 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Part 1superppc:i'm not sure the energy efficiency is that important anymore the key point is the alignment of interests between holders and minters/miners [unlike bitcoin] peerchemist: exactly it is not about energy but about independence of the blockchain bitcoin is no longer independent, and therefore it is not secure ie, it can't be dependent on Extracted from Peercoin Community Chatbox History: https://chatboxhistory.peercointalk.org/?Pagenumber=951Part 2peerchemist:people still fail to realize that Peercoin blockchain is the only public, secure and independent blockchain on the market people will be surprised when they learn how much this means, and when then learn what is coming up for this particular blockchain Extracted from Peercoin Community Chatbox History: https://chatboxhistory.peercointalk.org/?Pagenumber=955
|
|
|
|
Sunny King Weekly Update #199 - In Peercoin v0.6 users can choose to disable checkpoint enforcement:https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4617.0#msg43604Weekly Update #199 •Peercoin v0.6 is in development. •In v0.6 users can choose to disable checkpoint enforcement. In this mode, the node does not automatically reorganize to the blockchain fork where the checkpoint resides. Instead, it shows a warning message that checkpoint is on a different blockchain fork. Have fun!
|
|
|
|
Peerbet: https://peerchemist.github.io/Peerbet/How it worksUsers place their bets by sending Peercoins to appropriate address. Each address now represent a pot. Among three pots per game only one can win as bets are for the regular time soccer game only (90 minutes + extra time). Soccer game can end with: home win, guest win or draw. The house (Peerbet) takes the Peercoins from both losing pots, deducts the 5% house fee and distributes the winnings proportionally to input to all the bettors in the winning pool. Users from the winning pot can expect the winning to be distributed within 4h after the regular time of the game has ended. Payment will be sent to the address of the largest input of the bet transaction. Bets are accepted as long as they are included in the block that is issued before the game starts. All the bets that came after will be returned to sender but with five times the fee (0.05). Make sure you own the keys of the address you use, do not use the exchanges. Terms of ServiceUse this service at your own risk. The Peerbet team does everything possible to ensure bets being paid out properly. Peerbet cannot be held responsible for payment issues. The games are parsed from the official UEFA web page, but it's the user's responsibility to double check the correctness of the game listing before placing a bet. Profits are used to fund Peercoin application development.
|
|
|
|
Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/peercoin/comments/44egkp/is_cold_locked_minting_still_under_development/Sentinelrv: I last spoke to Sunny about this in April 2015. Here are two quotes from that conversation... "As to cold minting feature, I am not interested in getting into a feature competition with a commercial project like neucoin. If they want to claim they got there first, then so be it (I thought NXT already had it). We have to get full understanding of all future implications, including long-term support cost with regard to bitcoin merges and so on. There are important difference with a commercial project and a volunteer project, a commercial project can afford to increase complexity and just deal with it by throwing money after it. Whereas a volunteer project, increase of complexity could very much mean the end of it." "As to Mike's work, I am by no means degrading Mike's proposal and implementation, it might very well be accepted as is later. And I very much appreciate what Mike has done to peercoin project. The thing is, I haven't yet given enough thoughts into the implementation details, I guess others are probably in the same boat. So in my opinion we need to be patient. We want to be sure to be able to fully support the feature for many years down the road." |
|
|
|
- 基于最近比特币网络的交易量，我想谈一下PPC和XPM的交易费策略。我始终认为比特币的交易费方案过于复杂，因此我简化了PPC和XPM的交易费策略，使得用户很容易理解。比特币更深层的问题是，基于去中心化的技术，网络的费用非常的昂贵。这意味着它更适合于作为骨干货币，而不是跟中心化的支付网络竞争成本和交易量。这在比特币的用户不是很多的时候并不明显，但是在它越来越流行以后，问题会越来越明显。
- 起初，比特币的交易费被设定在0.01BTC，事实上我认为这非常好，它好于一个过于复杂机制。试想一下，即使以比特币现在的价格，0.01BTC的交易费仍然只相当于银行转帐的十分之一。现在，增加比特币网络的交易规模，去跟Paypal和信用卡等竞争，将会使比特币的去中心化优势丧失。而去中心化是比特币最核心的东西。很显然比特币的开发者没有很警惕的守卫比特币的基础原则。
- 在这一精神指导下，PPC和XPM使用0.01币每KB数据的机制是非常简单和有效的，它跟最初比特币的设定一样。比特币的情况将会被紧密的观察着，PPC和XPM的交易费策略将会保留，即使未来基于比特币代码的升版而升级PPC或XPM。
中文原贴地址： http://diandianbi.org/thread-582-1-1.html英文原贴地址： https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg11819200#msg11819200 |
|
|
|
Weekly Update #150 - With the recent transaction volume on bitcoin network, I would like to discuss the transaction fee policy of peercoin/primecoin. I have always felt that the transaction fee design of bitcoin is overly complex, so peercoin/primecoin simplified it quite a bit, so users could have easier understanding of the policy. However, the deeper issue with bitcoin's technology is that, due to the nature of the decentralization technology, it's inherently a rather expensive settlement network. This means it's more suitable to act as a backbone network for financial systems, rather than to compete with centralized payment networks on volume and cost. This isn't obvious when bitcoin userbase is still limited, but the situation will get more and more obvious as its popularity grows.
- Originally bitcoin's transaction fee was defaulted to 0.01BTC. In fact I think this original default value was quite good, it beats having an overly complicated system in my opinion. Think about it, at current valuation it's still only one tenth the cost of bank wire networks. To prematurely increase the scale of the network, to compete against networks such as paypal or credit cards, would cause a significant loss of decentralization which by the way is what bitcoin technology and philosophy is all about. It appears that bitcoin developers are not guarding the fundamental principles with enough vigilance.
