Bitcoin Forum

PPC is the most innovative and exciting alt coin IMO.  It seems inevitable that a proof-of-stake will become a major player in the future cryptocoin sphere.  However, PPC has a marketing problem.  It's supposed to stand for 'peer to peer coin', but all the coins are peer to peer, plus as everyone always says, 'pee pee' sound silly.  PPC's critical advantage is being more environmentally friendly by saving electricity used in mining.  If it was called Ecocoin, and had a stylish and user friendly homepage as opposed to the quaint, cute game-like homepage of PPC, it would be welcomed and hugely take off.

Can you imagine it?  Ecocoins, the true currency of the revolution.  It would gain support of all the hippies, eco-warriors.  Stuff that has 'eco' in the name is very fashionable, and can rally fanatical support from nature lovers, like myself.

If I was remotely technical I'd do this myself but I haven't the slightest clue how release my own coin, even it it is a clone.

I also actually want PPC or a clone of it to be successful because of the environmentally friendly factor.  Someone give me a coin I can believe in!

Any thoughts on this idea? 

You'd need to hack out the centrally controlled checkpoints thing, or look into whether the thing that does that is a proprietary node rather than a switch or option already built into the free open source node code...

-MarkM-

As i understand PPC uses PoW and PoS, and because of that it can be called only half-eco-coin. ;D

PPC could be intresting but it's difficult to understand, lacks of marketting and community support. I think it's just too late for this coin. There are more improved coins being build. Maybe PPC will make understanding that public relations are important.

I made the same comments today here in the main thread

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101820.msg1978722#msg1978722

The problem with PPC isn't PR... The problem is that there is NO evidence that it works as advertised, and there is a lot of evidence that it is completely broken.

If anything, it shows how PR can give you a market cap of $7.5+M when you have a really crappy product.

Could you post me links to the evidence if you don't mind? I would like to read this to get a more unbiased opinion. Thanks

Version 0.2 was demonstrated to be completely broken:


(Proof-of-stake's only purpose is to make generating many blocks in a row hard so that double-spending is hard. If it is easy to generate many such blocks then PoS doesn't work as advertised, it is a sham.)

I do not have such data about version 0.3 (I completely lost interest), but Jutarul claims that it has same flaws as previous version: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=101954.msg1952272#msg1952272

And I have all reasons to trust him, since he previously demonstrated good analysis of ppcoin security, Sunny King even mentioned him in version 0.3 announcement:


Then you have a hilarious statement from Sunny King that he has no idea how secure PPCoin is:


But the problem is that Sunny doesn't want to help people to research this independently, he offers no documentation and says people should just read source code.

So, the summary is that PPCoin is a thinly veiled sham. Situation might change only if Sunny will be willing to help researchers to analyze it.

Energy efficiency is good but only if it works.
It is the same as I would compare a good engine which is consuming energy and a not working engine.
The not working engine is saving energy but doesn't work. But I could sell it saying that will be the most energy saving engine when it will work. Would you buy it ?
Bitcoin, namecoin and litecoin are working as decentralized currency but ppcoin still doesn't work.

If PPC is broken, I can't find that out as I can't read code, I have to be told it's broken by people I can trust.

How much time would it take a well qualified full time programmer to fix it?  Is it easier to launch another version called EcoCoin?  If a programmer(s) were hired and paid to do that, how much would it cost?

People are looking to invest in the best coin.  It makes no sense to continue to this pointless hashing race for years and years.  Whoever launches an attractively branded coin with a proof-of-stake (or similar) system where coins are generated by users earning interest instead of mining, will make a fortune, as well as save lots of electricity.  

We could crowd fund a project like this, or offer shares on https://btct.co/.  Or some programmers could just do it (and let me know about it lol, i'd be willing to donate some BTC to get it going, and be the 'PR guy').  

It isn't broken in sense that there is a bug in it, it is broken in sense that the idea behind it is (likely) faulty.

So one either needs to use a different idea. Or to prove that PPCoin can actually be made secure with some modifications. (We don't know whether it is possible at all.)


Probably.


It' hard to say. Programmers who are capable of such things are likely busy with other projects and won't be eager to switch.

Otherwise, I think a proof-of-concept shouldn't take more than a month or two of work of a capable programmer. Polishing and securing might take some extra time.

(Pure proof-of-stake is likely significantly different from proof-of-work, so a lot of work is needed. Sunny King and his friend cheated a bit by making PoS protocol very similar to PoW protocol, but you see the result...)


A lot of capable programmers have to earn their money on their corporate jobs and don't have much free time, so crowdfunding could help.

But there are many unknowns... Say, a programmer from California would require much more money than a programmer from Russia. Also, it makes no sense to quite your job for a month-worth gig.

Take a look at Ripple currency (https://ripple.com/bitcoiners/).  It has a different model for transactions than Bitcoin and looks more efficient and secure.  Ripple uses consensus rather than proof-of-work or proof-of-stake.  It is faster (confirmation occurs in seconds) and more secure (not subject to 51% attack).  Since it doesn't rely on proof-of-work, it doesn't have to burn up scads of computer time to laboriously prove its security.  See more advantages here: https://ripple.com/wiki/Introduction_to_Ripple_for_Bitcoiners

PPC and Proof of Stake work well in theory when combined with Proof of Work in a hybrid model. Whether or not it works in practice depends on whether or not Sunny King can effectively code it. I think he can, but PPC is at least a year or two away from being truly usable.


