Proof of Stake Velocity: Building the Social Currency of the
Digital Age
Abstract
Proof of Stake Velocity (PoSV) is proposed as an alternative
to Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) to secure the peer-to-peer
network and confirm transactions of Reddcoin, a cryptocurrency created
specifically to facilitate social interactions in the digital age. PoSV is
designed to encourage both ownership (Stake) and activity (Velocity) which
directly correspond to the two main functions of Reddcoin as a real currency:
store of value and medium of exchange. Reddcoin can also function as the unit
of account in heterogeneous social context. The technological aspects of PoSV
are presented after a detailed review of existing designs. The economic aspects
of Reddcoin are then analysed. Finally the unique position of Reddcoin as a
digital social currency in the competitive landscape of cryptocurrencies is
discussed.
2 Technology
A cryptocurrency uses principles of cryptography to
implement a distributed, decentralised and secure cash system. It solves the
problem of double-spending in a distributed ledger by introducing a mechanism
to secure the network against 51% attacks and Distributed Denial of Service
(DDoS) attacks. The underlying principle of such a mechanism is the necessity
of expending resources when confirming transactions. Once confirmed,
transactions become irreversible because it’s practically infeasible for any
attacker to have access to the huge amount of resource required to modify them.
Different mechanisms use different types of resources.
2.1.0 A Proof-of-Work (PoW) is a piece of data which is costly to
produce so as to satisfy certain requirements but is trivial to verify. Bitcoin
uses the Hashcash PoW [1]. Mining, the process of producing PoW, plays the
central role in creating, distributing and securing Bitcoin and many its
variants. The most common criticism of PoW mining is its massive waste of
energy. At the time of writing, the total daily revenue of mining Bitcoin is
around 1.8 million USD. Depending on the aggregate profit margin and the fraction
of overall cost that electricity accounts for, we estimate the daily total
electricity cost at between 200K and 500K USD. In addition to this
wastefulness, there are several more reasons why mining remains a very
controversial aspect of PoW cryptocurrencies.
2.1.1 Mining Arms Race
Mining is by nature extremely competitive. Mining costs
include initial expenditure on equipment plus on-going energy cost. Miners are
predominantly rational profit seekers. Their top concern is how long it takes
to recover the initial cost, i.e. the length of Return on Investment (ROI).
During the very early age of Bitcoin, mining was carried out by CPU. When
mining later became available on graphics cards (GPU), mining on CPU became
immediately loss-making. As Bitcoin price continued to soar, mining operation
witnessed a mini industrial revolution. Application Specific Integrated Circuit
(ASIC) designed to carry out PoW computation at several magnitude higher speed
and lower energy cost started to emerge and soon rendered GPU mining obsolete.
This relentless arms race causes constant worry among average miners who
usually fail to recuperate initial investment and cannot afford continuous
hardware upgrade.
Bitcoin uses SHA256 [10] as the hash function in PoW and is
the first to experience this arms race. The same arms race is happening to
cryptocurrencies that use the Scrypt hash function [11]. Scrypt was initially
touted as “ASICresistant” due to its heavier memory usage. In reality,
ASIC-resistance is one of the most misleading and over-abused marketing slogans
in the cryptocurrency world. The correct word is “ASIC-ignored”. ASIC can be
designed and manufactured to perform all hash functions. The entry barrier is
not technical but financial. Unless there is sufficient market demand for
mining Scrypt-based cryptocurrencies, it’s simply financially unprofitable for
manufacturers to invest in the production of such ASICs. While Scrypt is under
the threat of ASIC, many cryptocurrencies have been created to use alternative
hash functions such as Scrypt-N, Scrypt-Jane and X11. These cryptocurrencies
all market themselves as the “latest and best generation of” ASIC-resistance
when this resistance is entirely dependent on being a minority. It’s deeply
self-contradictory for a cryptocurrency to pitch ASIC-resistance as its main
merit to gain wide adoption when this sole merit depends on it being unpopular.
In theory, it can be preferable to have separation between
mining a cryptocurrency and using it. It’s more efficient to leave mining
operation to specialists who use their domain knowledge to achieve economy of
scale. This is indeed the case for Bitcoin, the most established
cryptocurrency. However, for many newly created variants, average GPU-miners
make up the vast majority of user communities and the fear of ASIC directly
threatens their social
2.1.2 Miner Incentive
Miners provide a paid service to cryptocurrency networks.
