Re: Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.)

The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms.

The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly).

People are more attracted to 100% proof of stake in new coins now. Only miners don't like it. For the coin and the value of the coin 100% proof of stake is better than regular mining.

regular mined coins / btc, ltc etc / 1 star

proof of stake / nxt, cap, etc / 2 stars

innovative productive / xpm, ric etc / 3 stars

innovative productive variation of proof of stake / huc, etc / 4 stars

Going to 100% regular proof of stake is like adding a piece of celery to a bowl of rice.
Is it an improvement? Yes.
a significant improvement? No.
Nothing creative or new about it but yes, rice with celery is better than rice without celery.

With a block reward of 2.5 ANC in some months, we will loose all small miners against big centralized miners that will control the network as they want.

Then, in my opinion, PoS would be a good option. They could program the inflation rate to have same coins distribution as the actual PoW algo (4 million ANC at the same approximated date).

With regard to the block reward halving: This has always bothered me.

Halving the block reward every X blocks is nearly equivalent to an exponential decrease in the block reward with time. Why don't we just hard code the block reward to be

reward = C * exp (-b/lambda)

where b is the block number, lambda a decay constant, and C a constant that depends on the total number of coins?

Using step functions was a dumb idea from the start, and I don't know why Satoshi did this. It seems to me that it would be trivial to update the anoncoin code to have a continuously decreasing block reward, if everyone thought it was a good idea.