There are other projects in the development phase but those projects will go through a similar process and are even more years away. Bitcoin is an obvious success, Litecoin is a clone of Bitcoin with faster transactions and less valuable, Namecoin is entirely different but will be a success. A Proof of Stake hybrid coin is needed and if not PPC what else is there?

PoS+PoW is not energy-efficient. It is just (presumably) more secure than pure PoW.


Chances are those projects will start with proper planning...

It was cloned at least once, called NovaCoin something.

--

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

Or it could be that Sunny knows its weaknesses, but believes they are not practical when the network is mature enough. As long as no ones discovers them at the early stage, it's good enough.

With PPC we see how much people are interested in energy efficiency and in the environment so that they support even a(still) not working model. But may be they will solve it one day and that will be great. But may be it cannot be solved then people invested their hope without return.
PPC actually is pure Proof of Work and they say they intend to switch to Proof of Stack but if they switch to it without solving the decentralized checkpoint problem it will be a centralized currency.
A hybrid model would be one which use both but in the same time and it can also work only if both parts work.

But NovaCoin had premine which ruined its reputation.
Perhaps someone could re-launch a NovaCoin-like coin (scrypt+pos) without premining.

What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares...

Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken...

Programmers are waiting for Ripple source code so they can clone Ripple to make Ecopal. :)

(Or Ecopay, or whatever. Heck why not both? ;))

-MarkM-

Creating another coin because you hate the name?

Hey, it apparently worked for Litecoin! Copy Fairbrix, changing the name and using newer bitcoin code to base it on and presto, who remembers Fairbrix now?

-MarkM-

IIRC Tenebrix mined 50 coins per block forever, likely same was true for Fairbrix (it was tenebrix minus premine), but Litecoin has finite monetary base just like Bitcoin, which has a better appeal for early adopters.

 (Which isn't quite rational... continuous issuance makes more sense for later adopters, and early adopts profit of late adopters... So, in theory, if everybody was rational, all being equal early adopters would profit more in continuous issuance mode.)

^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.

Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him.


The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening?  ::) That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?


My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins.

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

Thanks for that I'd be interested in hearing replies to this.  If PPC isn't 'broken' but merely untested, then I would vote simply for a name change + homepage revamp seeing as it's still very early days rather than launching a new coin with a different name.

What's this I've read about the PPC code being uncommented?  Does this mean it's very hard for other programmers to work on?

Maybe Sunny's real name is Peter Parker, and PPCoin is to him as Ford was to Henry Ford, and changing the name would be to strike at the very immortality a creator seeks to derive from his creation? :P

-MarkM-

:o It's his horcrux! It all makes sense now  ;D

I'll think I'll make my own Ripple clone and call it RippOff, in the finest pump and dump tradition.  ;D

Well, this is my opinion. 2 months ago PPCoins were selling for 2 cents a coin. Last weekend they hit 40 cents a coin. Does it seem like the name of the coin is holding it back?

I would also like to see a homepage revamp. Something cleaner and more informative.

I am used to the name myself. The Nintendo Wii sounds like Nintendo Piss, and sold 100 million units lol.

The PPC code is apparently not easy to follow. I suspect this is partly intentional to minimise people cloning it before it becomes popular. That is pure conjecture on my part though. Perhaps it is because Sunny is operating largely alone and hasn't had time. When the price hits $1+, more developers will be attracted to working with it.

Same thing which was broken in 0.2: it is secure only if there is a large number of active stake coins.

I already mentioned a message where doublec described how he can generate a shitload of PoS blocks in a row just by bringing his offline wallet online. Nothing have changed in new version to prevent this...

OK, well, aside from change in weighting of stake, which isn't that significant.


Why do you trust Sunny?

Let's do this again:

"The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening?  ::) That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning."

I'm guessing since you ignored this entirely, you've realised how foolish the entire premise of your argument sounds.

In that topic you linked to, the guy is using 0.2 not 0.3 and in the 0.3 release Sunny said it contains bug fixes. I don't see any reports of this happening with 0.3, please link me to them if you do.

Checkpointing is necessary for security. It's also a temporary measure being phased out. If another new cryptocurrency emerged based on original ideas that needed to be tested out in the wild it too would likely use a checkpointing system (doing otherwise would be suicide).

You cannot attack "a market cap" with double-spend, you have to attack a concrete business, an exchange, for example.

Guess what, people aren't really eager to rob an exchange... Also, it isn't as lucrative as it seems. (You're limited to whatever liquidity is currently in orderbook, basically.)

Also it might be easier once Sunny removes centralized timestamping.


Idiot, I've just read source code, and I understand how it works. You don't.


Which, again, shows that you have no fucking idea about what is proof-of-stake and how cryptocurrencies work.

Please stop trolling.