted to have a pos block every 10 minutes
I wrote a post somewhere that describes this control in more detail[/quote]
Could we please clarify where in the source code it is written that we should have this ratio?
Actually this is what I see: https://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/2stl6o/evolution_in_of_proofofwork_pow_blocks_vs/ (15.29% of the blocks are PoW)
[quote=“mhps, post:15, topic:3134”][quote=“redlee, post:14, topic:3134”][quote=“thehuntergames, post:13, topic:3134”]pow difficulty is dropping too, fyi
according to https://peerchain.co/status there s 92,3% pos blocks over the last 24h which is a just little higher than the 11/12 target[/quote]
Exactly, maybe the PoS miner are squeezing out the PoW miner.[/quote]
I think it means that hte PPC miners are mine-and-sellers instead of miine-and-holders, adn PPC miners don’t have the most efficient mining rigs. Because coin price is falling, and PPC net hash rate increases as the same rate with BTC (with per block PPC also decreasing), the miners shut down as the miined coins cannot pay for the electricity.[/quote]
I mine and not selling no matter of price becuse i have free electicity but i agree that POW need to be cut of lets say to the end of this year?
In this stage POW mining doesn’t make any sense. It was a very good way to fairly disturbe the coins in the beginning, but now why should anyone invest several hundred $ in miners to mine peercoins when a single peercoin only cost 0,3$ and you could buy 1000s and earn coins from pos?
It is inefficient and only serves for miners who switch when its profitable to do so.
POW is only a money drain for the peercoin community. It constantly adds supply to the ask side on the exchanges and removes usd/btc liquidity. But without liquidity why should anyone invest only to be stuck in the position he cannot exit? Liquidity is a big point for many people.
Many might think that the price isnt important but it attracts people and is exciting. Marketing and informations are necessary and good but the unique selling point from the past, POS is gone. There are many out there and when you see the performance of peercoin, going down from 3rd to not even top 10 it is understandable that people look for other coins with a similar technology.
The only unique “feature” we have is sunny king as the original developer of POS. POW has to be removed to strengthen the fundamentals of this coin.
We need inflation in the adoption phase. Good distribution is not already achieved if we want Peercoin to be the backbone currency of the world. PoW inflation must run for at least 20 years for that to happen in my opinion.
Could we please clarify where in the source code it is written that we should have this ratio?Actually this is what I see: Reddit - Dive into anything (15.29% of the blocks are PoW)
see this post: Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas!
I do realise it is based on peershares code, but the functions are basically the same. One is forked from the other.
I think you are looking at the totals. Since there were a huge number of pow-coins in the early beginning, the stats are a bit skewed towards powcoinsblocks. If you were looking at how many were increased over the past days however, pow vs pos blocks ratio you ll see will be more around nineties…By that i mean delta pow blocks vs delta pow blocks over a certain (moving) timespan
Why through POW? Why not through the market? Everybody says we need more distribution but who says that the majority of miners hold there coins and dont sell them? Or is your argument that even if they sell them, the coins get distributed to other parties? Then they just “distribute” them to people who already buy on the market, those people dont need mining coins there are nearly a million coins for distribution on the exchanges and more would be added if the prise would rise.
The POW distribution is only necessary in the beginning to give everybody the same opportunities. Minting gives a constant supply of coins and could be adjusted to another level if needed or stay the same.
The distribution theme seems like a mantra to me, a justification for the pow inflation, not an argument.
Inflation without demand for it, is dangerous. It destroys trust in the currency.
Yes, and the beginning is the first 20 years as I see it.