- In such spirit both peercoin/primecoin set default transaction fee to a required 0.01 coin per KB of data, in a simplified and effective fee policy from old bitcoin. The situation in bitcoin is closedly watched, the current fee policy in peercoin/primecoin likely would remain in place when upgrading to latest bitcoin codebase in the future.
Have fun! Original post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg11819200#msg11819200 |
|
|
|
The original post at: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4102.msg39143#msg39143PEERAPPS NOW OPEN SOURCEhttps://github.com/Peerapps/PeerappsNote it's still in Alpha, and requires v0.5 of PPCoin Core (which has no released binaries, so you must build it yourself). Development is ongoing, with focuses being on: - Changing Peermessage to have two message types. One will have a low level of anonymity of receiver, which means not every client will have to download it, and be super cheap. The second will be more expensive, and have complete anonymity of receiver, and require all participating clients to download it to check if they can decrypt it. - Work has begun on a light client that will not require Peercoin Core to be running alongside it. Its primary target is mobile devices. These clients will not be connected to the Peercoin network, but will connect to super nodes that will dish back parsed data from the blockchain upon request. The data will be signed, so the light clients won't have to trust the super nodes with anything other than censorship. - Another application on the Peerapps framework. |
|
|
|
Original post at: https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4086.msg39105#msg39105Sunny King My view on the issue at the moment: 1) There is no way to prevent ppl from stuffing data to the blockchain if they insist. This is somewhat due to script system (one might argue that even without the script system data can still be encoded in address or send amount). The only real discouragement of data on blockchain is the transaction fee. I am talking about general principles here, I have nothing against peerapps using the feature on peercoin. The idea is so long as fee is paid, it's considered okay. And users of this feature is actually being graceful to the network by not encoding data in obfuscated ways. 2) From bitcoin/peercoin core point of view, these probably can be pruned immediately from unspent set. Note pruning does not remove it from blocks. It's still on the blockchain and can be retrieved from blockchain at any moment albeit with higher access cost. 3) I would be very cautious modifying the bitcoin script system, due to the issue that maintaining such modification can be expensive long term. So one needs strong argument why its benefit is so great. 4) The proposed system of declaring different expiration to the network isn't quite consistent with my view that transaction fee is the only guard on data flood. It kinda suggests that fee alone is not enough, that additionally the network still expects you to be 'nice' and let nodes prune you more quickly. |
|
|
|
点点币v0.5.0版将支持op_return小数据交易功能。届时，Peerapps的点点信和点点博客也将同时发布。对此，点点币社区有人员提出，由于每个op_return交易会增加80字节的空间，将来某个时候也许需要对区块进行修剪。对此问题，加密货币名家Sunny King先生发表了如下看法： 我目前对这个问题的看法： 1) 如果人们坚持要用数据塞满区块链， 世上不存在办法能阻止人们这样做。这主要是由于脚本系统（有人可能会争辩说，即使没有脚本系统数据仍然可以编码在地址或发送量中）。唯一真正能阻止把数据存放在区块链上的是交易费。在这里，我说的是一般原则。我并不反对Peerapps在点点币网络上使用op_return功能。我的想法是，只要支付费用，就被认为是可行的。而op_return功能的用户实际上对网络是得体的，因为不对数据编码，要是编码就会引起混淆。 2) 从比特币/点点币核心看，这些大概可以从未花费集合中立即修剪掉。注意，修剪不能把它从区块中删掉。它仍然在区块链上，并且在任何时候可以从区块链检索出来，尽管要较高的访问成本。 3) 我对修改比特币脚本系统持非常谨慎的态度，由于这样的问题即维护这种修改可能是昂贵的长期性的。因此，人们需要有强有力的论据，为什么修改的好处是如此巨大。 4) 声明不同的过期期限以便修剪这种所建议的制度不是与我的观点十分一致，我的观点是交易费用是防止数据洪涝的唯一卫士。这个所建议的制度有点暗示着，仅靠费用是不够的，还额外地网络仍然希望你是'优雅的'，让节点更快地修剪你。 原文： https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4086.msg39105#msg39105作者：Sunny King 附上sigmike的回帖如下：
我认为这里最重要的是这一点： "2) 从比特币/点点币核心看，这些大概可以从未花费集合中立即修剪掉。注意，修剪不能把它从区块中删掉。它仍然在区块链上，并且在任何时候可以从区块链检索出来，尽管要较高的访问成本。" 首先，修剪并不意味着我们缩小区块链。一些节点必须永久保留可修剪的数据，不管是否有特殊的标志。这是必需的，以便新节点能验证区块链。如果区块链丢失任何东西，你就无法验证它。 当我们谈论可修剪的数据，我们的意思是，一个客户在用它们来验证一个区块后可以从自己的区块链拷贝上把这些数据删除。他不需要这些数据来验证未来的区块。但自此之后，他不再是一个完整的完全节点了，因为他不能提供完整的区块链给其它节点。 其次，任何不使用这些可修剪的数据和不保存完整区块链的人，都可以在接收到可修剪数据之后把它删除。因此，一个标志是没有必要的：可修剪数据已经意味着只要你愿意你可以随时删除它。 这个标志可做为一个暗示，暗示节点应该保留它多长时间。但这一决定更多的是他们要当完全节点的意愿多大的问题，而无关发出者或数据本身。 原文： https://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=4086.msg39228#msg39228作者：sigmike 译者：happypeer |
|
|
|
|
