The PeerAssets Protocol (on Peercoin) Will Replace Peershares & Potentially Nu as Well. Come Join Us

[Sentinelrv]

Edit: Wouldn’t additional pegged currencies create dilution in the market making it easier/less resource intensive to keep a peg?

Selling additional currencies right now would infuse fresh BTC into the reserve as long as people bought the new currency. That BTC reserve could be used to help support US-NBT and the new currencies that were just sold. HOWEVER, doing so would make us responsible for returning that BTC when those new currencies are traded back in to us.

As long as we have no way of earning revenue, that BTC reserve will run dry in time and every one of the new pegged currencies will run out of funds to support them, so they’ll crash. So doing this would relieve pressure on the peg because we’ll now have additional BTC in our reserve to use, but we shouldn’t do this yet because we have no solid way of ensuring we can support the new currencies long-term.

[Sabreiib]

The entire purpose of hayek money is that there are several competing currencies and that the free market chooses the stable one. A single company cannot conceivably create a hayek currency themselves, it must instead be chosen by the invisible hand of the market. In order for it to be hayek there must be many currencies in competition, which is very very difficult to do if every one of them must maintain their own blockchain security.

“[Hayek] advocated the establishment of competitively issued private moneys.” Clearly, peershares is not a good platform for such competition.

wow, @Nagalim, your logic impresses me again, clearly you misunderstand Hayek theory. Hayek said many private currency issuers competiting with each other, while with peershare, people can build 100 different blockchains, there are only two now, Nu and B&C, but theoriticially it can be many.

@Sentinelrv
The cliche of Peershare operating cost is too high to be successful is WRONG, Nu has severe expenditrue problems, BUT IT DOSEN’T MEAN ALL PEERSHARE MUST GO NU’S STYLE.

For example, if we pledge NSR to borrow NBT from protocol and spread trade as being LPC. The operating cost will be extremely low, just like PPC’s operating cost.

For me, it’s stupid to build different DAO on just one base/platform blockchain in spite of how safe the platform is! I don’t even like many DAOs build on BTC or ETH, leave along PPC. Because just one black swan event can ruin many DAOs together. Rubbish top-level design!

[Sentinelrv]

The cliche of Peershare operating cost is too high to be successful is WRONG, Nu has severe expenditrue problems, BUT IT DOSEN’T MEAN ALL PEERSHARE MUST GO NU’S STYLE.

For example, if we pledge NSR to borrow NBT from protocol and spread trade as being LPC. The operating cost will be extremely low, just like PPC’s operating cost.

You misunderstand me. I am not talking about Nu’s cost for liquidity operations. I am simply talking about the cost of setting up a brand new Peershares blockchain and keeping its protocol up to date. Peercoin’s costs are so low because we have Sunny King taking care of protocol development. If Sunny King left Peercoin, the community would need to fund all developments for keeping up to date with Bitcoin. This would be very expensive for everyone, so luckily we have Sunny available to do most of the work for free. The same thing goes with Peershares blockchains. They need to be setup and kept up to date, which requires experts to be hired like @sigmike. If you can’t afford their expertise, then either you have to do it yourself or give up.

Can’t you see how much these costs limit the number of people and organizations that could setup competing blockchains? With PeerAssets, it is not necessary to spend lots of money for blockchain experts to get your network up and running and there are no expenses necessary for keeping it upgraded. It will only take a small amount of effort to create PeerAssets. The low cost and ease of setup will remove the boundaries that are there preventing people from getting involved and you will have much more competition than Peershares could ever bring.

For me, it’s stupid to build different DAO on just one base/platform blockchain in spite of how safe the platform is! I don’t even like many DAOs build on BTC or ETH, leave along PPC. Because just one black swan event can ruin many DAOs together. Rubbish top-level design!

No DAOs will be ruined in the event of a black swan. The PeerAssets protocol has been designed to be blockchain independent. If something happened to Peercoin for example, all DAOs on top of Peercoin would simply move their PeerAssets over to Bitcoin or another blockchain. Nothing would be lost. PeerAssets is not built directly into Peercoin’s protocol, which means it can be moved from blockchain to blockchain if necessary. The developers chose to build it for Peercoin because they believe it is the most sustainable of all cryptos. Another benefit is that the PeerKeeper thin wallet will have built-in PeerAssets support.

[cryptog]

The point here is that the centralization issue will not affect the underlying PoS security like it does with Nu.

I am talking about the security of the mechanism to maintain the peg.
NuShares on top of PeerAssets would be owned by shareholders
If there is one individual like jordan lee owning most of these nushares, we d see the same issues as we see now with NuShares on top of PeerShares.

I am mistaken?

[Sentinelrv]

I am talking about the security of the mechanism to maintain the peg.
NuShares on top of PeerAssets would be owned by shareholders
If there is one individual like jordan lee owning most of these nushares, we d see the same issues as we see now with NuShares on top of PeerShares.

I am mistaken?

As long as currency and shares are created through shareholder voting it could always be a possibility I think. Care would need to be taken to start out with a much better distribution than NuShares got.

I was thinking about it though and I think PeerAssets might actually allow for fairer voting. Right now with Nu we have a rolling window where people consistently mint blocks with votes in them. Larger NuShareholders can easily get their votes included, but smaller shareholders may struggle to mint a block, so their vote may not get included and they don’t get to vote for a motion. I believe PeerAssets would allow all stakeholders to vote immediately, so even tiny stakeholders could get their say in if they wanted to vote.

@Nagalim would know more about this than me though. What do you think?

