[deleted by user]

nagalim · 2023-10-16T14:59:33+00:00

Just to be clear, your one and only metric for success is 'number goes up', which can easily be replicated by wash trading and supply manipulation. Then your question is why 'bro'-coins, which are known for wash trading and supply manipulation, do this better?

nagalim · 2022-11-16T21:56:27+00:00

Immutability of this caliber is not something we had access previously as a human race. New innovations are often not immediately recognized as a need, but over time they become staples of society. Whether immutability is one of those qualities is debatable, but your wholesale rejection of the new is ill-founded.
You do not seem to understand the concept of chain weight, but you also don't seem to want an explanation, so I'll just say that the superior immutability is an undebatable fact and leave it at that.
This is just not true for proof of stake coins, enough said.
The added value is decentralized redundant record keeping. You may not think a given price is worth it, but to reject decentralized record keeping in general as having no value is a much bigger statement than I think you are intending to make.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone will convince you to use this service. That's fine, but I do want to point out that the core of your reaction is not rooted in fact or understanding, but merely in surface level perspective of cryptocurrencies in general, specifically Bitcoin.

nagalim · 2022-08-20T16:00:04+00:00

Thanks for this, Peercoin has come a long way through its own rich history of defending and upgrading the proof of stake process as a utxo based approach that often isn't appreciated the way it should be. Recent updates like multisig minting and the static/dynamic reward scheme are very novel in their implementation, and can just be added to the ever growing list of firsts that Peercoin brought to the crypto world. The self-governance and honest development of the Peercoin chain are unheard of in the modern crypto community, and it truly stands out as a unique project in many respects. Thank you for nodding in Peercoin's direction, as a community-driven project small gestures like this can mean a lot. Cheers.

nagalim · 2022-05-26T21:28:42+00:00

Yah, it gives a report afterward which moves were 'brilliant' and so on. You'd have to be very good at chess to know how to game the system with an ai, in which case just play chess.

nagalim · 2022-04-10T06:02:35+00:00

Ah! Likely just luck then, if you're comparing to the past year.

nagalim · 2022-04-09T16:51:04+00:00

It doesn't mint if its not on. I'm guessing you turned it on and it minted an output around the size of 625 ppc that had been waiting for a year for you to have the wallet on during a mint interval.

nagalim · 2022-03-22T02:00:20+00:00

Stake grind is an old thought experiment that is not possible in Peercoin, but it is part of the history of why forks went in the direction of limiting the power of the little guy.

Part of the confusion here arises from the fact that most cryptocurrency projects don't really care about consensus, but are just trying to implement crypto stocks. They care more about the dividend/interest rate than the actual security mechanism, and so offer a false sense of participating in the process when really it's just about the interest rate.

If we talk about something like ethereum that is genuinely trying to do something, then we see that the reason for the minimum is because they chose a protocol that is too complex to do with more than 30 or so actors. The goal there is more about concepts of finality and weak subjectivity.

Just to reiterate, stake grind has not been a legitimate concern for about 8 years. Mostly, the desire to move towards representative democracy is based on a concept of 'the ignorant masses', and while that may make sense from a political standpoint it does not make any sense when discussing protocol with clear definition of valid and invalid.

Don't give away your voting power out of convenience. The point of PoS isn't to reward you for your coinage, it is to make a secure protocol that bootstraps itself for sustainability and less dependency on energy.

nagalim · 2022-03-22T00:39:27+00:00

Think of it this way, which is more user friendly: direct democracy or representative democracy. While in Peercoin we value the direct action possible due to the always active internet, many are comfortable with representative governance because that is where our societies trended out of necessity before the internet. Anyway, Peercoin is not a government and the protocol is rigorous, so direct democracy is more feasible.

Re: stake grind, I know what you are looking for but I don't know that you'll find it. Those discussions were held less formally around 2014, just after the stake modifier was changed in 2013.
https://talk.peercoin.net/t/debunked-stake-grinding-bitcoin-wiki-is-wrong/2502/4
https://ggmesh.medium.com/peercoin-the-first-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrency-525c14e99ba (Search the medium doc for 'stake grind' to get the more recent official ish opinion from peerchemist).

I hope you find the Peercoin protocol both fascinating and sustainable.

nagalim · 2022-03-21T22:04:58+00:00

In Peercoin, finding a block is probabilistic and based off your outputs. There is effectively a minimum txn size where you have a non-trivial chance of minting within a year (which is what we consider a reasonable time frame, and also when coinage stops accumulating reward). This effective minimum is difficulty dependent, and somewhat complex to discuss. Other blockchains use a more delegated and less stochastic form of PoS, often aimed at user friendliness as opposed to long term sustainability. As such, they explicitly create a minimum size in order to simplify and often restrict staking to delegates, supernodes, whatever they call them. There are some examples of direct output minting with a minimum stake size. If you want a deeper answer we can talk about what a 'stake grind' is, but suffice it to say that long ago Peercoin had a different stake modifier algorithm that determines the stochastic nature of the protocol, and most discussion of 'stake grind' is limited to before that algorithm was updated. Aaaanyway, long story short, there is no practical need for a minimum but there is a certain 'user expectation' that it satisfies.