They are all profit seekers first and foremost. At a fixed cost, it’s perfectly
rational for them to mine the most profitable cryptocurrency and sell it
quickly on market to limit exposure to price risks. Hence were born the
so-called “multipools” which fully automate this process. Multipools create two
new problems in the cryptocurrency world.
First, the profit-seeking by multipools pushes many
cryptocurrency prices to just above mining production cost. As mining
production costs inevitably go down due to technological advances, many
cryptocurrency prices suffer from downward death spiral, which hurts the morale
of the corresponding communities. Second, multipools employ strategies that
exploit the lag in readjustment of difficulty of PoW. Multipools switch to a
cryptocurrency with low difficulty and keep mining it while its difficulty
gradually catches up. The moment the difficulty rises to its fair value,
multipools switch again. As a consequence, multipools mine blocks at a
significantly lower average difficulty than other miners. Although from a pure
Darwinian point of view multipools help improve market efficiency and filter
out the weakest, they do force most cryptocurrencies to focus on extremely
short-term interests rather than long-term growth and innovation.
2.1.3 Manufacturers of ASIC Mining Equipment
To be the most profitable miner, one must be the first to
get hold of the latest equipment that offers the highest hash rate per unit of
cost. Therefore manufacturers of ASIC mining equipment have strong financial
incentive to use their own product for mining first and only start shipping
equipment to buyers after mining profitability drops enough. This inherent
conflict of interests has profound impact on every aspect of the mining
business. For example, the vast majority of manufacturers ask for prepayment in
exchange for a promise. The actual delivery is usually delayed by months, which
reduces mining profitability for their buyers to almost zero. Manufacturers
often offer no refund for shipping delay or product defect in their terms and
conditions, effectively eliminating their own liabilities and openly exploiting
the desperation of buyers. All these frustrations reduce the confidence of
average miners and undermine the soundness of PoW mining as the guardian of
cryptocurrencies’ decentralised networks.
2.2 Proof of Stake
Proof-of-Stake (PoS) is an alternative to PoW first
introduced in Peercoin [4]. The resource used by PoS is “coin age”: currency
amount times holding period. Similar to energy, coin age as a resource is
expensive to amass in huge quantity. For an attacker to accumulate enough coin
age to attack the distributed network, he either has to buy on open market a
large amount of the very currency he’s trying to attack, driving up its price
during the process and diminishing his economic incentive, or hold coins for a
very long time, reducing the frequency of his own attacks.
One useful feature of PoS is the significant saving in
energy consumption. Another main feature is the better alignment of incentives
between miners and stakeholders because miners are now the stakeholders. PoS
however has several limitations:
2.2.1 Initial Distribution
PoS by construction relies on a fair and wide distribution
of a cryptocurrency but doesn’t deal with the logistical issue of how to
achieve this fair distribution in the first place. By comparison, mining in PoW,
despite all its drawbacks, also serves as a potent channel of distribution.
This chicken-and-egg problem was and remains a major challenge for all PoS
cryptocurrencies. So far there have been two popular workarounds: a)
“pre-mine”, i.e. similar to subscription to stock IPO in financial markets and
b) a hybrid system of PoW and PoS with PoW gradually fading away after an
initial period.
The main criticism of “pre-mine” for PoS coins is its lack
of guarantee of either fair or wide adoption. The vast majority of “pre-mine”
turned out to be fraud. For those which were not, investors and speculators
with deep pockets can easily control a large stake in the currency,
transforming its nature into more as a speculative vehicle than a currency.
Over-concentration of stakes also increases the security risk of the
decentralised network.
The PoW-PoS hybrid system alleviates these concerns by
running PoW and PoS in parallel. PoW mining works as both a steady distribution
channel and a fall-back network security mechanism. As PoW block rewards go
down over time, PoS has enough time to move to the spotlight.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter what particular model a PoS
cryptocurrency uses for initial distribution. The mere knowledge by the public
that a cryptocurrency will eventually rely on PoS compromises its ability to
achieve a fair and wide distribution. This is the inherent paradox of
Proof-of-Stake.
2.2.2 Hoarding
The entire PoS network depends on coin age as the scarce
resource. Coin age can only be earned by holding coins. To earn coin age at a
higher rate than others, one must hold more coins. Coin age is consumed when a
coin is spent in a transaction. PoS mining requires a user to repeatedly send
coins to herself, thus consuming his reserve of coin age in exchange for
probabilistic winning a PoS block reward without reducing the size of the
holding. Coins spent in transactions facing other users also have their coin
age reset to zero but this consumption of coin age is outside the scope of PoS
mining, unqualified for block rewards and is considered a “waste” by most PoS
stakeholders.
