Would love feedback on the article I wrote for my site

Great article, Chinese translation done:
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_d3b90b760101eza3.html
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426917

[quote=“josojo, post:19, topic:1819”]Great article,

I envy your writing skills :slight_smile:

But there is one point, I would like to criticise:
As far as I know, the main reason for the fixed transaction is that we want to limit the growth of our blockchain. We don’t want to spam our blockchain with micro-payments.

But the fee was not intended as a " mechanism, that could potentially calm much of the volatility seen in Bitcoin".
I am convinced that if the price of one Peercoin rises, the transaction fee will be adjusted by Sunny King in consultation with the Peercoin community. I think that we will never see a transaction fee higher than 1$, no matter how far the peercoin price rises.[/quote]

Awesome… thx for all the support guys/gals!

About the fee… hmmm… I’m not certain that adjusting the transaction fees would necessarily be a good thing or not. It certainly would fundamentally change PPC, and its role in the crypto market… maybe im missing something, though.

I’ve been spreading this around through our Facebook page and Reddit. It’s a very well written advertisement for us. Thanks so much! You should post your address so we can tip you for doing proper research.

I really do appreciate that. I’m not really the type to go dropping my address… but… I’m also not an idiot, and just so happen to have a strong affinity for PPC so…

PUZkpsFRb6fTDTtpqt6ihe3xEaZvdfcvAd

;D

[quote=“CoinTrader, post:22, topic:1819”][quote=“josojo, post:19, topic:1819”]Great article,

I envy your writing skills :slight_smile:

But there is one point, I would like to criticise:
As far as I know, the main reason for the fixed transaction is that we want to limit the growth of our blockchain. We don’t want to spam our blockchain with micro-payments.

But the fee was not intended as a " mechanism, that could potentially calm much of the volatility seen in Bitcoin".
I am convinced that if the price of one Peercoin rises, the transaction fee will be adjusted by Sunny King in consultation with the Peercoin community. I think that we will never see a transaction fee higher than 1$, no matter how far the peercoin price rises.[/quote]

Awesome… thx for all the support guys/gals!

About the fee… hmmm… I’m not certain that adjusting the transaction fees would necessarily be a good thing or not. It certainly would fundamentally change PPC, and its role in the crypto market… maybe im missing something, though.[/quote]
Well, even the community “is not certain that adjusting the transaction fees would necessarily be a good thing or not”! We have many arguments on both sides.
If you are interested, look at the poll:
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=1539.msg12777#msg12777
and the debate thread:
http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=1471.0

If you consider that two voters would like to change their vote to flexible fees in the poll above, you see the stalemate in the community!

Peercoin does allow the largest stake holders to be rewarded the most, but does it not stand to reason that an individual that does more to secure the network, should be compensated more? And how does this differ from the richest individuals being able to spend the most on mining equipment, and therefore giving them an advantage in mining Bitcoin? Is that not the same “rich get richer” mechanism in place?

Spending on mining equipment is solid investment action that comes with works and risks. Getting more POS reward requires solid inaction and zero risk. That is the difference. This particular point was discussed here Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas!

It seems to us, that the rich never get richer within the Peercoin ecosystem.

This post Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas! shows that when one has to set aside coins for daily spending, hence not minting, the rich get richer for being richer. You can argue that the effect is not significant. But saying that the effect doesn’t exist is not honest nor wise for promoting Peercoin.

Excellent article! I already emailed it to a few friends a couple hours ago telling them it was the best one I have read on Peercoin. Wish I was better at promotions because your article deserves to be widely read. Keep trying to get it published everywhere. It’s also great that there is already a Chinese translation! You guys on this forum rock!

I applaud+ your Karma. And 20 PPC donation coming to you right after I post this.

Great work! Keep it up!!!

[quote=“mhps, post:26, topic:1819”]

It seems to us, that the rich never get richer within the Peercoin ecosystem.

This post Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas! shows that when one has to set aside coins for daily spending, hence not minting, the rich get richer for being richer. You can argue that the effect is not significant. But saying that the effect doesn’t exist is not honest nor wise for promoting Peercoin.[/quote]

My response immediately after your post refuted this point.

The total percentage of wealth held does not change in the event both parties stake an equivalent percentage of their coins (and thus accept an equivalent negative utility gained from not being able to spend their Peercoins).

