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

cryptog 2016-10-20 07:35:29 UTC #21

I do not see how peerassets would be able to avoid the centralization issue of Nu with NuBits.
Can u explain?

Nagalim 2016-10-20 11:24:46 UTC #22

The centralization issue will still exist for a stable coin made with PA (though it can conceivably be improved, we’re discussing things like pseudo tokens but the 100% multisig reserve is a much simpler solution). The point here is that the centralization issue will not affect the underlying PoS security like it does with Nu. What’s more, it will be very easy to have multiple different PAs releasing different stable currencies in competition. I.e. Hayek money.

Remember, a single stable coin issuer cannot issue Hayek money. Hayek money requires an open market and people in competition to provide the most stable currency.

“rather than entertaining an unmanageable number of currencies, markets would converge on one or only a limited number of monetary standards, on which institutions would base the issue of their notes.”

Hayek money cannot be made by peershares, as the burden to create your own chain security is too heavy to produce competition.

Sabreiib 2016-10-20 14:13:04 UTC #23

Hayek money can be issued by single company at first then followed by hundreds of competitors.

Look Bitcoin, after its success, hundreds of copy cats emerge.

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 15:38:30 UTC #24

And how many of those copy cats are truly secure? Not many I suppose. The benefit of using PeerAssets is that you don’t need to provide your own chain security, because Peercoin already does it for you. There are no security consequences if somebody was able to get 51% of the shares. The network could only be attacked if Peercoin itself was compromised. And DAOs would not have to pay lots of money to developers to update their protocols for security upgrades as that would be handled solely by Peercoin developers.

As Nagalim tried to point out above, all of this lessens the cost of creating and managing stable coin DAOs. With reduced financial burden, more competitors can get involved in this field, which could inevitably lead us to the best solution for Hayek stable currency.

We need to reduce the cost for people to get started though, because not everyone is a blockchain security expert and not everyone has the money to pay experts to manage blockchain security for them. Peershares is a dead end because it simply cost too much. PeerAssets makes it possible to significantly reduce the cost of getting started in this area, allowing for more competition from many different parties, which could over time lead us to the best solution.

Peercoin itself doesn’t need to be used as a currency as it’s not stable enough as you point out. However it can be used to cheaply host stable currency organizations on top of its network.

serfer 2016-10-20 18:58:47 UTC #25

I find it ironic that the same people that accuse Nu of being a “Ponzi” are now trying to lead others into a new, different “Ponzi”.

If Nu is a Ponzi, then all crypto is a Ponzi.

No one in crypto is your friend, we are all here for our OWN well being and survival. Human beings are selfish creatures. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. There is no “honest” crypto and there will never be. Thus is the nature of money. Keep this in mind when listening to anyones “opinions”

If you spend an extended amount of time following any coin, you will eventually see through the shiny facade and see the corrupted inner workings - this applies to ALL coins and ALL money. Show me a coin that is 100% free from corruption and I will call you a liar.

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 19:36:16 UTC #26

You make no sense. Nu can provide a valuable dollar pegged currency service, but the problem is that it currently uses customer funds in order to function. Liquidity operations slowly eat away those funds until there is nothing left and then the peg can’t be supported anymore because the money has run out. Then customers lose everything because we spent all their money supporting the peg for a limited time. Until a real revenue model is implemented, this is how Nu works. It will always end with the customer losing everything.

Other cryptocurrencies do not work in this way. There is no organization holding customer funds. The price of a crypto is what is because people have decided that is what it is worth through their buying and selling on the market. Cryptos that offer nothing but marketing will be pumped and dumped, while a crypto that offers real features and services that are actually useful to people will have a greater possibility of maintaining its value and possibly even increasing it over time as more people start to find it useful and use it regularly. This is no different than the services offered by a company and the rise of its associated stock price.

Of course humans are selfish. Everyone wants to get a return on what they invest their time and energy into. I’m not doing what I do for Peercoin just because I want to help change the world. I’m investing in a technology that I think is going to end up giving me a significant return in the long run. However there’s no reason why the technology I invest in can’t align with my other desire of providing valuable services to people and making the world a significantly better place.