It now becomes clear that PoS has been designed to encourage
hoarding and discourage spending. Some PoS coins, such as Peercoin, openly
declare their philosophy to “function more as a long-term store of value than
medium of exchange.” In this sense, PoS coins are created to be collectibles
rather than currencies. Scarcity is a necessary but insufficient condition for
collectibles to have value. Collectibles must also offer some form of utility
such as aesthetics and historic significance. Considering the fact that anyone
can access and modify the source code of PoS coins and potentially offer an
improved version, in theory there is infinite supply. The scarcity condition
doesn’t hold. It remains an unsolved puzzle where PoS coins marketed as
collectibles derive their value from.
2.2.3 Full Nodes
PoS transforms all stakeholders into miners. All they need
to do to collect interest rate is to leave their wallets running and connected
to the PoS network and participate in the confirmation of transactions. Wallets
which stay online for extended periods of time are called full nodes. Staying
online seems to be a rather simple requirement. So it comes as quite a surprise
that PoS coins tend to suffer from insufficient number of full nodes. This
seeming paradox can be explained by two reasons.
First, coin age equals number of coins times holding period.
It doesn’t matter whether a wallet is connected to the PoS network during the
holding period. An offline wallet accumulates coin age at the same rate as an
online one. The only difference is that an always-online wallet receives block
rewards in a fashion that’s more evenly spread out over time while an
occasionally-online wallet receives block rewards in a few concentrated
clusters. This difference alone is insufficient to encourage most stakeholders
to stay online.
Second, it’s commonly perceived by average PoS stakeholders
that running wallets and staying connected for long periods of time
significantly increases security risk. This was a particularly grave concern when
early versions of PoS wallets didn’t support wallet passphrase during mining.
Since then there has been workaround to reduce the security risk.
By considering the two reasons above, an average PoS
stakeholder tend to make the rational decision of connecting to PoS network
only sporadically. The lack of sufficient number of full nodes can result in
higher risk of security breach on PoS networks.
2.2.4 Mining on Multiple Forks
In PoS mining, each stakeholder spends coin age while
looking for the next valid block. If another stakeholder finds a valid block
first, the coin age consumed in the unsuccessful attempt is fully reimbursed.
Forks do happen on all distributed networks of
cryptocurrencies. PoW addresses this issue by enforcing at protocol level that
the blockchain with the largest sum of difficulty always wins. This allows all
the nodes on the network to converge on a consensus rapidly. Miners all have
the clear incentive to mine blocks only for the most difficult blockchain.
Mining for any other fork is almost guaranteed to be wasteful. The situation is
very different when it comes to PoS.
When there are multiple forks on a PoS network, by the
nature of the blockchain, a stakeholder has the same stake replicated across
all the forks. Technically the stakeholder can simultaneously mine on all these
forks by running multiple copies of the wallet. What causes the biggest trouble
is the fact that PoS protocol picks a winning blockchain based on length. And
length of a blockchain in a decentralised network heavily depends on timing. It
can be quite common for different subsets of the network to have different
ideas about which blockchain is the longest while the information is still
being propagated. The lack of synchronisation of network time further complicates
it. It’s a much less robust way, compared to PoW, to reach a consensus. PoS
can’t use the sum of difficulty in blockchains as the criteria for chain
selection because difficulty in PoS is adjusted by each stakeholder based on
their consumption of coin age and therefore remains local knowledge. There is
no network-wide agreed-upon block difficulty.
When stakeholders on PoS networks find it difficult to pick
the blockchain winner, they have the incentive to “bet on all horses” by
simultaneously mining on all the forks. This significantly aggravates network
security. Most PoS coins alleviate, but don’t solve, this problem by enforcing
“duplicate stake detection” at client wallet level but not at protocol level.
They also argue that in practice the financial rewards for multi-fork miners
are small enough to deter such attempts.
2.3 Proof of Stake Velocity
2.3.1 What is Velocity of Money
The velocity of money is the frequency at which one unit of
currency flows through an economy while being used by members of the society
within a given time period [3]. All else being equal, a higher velocity of
money indicates a more flourishing economy, richer members and a healthier
financial system. The formula to measure velocity of money in a given time
frame is the follow: where VT is the velocity of money; nT is the aggregate
notional of transactions and M is total amount of money in circulation. In an
economy, we can also replace nT with nQ which is the nominal national or
domestic product. In other words, given a fixed amount of money in circulation,
velocity of money must be increased in order to increase the size of the
economy.