It’s illogical that one side should be able to stake a lower percentage of their holdings but gain the same reward. It’s basic risk/reward economics that are the basis of western capitalism, and is a very clever feature of Peercoin that allows the network to secure itself.

[quote=“MeBeingAwesome, post:28, topic:1819”][quote=“mhps, post:26, topic:1819”]

It seems to us, that the rich never get richer within the Peercoin ecosystem.

This post Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas! shows that when one has to set aside coins for daily spending, hence not minting, the rich get richer for being richer. You can argue that the effect is not significant. But saying that the effect doesn’t exist is not honest nor wise for promoting Peercoin.[/quote]

My response immediately after your post refuted this point.

The total percentage of wealth held does not change in the event both parties stake an equivalent percentage of their coins (and thus accept an equivalent negative utility gained from not being able to spend their Peercoins).

It’s illogical that one side should be able to stake a lower percentage of their holdings but gain the same reward. It’s basic risk/reward economics that are the basis of western capitalism, and is a very clever feature of Peercoin that allows the network to secure itself.[/quote]

This. So this.

It seems obvious to me that those who do a larger part in securing the network should, of course, be compensated more. I just don’t understand how people disagree with that? I’m not trying to offend anybody, I’m only being genuine.

To me… It seems that the barrier to entry in mining is much more financially prohibitive for most than simply attaining and holding coins. Hell, I know guys that spent 4K on ASICS and couldn’t even come close to getting to a positive ROI until discovering alts and the whole mine/pump/dump routine. That’s certainly financially prohibitive. Furthermore, if cryptos are meant to be global instruments than those that live in 3rd world countries are at a significant disadvantage - In that WHEN Google finally connects every single square mile of this earth into the internet and has dirt cheap mobile devices in the hands of people living in huts - THEN they get to buy a piece of BTC to trade with?.. When it’s 1000X the price of when the “first worlders” gained access to it? It certainly isn’t an option to set up an elaborate ASIC mining farm… SOL, I suppose. Not fair. Rich getting richer… as usual.

I just don’t think this rich get richer argument is in any way valid or relevant. It seems like a total straw man and why do people consider the fact that their coins grow a bad thing?

[quote=“NewMoneyEra, post:27, topic:1819”]Excellent article! I already emailed it to a few friends a couple hours ago telling them it was the best one I have read on Peercoin. Wish I was better at promotions because your article deserves to be widely read. Keep trying to get it published everywhere. It’s also great that there is already a Chinese translation! You guys on this forum rock!

I applaud+ your Karma. And 20 PPC donation coming to you right after I post this.

Great work! Keep it up!!![/quote]

Holy shit…

How ridiculously kind of you, man. Thank you!

I will add it to my ad fund and direct some of those clicks to the article, bc that’s far more than just a “tip” lol

And if you happen to be some 19 year kid who totally regrets just sending that random stranger 20 PPC - I will kindly send it back, Lol. Otherwise… thanks again, man. Really :slight_smile:

Excellent Peercoin article.

On the tx fee. Firstly, it is 0.01 PPC per Kilo bytes, and I sent a tx charging me 0.02 PPC because the tx is more than 1k bytes. Secondly, personally I think tx fee rate is not part of PPC protocol, but non-zero tx fee is part of PPC protocol. Peercoin tx fee should be non-zero so as to balance the inflation induced by PoS minting. The tx fee can be adjusted just like bitcoin, and it should be changed based on community consus.

What’s your peer’s opinion?

[quote=“MeBeingAwesome, post:28, topic:1819”][quote=“mhps, post:26, topic:1819”]

It seems to us, that the rich never get richer within the Peercoin ecosystem.

This post Cryptoblog - notícias sobre bitcoin e criptomoedas! shows that when one has to set aside coins for daily spending, hence not minting, the rich get richer for being richer. You can argue that the effect is not significant. But saying that the effect doesn’t exist is not honest nor wise for promoting Peercoin.[/quote]

My response immediately after your post refuted this point.

The total percentage of wealth held does not change in the event both parties stake an equivalent percentage of their coins (and thus accept an equivalent negative utility gained from not being able to spend their Peercoins).[/quote]

The point is that in the real world the poor set less percentage of their wealth as savings.