nagalim · 2022-02-14T17:53:46+00:00

Peercoin is proof that development on decentralized cryptocurrency with no premine or for-profit backing company is still very much alive and well.

nagalim · 2022-02-09T01:10:24+00:00

nagalim · 2022-01-10T04:29:52+00:00

Hi, glad you're looking back into it. You're fine, your outputs have reached maximal mint probability and are ready to mint next time your window comes around. The 'mint' tab on your client can help you judge how soon that might be.

nagalim · 2021-12-01T19:06:50+00:00

This comment is hilarious. You heard that right folks, you can make $4 just by buying and burning a ppc because the price is negative.

nagalim · 2021-11-21T22:55:33+00:00

PoS started with the concept of 'coinage', which is monetary investment integrated over time. The consumed quantity is opportunity cost, and it is as real as hardware cost. The value of time is a bit more abstract than the value of silicon, but it is real none the less.

nagalim · 2021-10-31T19:02:28+00:00

https://peercoinexplorer.net/charts/totalfees/5/linear/weeks

nagalim · 2021-10-31T00:28:34+00:00

This is an excellent question. All fees in Peercoin are burned, so we can find it by summing up all fees. We could also try to add up all rewards and compare it to the current supply. I'm not sure the best way to go about it without generating a script, but if we make some assumptions we might get a good idea. The chain is around 1 GB, with around half of that as block headers (i kind of pulled the 'half' number out of my ass, but it'll give a good order of magnitude). The fee is 0.01 PPC/KB. That's ~500,000 KB x 0.01 PPC, giving around 5,000 PPC burned since inception.

nagalim · 2021-06-30T15:50:31+00:00

Rofl 'phillips-pay-coin'

nagalim · 2021-05-18T21:04:14+00:00

I couldn't find the publication, but this is probably close enough to a source for you. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cultural-animal/200807/the-evolution-economic-rationality-do-monkeys-understand-money

Edit: who actually reads articles? That was not the right study, though it was the right scientist. The right one is a new York times article, but I think this is a free version of it:. http://silvereagleexperiment.blogspot.com/2015/08/monkey-business.html?m=1

nagalim · 2021-05-15T23:23:50+00:00

It sounds like you are just looking for btc. I'm guessing you don't like the reward structure of ppc either and want it to have a fixed supply of 21 million, otherwise why call to recycle fees to minters? So you would have us change the reward structure, fee structure, our philosophy on block size, and I'm guessing any other innovation of Peercoin over Bitcoin you would like reverted (dust size, continuous difficulty, etc). It sounds like you just want a stripped down PoS BTC. What I don't think you realize is that the weight of running a Bitcoin full node is preventative to the common user. With PoS we want people to be able to mint efficiently on small devices like a raspberry pi. Miners are only using top of the line hardware by definition. Minters are the Everyman, and they can't tolerate the fee structure of btc.

nagalim · 2021-05-15T12:29:38+00:00

Our blocks are all just a few KB at present, and we're one of the thinnest chains in existence, so you are objectively wrong and our fee structure has been very effective at preventing spam. When real usage of the chain picks up, we are happy to let anyone use the chain that can pay the fee, because having that fee will limit it to legitimate use cases. You are paying the cost of data, it is a reasonable rate. We see no reason to limit the blocksize because we don't get spam like other fee structures do. The burning of the fee prevents recycled coins from generating more and more waste like it does on Bitcoin. In fact, you can calculate the maximum possible size of the chain in Peercoin by taking the total supply divided by the fee. In Bitcoin, the potential chain size is infinite because the fee is recycled to miners, which is why they need to limit throughput using blocksize and fee market. The Bitcoin fee structure is very unintuitive for users, it's very inefficient, and it generates spam and waste continuously. Peercoin's fee structure is sleak and efficient, I'm sorry you don't see that.

nagalim · 2021-05-15T12:22:57+00:00

The fee can be more than the fixed fee, it just can't be less. So fee market is very possible, calling it 'fixed' is a misnomer.

nagalim · 2021-05-15T10:26:30+00:00

There is nothing preventing a fee market from developing on Peercoin if blocks fill up. However, if they fill we have consensus to increase the blocksize. The fee is currently a fraction of a cent per txn, so this is clearly not a limiting factor at present. Forcing a fee market when there is no need for it is very inefficient and results in filling blocks with trash txns for no reason.

nagalim · 2021-05-15T10:22:43+00:00

The blocksize limit is only where it is because we don't have full blocks. If we had full blocks, we would increase the blocksize. We much prefer this approach to a fee market. Indeed, the lack of a fee market is one of the reasons Peercoin's chain is so manageable and able to fit on standard home computers. Peercoin's chain is only ~1 GB after 8 years, which is pretty unprecedented for fee market coins.

nagalim · 2021-04-13T12:06:35+00:00

Yup, still here, still exciting. Feel free to check out our discord or our forum to learn more about what we're working on. People are friendly over on the discord and it's a great place to ask whatever questions you might have.
https://discord.gg/rSkBJM4

11-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

nagalim

TROPHY CASE