2.3.2 Higher Velocity for A Better Economy
The vast majority of the drawbacks of PoW and PoS aren’t due
to flaws in technical designs but the disconnect from the economic and social
aspects of being a real currency. It’s fair to say that most cryptocurrencies
are created as technological products but “mis-sold” as currencies. PoSV builds
upon the strength of PoS and introduces new features to address its flaws. PoSV
is designed to encourage both ownership (Stake) and activity (Velocity), the
two main criteria of being a social currency. It must be emphasised that PoSV
is designed specifically for the digital social currency Reddcoin and is never
intended to serve as a drop-in replacement for other cryptocurrencies that
don’t share the same economic and social goals. PoSV should be evaluated as a
piece in the Reddcoin ecosystem and not stand-alone.
Given a fixed amount of coin, coin age is calculated as a
function of time. Let’s denote this function the coin-aging function. The form
of the coin-aging function is of ultimate importance. It not only decides the
growth rate of coin age as a resource over time via its first derivative, but also
decides the utility function of stakeholders. The main limitations of PoS, too
much incentive for hoarding and too little incentive for staying online, result
from the fact that the form of its coin-aging function is linear. The linear
form leads to a constant coin age growth rate and a utility function that
disobeys the law of diminishing returns.
Changing the form of coin-aging function has profound
impact. For example, let’s assume coin-aging function in PoSV is an exponential
decay function. The coin age growth rate gradually decreases with time. The
exponential decay constant is chosen to achieve a particular half-life such as
1 month. Each coin accumulates one coin day per calendar day during the first
month, half a coin day per calendar day during the second month, a fourth of a
coin day per calendar day during the third month etc. As the holding period of
a coin approaches infinity, the total accumulated coin age asymptotically
approaches 2 coin months.
This exponential decay function dramatically changes
stakeholders’ incentives. New coin accumulates coin age at much higher rate
than stale ones. With a fine-tuned half-life, PoSV encourages stakeholders to
be active in moving their holding, either by mining or transacting with
counterparties, both of which increase money velocity and improve the health of
the Reddcoin economy. Stakeholders are also encouraged to stay online and
contribute to verifying transactions on the PoSV network. The asymptotic limit
of coin age due to exponential decay function provides extra security for the
network. The maximum amount of coin age a stakeholder can earn now equals coin
amount times twice the half-life. This significantly increases the difficulty
for 51% attacks.
The coin-aging function can take on other forms. Linear and
exponential decay functions are both monotonic. What about trigonometric
functions which are non-monotonic and periodic? Non-monotonicity produces
positive and negative growth rate of coin age at different points in time which
along with periodicity translate into rewarding and penalising holding with a
seasonal pattern.
This can be used to fine-tune the seasonality in money
velocity. The bottom line is that PoSV is designed to accommodate different
forms of coin-aging functions in order to implement the necessary monetary
policies in the Reddcoin economy. To alleviate the problem of mining on
multiple forks, PoSV helps the nodes to reach a quicker consensus by giving
preference to the head block with the largest sum of coin day spent among all
the transactions.
3 Economics
There has been extensive economics debate about Bitcoin.
Most economists remain unconvinced of Bitcoin’s status as a real currency.
Reddcoin and PoSV are designed to address some of those concerns and offer new
angles to reexamine the questions.
3.1 Medium of Exchange
There is largely consensus on Bitcoin’s function as a medium
of exchange. In fact, almost all the merits of Bitcoin talked about today boil
down to how it acts as a better medium of exchange, e.g. global reach, lower
fees, much quicker transaction and easy to use. However, the fact that the
Bitcoin network must be secured by “mining” which expends real resources
(energy) is considered by many economists to be a drastic retrogression [6] – a
retrogression that Adam Smith scorned at in his immortal work The Wealth of
Nations written in 1776. By comparison, PoSV and PoS mining require little
energy consumption and can be done by any average user on any computer and even
mobile device.
3.2 Unit of Account
Many economists point out that Bitcoin cannot be used as the
base currency for accounting or tax-reporting and therefore fails as a unit of
account. Interestingly, the german finance ministry has officially classified
Bitcoin as a unit of account. More and more merchants start to accept Bitcoin
for payment. Especially in the world of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin has assumed
the special status of a reserve currency and is the choice of denomination for
more and more goods and services. Reddcoin and PoSV bring a whole new question:
what is the “unit of account” for human social interactions, if any?