It's illogical that one side should be able to stake a lower percentage of their holdings but gain the same reward. It's basic risk/reward economics that are the basis of western capitalism, and is a very clever feature of Peercoin that allows the network to secure itself.

No one is saying everyone should get the same reward.

I am all for a sustainablly secure network secure. But coins generating coins without the holder doing any work does make the rich richer, factually.

Here is another angle that few has looked at this issue from: after POW becomes neglegible, those who never move their coins will dominant the PPC monetary base. Why? because those who spend their coins have a non-zero, unrecoverable, reduction of coin generating rate in their money. Those who never spend will every so slowly but surely get more POS coins than thse who have the same amount of coins but do spend. This process has no end in the current PPC implementation. The end results is clear, 99.99999…% PPC wealth will go into the coin horders hand. It will take a long time. But it is the destiny of current Peercoin. It’s just math. The rich get ultimately rich. :smiley:

[quote=“mhps, post:32, topic:1819”]I am all for a sustainablly secure network secure. But coins generating coins without the holder doing any work does make the rich richer, factually.

Here is another angle that few has looked at this issue from: after POW becomes neglegible, those who never move their coins will dominant the PPC monetary base. Why? because those who spend their coins have a non-zero, unrecoverable, reduction of coin generating rate in their money. Those who never spend will every so slowly but surely get more POS coins than thse who have the same amount of coins but do spend. This process has no end in the current PPC implementation. The end results is clear, 99.99999…% PPC wealth will go into the coin horders hand. It will take a long time. But it is the destiny of current Peercoin. It’s just math. The rich get ultimately rich. :D[/quote]

You need to define ‘doing work’. Those who keep their wallet online will have to run their computer all the time (not the current protocol but will be the future protocol). This is a kind of ‘work’ if you want. I guess you support the idea that any reward must come from work, which I do not agree at all.

On the 99.99999…% scenario you depicted, if a holder never spend his coins, then his money only means a number to him, his life will be the same of a poor person. So what’s the problem?

The wallet is supposed to be run as you use your computer doing other things. That is fine if you don’t agree. We all have opinions. The issue is if someone says PPC makes the rich richer, do you say, “Yes. See the calculation and you probably don’t care, either.” or do you say, “It’s not.” knowing that you will get “It’s, too.”

On the 99.99999...% scenario you depicted, if a holder never spend his coins, then his money only means a number to him, his life will be the same of a poor person. So what's the problem?

Well it’s an illustration to show the possibility. Just imagine what will they think when they generate most new blocks? (hint: the answer has 51 in it)

My answer is very clear: No, the rich doesn’t get richer. I think you misunderstand 2 different concepts: the rich and the saver. Say there are two ppc users, one have 10% of the total coins, the other have 1% of the total coins. But the 10% one spend more and the 1% one never spend. Then after long enough time, the 1% person will end of having more coins than the 10% person. So the correct expression should be: the saver gets richer. When you said ‘the rich gets richer’, you have made a hidden assumption that the rich is more likely to save than to spend, or something like ‘it is easier for the rich to be a bigger saver’. But as I analyzed, it doesn’t matter how many peercoins you have at first. The real deciding factor is how determined you decide to be a saver, how long you keep yourself from spending. And I don’t see why rich people is more determined to be a saver than poor people. You need some factual evidence to backup your assumption if you think rich people is more likely to be a saver. In reality, I personally think rich people is more likely to be an investor so tend to spend their money in ways they deem clever. An average person who have no special talent for investment tend to be a loyal saver.

Well it's an illustration to show the possibility. Just imagine what will they think when they generate most new blocks? (hint: the answer has 51 in it)

It would help more if we can make an estimate how big that possibility is. Or how many years it takes. A lot of things have non-zero possibility, but in many cases they only have theoretical meaning.

Ha… well this rich get richer line really strikes a cord with people.

@maka I like your argument that the greater saver is the one who ends up with the most coin. In the long run, this is true.

When you have a world full of central banks enabling wastrel governments like we have had for the past 50 years, constantly debasing our money thru inflation - the thrifty saver is punished and the debtor rewarded. Thus, we all end up in a world drowning in debt.

May new money thru crypto save us all.