What type of corruption are you referring to? Are you referring to Jordan Lee type scamming in other crypto communities or do you think people’s desire for money is fundamentally evil or something? I find nothing wrong with seeking wealth as long as people are doing it in an honest manner, working to provide something valuable for people and getting an appropriate return in value as payment for the service that was carried out. I know there is a lot of corruption and evil people in the world that are out to get you, but it is possible to conduct your business honestly if you want to.

Nagalim 2016-10-20 20:18:16 UTC #27

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.

serfer 2016-10-20 20:19:48 UTC #28

My point is that your view of what is honest or dishonest in crypto is subjective and you voicing your opinion on what coin is a better investment than another coin is pure speculation and simply an act of self-preservation.

For all we know SunnyKing = JordanLee / Phoenix. Meaning Peercoin was created by the same person you call a scammer.

Again, I’m not saying Nu is perfect. I agree with most of your concerns regarding certain fundamentals with Nu. Its easy to point out flaws, its a bit more difficult to come up with solutions.

If you think its not able to be fixed, then by all means go find another community.

This forum is meant for the constructive development of Nu - so lets do more of that.

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 20:59:50 UTC #29

Sunny doesn’t have an ounce of Jordan Lee in him. I talk to him on a weekly/monthly basis, so I should know his personality. Even if they were the same person, one technology works long-term and the other can only work short-term. That’s all that matters.

Yes, my opinion on what coin is better is speculation, but I don’t see how dishonesty can be subjective. If you mislead your customers or take their money without giving them anything in return, I think that’s clearly dishonest behavior. Nu is promising to return funds when the customer sells their NuBits. If Nu has absolutely no plan to back that up for as long as they remain in operation, then I would call that dishonest marketing.

I don’t know if it can be fixed. All I’m trying to do is point out the problem and prevent Nu from engaging in more dishonest behavior by selling more currency units to people that they know they can’t back long-term. NuShares can be diluted to pay back current customers, but no new products should be introduced until it can be figured out how to earn enough revenue to support them. Also, because of Jordan’s overwhelming control over the network, I’m also suggesting a different path for those shareholders who still want to try building a stable currency business without the influence of Jordan.

serfer 2016-10-20 21:24:16 UTC #30

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that SunnyKing is JordanLee. I would say the evidence that supports this theory outweighs the evidence against it. I’ve spoken with SunnyKing in the past as well. It would make perfect sense for JordanLee to be an alter-persona of SunnyKing. The names even have the same cadence! Of course none of this can be proven because both SunnyKing and JordanLee like to remain anonymous.

[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:29, topic:4666”]If you mislead your customers or take their money without giving them anything in return, I think that’s clearly dishonest behavior.
[/quote]

Well I can say that my initial investment into NSR was around 50 satoshis. So as a customer and shareholder, I consider this 42% a healthy return on my investment in just 2 months time. Of course someone who bought back in May or earlier wouldn’t be singing the same tune as me (i.e. most of the active participants in this forum)

Hopefully you can see the difference in the psychology between the new money and old money.

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 21:29:44 UTC #31

I’m talking about our product. NuShares is not our product.

serfer 2016-10-20 21:41:18 UTC #32

product: an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.

I can buy both on Poloniex right now. One is pegged, the other isn’t. I get your point, but there really isn’t much of a difference.

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 21:53:55 UTC #33

The difference is that we’ve made a promise to always keep one of them at $1. If we currently have no way of backing that up long-term, then we should wait to introduce new pegged currencies until we can be more confident in our ability to keep that promise. If not, then what good is our word?

serfer 2016-10-20 21:58:32 UTC #34

100% agree. The peg is currently restored and strong. Lets take the appropriate measures to keep it that way.

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

Sentinelrv 2016-10-20 22:24:54 UTC #35

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 2016-10-21 00:01:13 UTC #36

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 2016-10-21 00:45:08 UTC #37

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.

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 2016-10-21 01:27:33 UTC #38

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 2016-10-21 02:30:18 UTC #39

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 2016-10-21 03:01:27 UTC #40

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?

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.