Currently social interactions are quantified in different
ways on different social networks. On Facebook, it may be measured in the
number of Like and Share; on Twitter, the number of retweets; on Amazon, the
number and quality of product reviews; on blogs and forums, the number of posts
and replies. The total lack of a universal yardstick makes it impossible to
measure and compare social interactions in heterogenous context. In other
words, there is no unit of account for human social interactions right now.
Social influence remains a significant yet opaque asset.
Reddcoin is created to fill this gap by becoming the first
digital currency integrated with all major social networks and serving as the
“unit of account” for social interactions in the digital age. Inside the distributed
ledger of Reddcoin, transactions can be interpreted not only in pure financial
terms but also as proxies for human behaviours. Researchers in social sciences
have long been looking for a way to track, organise and study human social
behaviours on large scales. Reddcoin offers a unique global platform for these
areas of research and open up new possibilities for value-add services.
3.3 Store of Value
Economists are largely skeptical of Bitcoin’s function as a
store of value. They compare Bitcoin with gold and US dollars and point out its
lack of a fundamental floor of the value [2]:
Underpinning the value of gold is that if all else fails you
can use it to make pretty things. Underpinning the value of the dollar is a
combination of (a) the fact that you can use them to pay your taxes to the U.S.
government, and (b) that the Federal Reserve is a potential dollar sink and has
promised to buy them back and extinguish them if their real value starts to
sink at (much) more than 2% per year. Placing a floor on the value of Bitcoins
is what, exactly?
PoSV, PoW or PoS by itself doesn’t provide a fundamental
floor for the value of a cryptocurrency. However, Reddcoin, the digital social
currency that PoSV is specifically designed for, does enjoy a floor of its
value due to its aim to function as the global reserve currency of human social
influence. Humans are by nature social animals. Social activities are embedded
into the very fabric of societies. As Aristotle famously pointed out in
Politics:
Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone
who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need
to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.
Based on Aristotle’s insight, underpinning the value of Reddcoin
is simply its utility of helping humans be human.
3.4 Deflation vs Inflation
Any discussion of monetary system is incomplete without
discussing inflation. Bitcoin and many of its variants were created with a
deflation model in which the total quantity of the cryptocurrency is capped. In
effect, Bitcoin has created a modern digital version of the gold standard world
in which the money supply is fixed rather than subject to increase via printing
press.
Bitcoin advocates believe deflation is a virtue by
preserving the value of Bitcoin versus inflationary fiat currencies and thus
making it a better store of value. Bitcoin price has indeed soared in the last
few years, further validating the merit of deflation in its supporters’ mind.
However, deflation and a soaring price both provide strong
incentives for people to hoard Bitcoin rather than spending it. Indeed,
according to [8], as much as 64% of Bitcoin was never spent in 2013. To make
matters worse, prices of goods and services when measured in Bitcoin have
plunged; the Bitcoin economy has in effect suffered a major depression [5].
PoS and PoSV both employ an inflation model with fixed
nominal interest rate. For example Peercoin adopts a nominal interest rate of
1% per annum compared to PoSV’s 5%. Central banks in developed countries, e.g.
Bank of England, European Central Bank and Federal Reserve, have a long-term
inflation target of around 2%. PoSV chooses 5% because Reddcoin, as the digital
social currency, should encourage more spending, i.e. social interactions, than
other cryptocurrencies which do not share this goal. Also given the global
nature of social networks which involve users in both developed and emerging
markets, 5% seems to strike the balance. The monetary system of Reddcoin is not
created to make people who hold money rich, but to facilitate transactions and
make the Reddcoin economy as a whole rich.
4 Digital Social Currency
4.1 Social vs Commercial
A commercial currency is the most common form of currency.
Its main function is to facilitate transactions in exchange for goods and
services. Bitcoin and its variants have been pushed as the latest innovation of
commercial currencies and compete head-to-head with fiat currencies, such as
USD and EUR, for shares of commercial transactions in the global economy.
A social currency is of an entirely different nature.
According to Wikipedia:
Social currency is a common term that can be understood as
the entirety of actual and potential resources which arise from the presence in
social networks and communities, may they be digital or offline. It derives
from Pierre Bourdieu’s social capital theory and is about increasing one’s
sense of community, granting access to information and knowledge, helping to
form one’s identity, and providing status and recognition.