[Nagalim]

build different DAO on just one base/platform blockchain

PeerAssets can be ported to other blockchains. It really does greatly reduce the cost of blockchain upkeep, rendering it down to just the upkeep txn fees. You know how many txns Nu does per week? Like 5. That’s a whole 0.05 PPC per week, as opposed to what hundreds of thousands of dollars in blockchain upkeep over the course of 2 years?

the mechanism to maintain the peg

This can be done in other ways to distribute the debt mechanism and thereby decentralize the reserve, for example using pseudo-crypto (PeerAssets representing other crypto on other chains) with complex custom issuances. Anyway, we aren’t there yet, there is work to be done.

[Sabreiib]

PeerAssets can be ported to other blockchains

How? Does Peerasset have independent blockchain?

[Nagalim]

you should really just read the whitepaper. It is mostly blockchain agnostic.
"This paper describes a simple, blockchain agnostic protocol which enables peers to issue and transact with assets."

PeerAssets Whitepaper

[Sabreiib]

It seems peerasset read/write messsges from/into PPC blockchain?

[Sabreiib]

@Sentinelrv, how long will peerasset be finished? open source?

[ConfusedObserver]

The peg is currently restored and strong.

The question how many funds that belong to Nu are in the buy wall remains unanswered.
Is there any public information about that anyone could point me to?

Lets take the appropriate measures to keep it that way.

Revenue!

@Sabreiib, I’ve spent some thoughts on creating “quite good money” based on PeerAssets.
I hope to have some time on the weekend to start working on a draft for a paper that might be called “The quite good money crypto ETF”.
I will need reviewers and supporters. From what I’ve read about you in this forum, I can only hope to have your support.
What do you say?

And die-hard Phoenix followers, please think twice before bashing me for that little advertisement here out of reflex; if successful it might Nu bring a store of value (for the reserves), that’s more USD stable than BTC
…Nu had the chance to create that product, but unfortunately had no interest.
Now I’m going to make it myself.

[Sabreiib]

Looking forward to read your whitepaper.

[Hyena]

PeerAssets kicks ass, erryone here should just join it and abandon nubits.

[sigmike]

with Peershares blockchains. They need to be setup and kept up to date, which requires experts to be hired like @sigmike

Peershares could also cost nothing to set up if some development was done in that direction. Software updates should be rare. Almost all the updates we made in Nu was to add features. Adding new features to PeerAssets would also need experts. If you don’t need new features you only need security updates and keeping compatibility with operating systems. These have been rare and the cost could be shared among all the Peershares instances. And PeerAssets can also need these kinds of update.

The real difference in cost is the cost to run the network. With Peershares you need dedicated nodes, and all shareholders should run a node (or have a provider if cold-minting is enabled). It’s not a big cost, but PeerAssets doesn’t have it.

[Nagalim]

I’d say the real difference is about separating the distribution of shares from the distribution of network security. The biggest concern I have with Nu is not that the votes are centralized, but that the security is centralized. People that make good secrity-driven minters do not always intersect with those that make good business decisions. Separating them allows the public to maintain secure record of a business’ practices without relying on its own accounting. For example, once a shareholder gains 51% of Nu they could fork the blockchain to edit the history. Once the share base is compromised, the entire blockchain becomes untrustworthy. For PA, gathering up >51% of some asset gives you no say at all over the blockchain, and thereby no actual ability to edit the history of the asset.

[Sentinelrv]

The real difference in cost is the cost to run the network. With Peershares you need dedicated nodes, and all shareholders should run a node (or have a provider if cold-minting is enabled). It’s not a big cost, but PeerAssets doesn’t have it.

I’d say the real difference is about separating the distribution of shares from the distribution of network security. The biggest concern I have with Nu is not that the votes are centralized, but that the security is centralized.

Both very good points.

People that make good secrity-driven minters do not always intersect with those that make good business decisions.

I had not thought about this, so thanks for bringing it up. It is necessary to distribute Peershares as wide as possible in order to maintain security, however those specific people might not be the best ones to make important decisions on behalf of the business. Separating security providers from those who make important decisions through voting is a very important step.

[Sentinelrv]

@Sentinelrv, how long will peerasset be finished? open source?

I have heard Peerchemist say he would like to have it finished around Christmas time, mind you this is only the protocol. We would still need to make it easy to use, which would require interface developments in PeerKeeper. And yes, it is open source.

[Sentinelrv]

and all shareholders should run a node

Something Peerchemist mentioned on peercoin.chat while reading your quote above is that shareholders mostly do not want to run a node and he believes PeerAssets will prove this by becoming more popular. I happen to agree with that as it can be a huge pain in the ass sometimes, especially when you have difficulties getting the client to work correctly or need to redownload the entire blockchain.

None of that hassle is required with PeerAssets and with the PeerKeeper thin client, you’ll be able to transact with your assets with ease on a desktop or mobile browser without needing to install anything. PeerKeeper will even allow minting Peercoins over mobile browser in the future.

[Phoenix]

It is great to see the community once again validating and recognizing the value of @JordanLee’s vision. He had strongly recommended PeerAssets be implemented in November of 2014, while noting he didn’t have time to do it himself.

It is good to see the community getting back on the right track, following the recommendation of @JordanLee.

While PeerAssets are a great idea and have important use cases, they cannot be used to implement a stable currency and lack many important features of Peershares, which tend to be related to the fact that Peershares have their own blockchain, while PeerAssets do not. There are lots of use cases where a PeerAsset is more suitable than a Peershare. Generally speaking, PeerAssets would be easier to set up and maintain, but not as powerful and flexible as Peershares.

[Nagalim]

they cannot be used to implement a stable currency and lack many important features of Peershares

Name one feature standing in the way of PA being used to make a clone of Nu.