Peershares protocol was the spark to my interest in Nu. It’s my understanding that development of Peershares for non-Nu related projects is stalled. Doesn’t Nu see value in Peershares development?
@sigmike I’d obviously understand if Peershares isn’t high priority to you, but would appreciate if you could say a few words of where it’s at.
A Peershare could be defined as a blockchain network that is a fork of the source code template contained in the Peershares code repository. However, this definition would exclude B&C Exchange, which clearly seems like a Peershare to me. B&C Exchange was not created as a fork of the Peershare repository. Instead, it was a fork of Nu. It is possible to think of Peershares in an even broader sense, as a blockchain network employing custodial grants and motions, even if the code base is not forked from other Peershares. Under this definition, DASH is a Peershare, following Nu’s example of using custodial grants to fund development of the network.
The Peershares template was a passion for Jordan Lee, not an attempt to make money. There is no way to make money from developing the template itself. Money can only be made from a specific implementation of a Peershare, like Nu or B&C Exchange. Jordan Lee was moved to provide a way for others to create equity based decentralized organizations that could implement a diverse field of applications.
I am motivated by more practical matters. It is hard enough to make Nu and B&C Exchange commercial successes without concerning myself with providing an organizational structure for use by others. That could only serve as a distraction from the important work I do. And yet, today, the best way to implement a Peershare would be to fork the code repository of either Nu or B&C Exchange. So by furthering the development of Nu and B&C Exchange, I am carrying on the work of Peershares development in a way that can readily be used by another organization for an application other than stable currency or exchange.
Peershares development lives on in the form of Nu development, B&C Exchange development, and perhaps even DASH development. The development of all three networks is currently accelerating.
I’d disagree here. There is quite a bit of unnecessary features contained in Nu and BC exchange. A traditional DAC would only need shares, motions, and dividends. “Is the Peershares template repository stable enough to use in a basic DAC” is the question I’m looking to have answered.
@JordanLee wrote extensively comparing PeerAssets and Peershares, which is probably the most insightful analysis of the two systems. It is clear that Nu and B&C Exchange cannot be implemented using PeerAssets with any success. They require the enhanced features of a Peershare.
PeerAssets have major advantages that make them preferable for many applications, however. Chief among these advantages are the low cost of implementation and maintenance.
Both are important and valid ways to manage equity ownership. PeerAssets shine for organizations providing non-blockchain services and products that want to track equity on the blockchain. A Peershare is needed for serious blockchain applications with products and services being offered on the blockchain that are intended to grow to a scale that justifies ongoing network development and maintenance.
At first glance, PeerAssets seems better suited, has a larger community, and is closer within reach for a basic DAC with shareholders, motions, and dividends. I didn’t know that dividends were possible with PeerAssets. Thanks, @irritant. I still have some research to do on it. Peershares, on the other hand, allows shares AND a utility token (NSR and NBT) in a single DAC. That certainly is a valuable protocol feature, but I think @Phoenix is going too far in his assertion that every functioning DAC with motions is a ‘Peershare’.
Nu once had the fourth largest blockchain community after Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin. The “community” was clearly counterproductive. Most of those in the community didn’t have a stake in the blockchain, or very little stake. That means they had different interests. They were extremely unprofessional, and utterly unaccountable. They didn’t have much understanding of the network. We learned that was a recipe for disaster. What is needed is a team of accountable professionals. We are building that.
I’m still waiting for some accountability in response to my legitimate questions regarding the hundreds of millions of NSR that has been put under your control. What makes you better than the way you describe the 4th largest blockchain community in Nu’s earlier years?
Considering JordanLee hasnt been seen since summer 2016 and PeerAssets wasn’t seriously talked about till winter 2016, I’d love to see where he compares the systems. Though im guessing youre just going to link to 2014 where he talked about counterparty with little to no depth of understanding.
The fact is, Nu can very clearly be replicated in PeerAssets. The thing we are discovering as we develop general issuance modes is: why would you? There are so many flaws with how Nu is implemented, why would you seek to replicate it instead of improving on the design as we are doing?
The basic function of Nu is the ‘grant’ whereby tokens are issued via a majority vote. Duplicating this in PeerAssets is not very difficult, just make an issuance mode for token B based on the votes of token A. Im really not sure why you think that’s so hard to do.
Alright, im going to lay out the argument for peerassets over peershares here. The proof of stake model has two major aspects to it: security and distribution. Solidcoin, the first PoS coin, had good security, but its distribution was entirely centralized to one person, the creator. Peercoin came around and used the Proof of Work model as a distribution mechanism, thereby attaining good distribution. Peershares follows a philosophy based on investors, and that’s great for advanced mechanisms, but bad for distribution and security.
You will likely argue that peershares is more flexible, but that flexibility is not in a place where it is being used. Peershares (when compared with peerassets) is able to change fundamental blockchain mechanisms without needing to ask persmission of anyone, which is a strong power. However, it is important to see that token mechanisms like issuance and smart contracts are not fundamental blockchain mechanisms, but merely language constructs within the data of the block. An example of a blockchain mechanism would be the blocksize, as Bitcoin loves to debate, or the security mechanisms, like quantum resistance or anonymous signatures. It is difficult to compete on this level when you are really a dac working on other things. That’s why people like eth, because they can just work in the language of the block data without worrying about the security model. Peercoin already knows the value of block space and how to run a network; perhaps there are even some coins that know it as well or better. However, creating your own network just to issue some smart tokens seems like a towering obstacle to me.
My view on the Peercoin distribution model is that it favored miners in the first couple weeks at an unbalanced level compared to miners that weren’t involved in those initial blocks which may have hurt any claim of fair distribution. I don’t think there was any bad intentions involved, but it wasn’t a flawless distribution in my opinion. It may have been the result of an underestimation of how the SHA-256 PoW market would react at Peercoin’s launch. This has nothing to do with the arguments for PeerAssets over Peershares, though. I do think shareholders being responsible for PoS security of a blockchain is still an idea that has merit. Nu wasn’t very transparent in it’s ICO and that led to the centralized ownership that we are dealing with today.
You can launch PeerAssets on any chain you deem to have the best security model. The idea is that a company should not need to focus on stuff like fundamental security of its tokens. It is an overwhelming burden. This is why in the real world governments and businesses are separate entities. Businesses can’t setup an entire existential framework for their basic existence while also working to turn a profit.