Very recently, a small but growing number of companies have
come to embrace the concept of “social currency”, allowing customers to pay via
Facebook posts, Twitter tweets and other social media content. However the lack
of a yardstick to measure the “fair value” of social media content and
influence is the main obstacle. To our knowledge, Reddcoin is the only digital
social currency that was created, designed and continuously evolves to become
the “reserve currency” of people’s social interactions. Reddcoin has two main
objectives: 1) to concretise and quantify one’s intangible asset of social
influence, and 2) to facilitate social interactions within and between social
networks, both online and offline. Reddcoin doesn’t compete with commercial
currencies, fiat or digital, but rather complement them. Merchant support is encouraged,
especially when the commercial activities form parts of a collective social
experience. But the social aspect will always remain the utmost focus of
Reddcoin.
The three most important assets in the ecosystem of Reddcoin
are brand, community and infrastructure. Reddcoin developers always go to great
length to create a brand that’s professional, friendly and consistent. Great
care is taken to foster a community that share a clear long-term mission and
the same set of values of being friendly, helpful, generous, caring and
rational. All system infrastructure is built with special emphasis on providing
a uniform, simple and secure user experience.
4.2 Transition from PoW to PoSV
Reddcoin was launched in January 2014 and is still using
PoW. Since the very beginning, Reddcoin has been distributed to a large and
diverse user base through multiple channels that include one of the very few
successful and honest Initial Public Coin Offering (IPCO), mining, trading on
multiple exchanges, community promotion events, generous giveaways and user
tipping on multiple social networks such as Reddit, Twitter and Twitch TV.
Reddcoin stakeholders now include people from almost 100 countries, with
diverse background, age and interests.
At the time of writing, according to information at
http://bitinfocharts.com, Reddcoin has a fairer wealth distribution per wallet
address than all the top cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin
and Peercoin. Reddcoin also has 2 – 3 times more coin age spent today than all
the other PoW cryptocurrencies. Reddcoin, without PoSV, is already the currency
with the fairest stake ownership and the highest monetary velocity. In coming
months, Reddcoin will gradually transition from PoW to PoSV with new features
added at incremental pace.
4.3 Hard to Clone
There is no shortcut to cloning Reddcoin. In particular, the
clone cannot adopt PoSV from inception because, as discussed in section 2, the
mere knowledge of the eventual adoption of PoSV or PoS will lead to people
hoarding from the very beginning. To achieve a fair and wide distribution, an
element of surprise at protocol level plus dedicated efforts at community level
are both indispensable. Reddcoin’s existing brand, community, infrastructure
and the publication of this paper make it very difficult to duplicate what has
already been achieved.
5 Conclusion
We have proposed Proof-of-Stake-Velocity (PoSV) as an
alternative to Proofof-Work (PoW) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS). We started by going
through all the major drawbacks of PoW and PoS and then showed how PoSV
significantly reduces the wastefulness of mining, eliminates mining arms race,
averts the threat of multipools and ASICs, avoids the inherent conflict of
interests by ASIC manufacturers, introduces new forms of coin-aging functions
to discourage hoarding and encourage spending and greater contribution to the
network. General concerns by economists toward cryptocurrency were discussed
and addressed in light of the recent development of Reddcoin and PoSV. In
particular, Reddcoin is well positioned to fill the niche of a digital social
currency that’s tightly integrated with human social interactions and acts as
the yardstick to concretise and quantify people’s intangible asset of social
influence.
References
[1] Adam Back. Hashcash – A Denial of Service
Counter-Measure. 2002.
[2] Brad DeLong. Watching Bitcoin, Dogecoin Etc… 2013.
[3] Joshua Kennon. The Velocity of Money for Beginners.
2012.
[4] Sunny King and Scott Nadal. PPCoin: Peer-to-Peer
Crypto-Currency with Proof-of-Stake. 2012.
[5] Paul Krugman. Golden Cyberfetters. 2013.
[6] Paul Krugman. Adam Smith Hates Bitcoin. 2013.
[7] Paul Krugman. An Ubernerd Weighs In. 2013.
[8] Sarah Meiklejohn, Marjori Pomarole, Grant Jordan, Kirill
Levchenko, Damon McCoy, Geoffrey M. Voelker, and Stefan Savage. A Fistful of
Bitcoins: Characterizing Payments Among Men with No Names. Internet Measurement
Conference, 2013.
[9] Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic
Cash System. 2008.
[10] National Institute of Standards and Technology. Secure
Hash Standard (SHS). 2012.
[11] Colin Percival. Stronger Key Derivation via Sequential
Memory-hard Functions. 2012.
[12] Larry Ren. Proof-of-Stake-Velocity: Technical Analyses.
to appear.
David Yermack. Is Bitcoin a Real Currency? An economic
appraisal
--REDDCOIN
Comments