When Bitcoin and all other cryptos enter another bull market, does the Peercoin team get all the credit and any ideas that were passed up suddenly become trash?  Some people can't see past the end of their nose.

Your wallet will stake automatically if you have it connected to the internet.  Make sure to 'unlock for minting only' in the settings menu.

As mentioned, the economics are hard to parse.  But think of this: there can be multiple people with >50% of the current Bitcoin hashpower, but there can only be one person with >50% of the coins.  While you are correct that there is far from 100% minting, I do think this highlights an interesting perspective, which is that hash power is limitless while coin ownership is intrinsically limited.  One can have 500% of the current PoW hashpower, for example.  The point I'm trying to make here is that purchasing enough hardware to control Bitcoin likely will not drive hardware prices through the roof, while purchasing a large percentage of the Peercoins on the open market (remember that a large % will likely never sell, or are lost) will surely drive the price per coin to insane levels.

As for the max reorg depth, I don't think it's explicit in Peercoin, but I have reason to believe the way the dynamic stake modifier is chosen implies a max reorg depth.  I'm having trouble getting devs to comment on it, but I'll keep researching.  For reference we adopted the dynamic stake modifier from Neucoin in Peercoin v0.5, and I'm almost certain Neucoin has a max reorg depth.

The only thing that stops a miner from crafting a chain in private is the cost associated with running the mining equipment and not claiming the block rewards.  If they have >50% hash power, then they have a near 100% chance of having the longer chain and making back the block rewards as well as their double spend.  It is very possible that a government or some large entity could mine a longer chain in private and release it to disrupt the network.  I'm not sure why you think this is not possible with PoW.  The other stuff you say about blacklisting and so on is correct, and applicable to both PoS and PoW.

When selling coins before the double spend, you sap the network of its value by tanking the price right before you try to extort it for value.  You can argue about the economics of this, but I do think you are missing my point about selling the hardware after attacking a PoW coin.  In either model you can recover some of the liquidity used to attack the chain.

As for the hard checkpoints, you're right that those are done by the devs.  I'll get back to you on whether or not there's a reorg depth limit.

So you are talking about a 50% attack, which is also executable on the Bitcoin chain and basically any crypto.  It at first appears more tempting for Peercoin because it doesn't require investment in hardware like it does on Bitcoin.  However, you do invest in the digital coins, hoping to sell them before you unleash your attack chain.  This is similar to selling your Bitcoin hardware after attacking the chain, in that you can recover some of your investment and still carry out the attack.  So on its face, 50% attacking Peercoin is similar to 50% attacking any crypto, in that it requires overcoming whatever network effect the coin has generated.

For the specific long-range nature of the attack you describe, it is important to realize that clients will not reorg beyond a certain depth (Peercoin has two types of checkpoints: 'synchronized', which is what we've been talking about, and 'hard', which is what I'm talking about now and something that Bitcoin also has).  So what you describe will cause a fork between fresh chain downloads and old nodes.  As the checkpoint server is an old node, it will not follow the attack chain and new users can follow the checkpoints to get on the old chain.  Then there can be an emergency client update that specifically bans that fork, or something similar.

A 50% attack is indeed no joke.

I don's understand what you mean when you talk about 'faking chainweight'.  If you have a heavier chainweight, your chain is the 'real' chain by definition.  What is your definition of a 'fake chain'?

Cold minting will take a hardfork to accomplish.  It is possible we will see it rolled out in the next couple updates, but as it is still somewhat controversial I would rather not specify a timeline yet.

If the attacker forms a chain with higher chainweight, checkpoints won't hinder or help the reorg.  That higher weight chain will replace all instances of the current chain, regardless of if they have checkpoints enforced or not.  The only way to use checkpoints in an attack is to block the checkpoint server from the open internet.  The thing is, it's near impossible to find the IP address of the checkpoint server, because checkpoint authority is based on a cryptographic signature rather than an IP address.

What do you mean when you say "lured into an attack chain"?  If the false chain is does not have more chainweight than the true chain, then you would have to prevent the checkpoint server from accessing the open internet, a feat that becomes very difficult if we implement multisig.  If it does have more chainweight, then it is by definition the true chain, so broadcasting it is not an issue.

Isolating the checkpoint server from the open internet is similar to isolating a single large minter.  You really can't do limitless damage, as all transactions and blocks have to be cryptographically valid.  The maximal disruption is probably along the lines of causing a fork between checkpoint enforced and checkpoint unenforced that will reorg to the heavier chain when the checkpoint server sees the open internet again.

Checkpoints were made optional via an easily accessible checkbox in v0.6.  Developers still believe checkpoints have value as a voluntary option, especially if we do something like multisig checkpoints in the future.  Turning this feature off is currently as easy as unchecking a box in settings>options.

The chainweight in Peercoin's security model was switched from coindays to PoS difficulty some time ago, coindays are only used to determine the mint reward.  So your concerns have already been accounted for in Peercoin.

All funds currently at the posted multisig addresses were raised via accounts on the Peercoin forum.  There are no borrowed funds or venture capital, and currently raised funds came from numerous sources.  As far as we are aware, no single party has bid a majority of the current funding.  However, we would not necessarily prevent a single party from bidding a majority at this stage.  As the bids are first come first serve, the current bids placed by peercointalk forum members are nearly guarenteed to receive IND, even if a large party brings funding up to our maximum goal.

Many members of the peercoin community have already taken part in fundraising.  Please feel free to ask reputed pseudonyms on the peercoin forums and chats.

PoS security is all about distribution and network effect.  PoW distribution and general expansion of the network has had a lot of time to mature.  These factors make PPC ready for the next step of decentralization.  Before long, PPC will easily be considered the most decentralized cryptocurrency in existence, especially when compared with mining cartels.

I let Tom know.  Can you link to the exchange website?  Are you up on coinmarketcap?

So basically the only obstacle to liquidity provision is the wrapper software.  We are currently in kind of an in-between time with our liquidity software because we're about to come out with much more powerful stuff.

That said, liquidity provision is a process (grant support is a positive real, not a boolean).  You should get your exchange listed on our website and make yourself known on the forum.  Tomjoad is the PR rep and can help you get listed im sure.

Hey all, nupond operator here (i run the liquidity pool on bter).  NBT are held fixed to the dollar through a multi-tier system to ensure we have deep decentralized pockets.  The money on exchange is just tier 1 and 2 and while it is important for sensing pressures on the peg the orders on the order books are not the be all and end all of our liquidity.  The end all is Tier 6 which constitutes us either buying or selling our own shares to cement the growth or shrinking of our nbt supply into the value of our own company.

Tier 4 buy side constitutes (currently) a multisig address ( 5 of 8 ) holding bitcoins that we can use to refill our buy side liquidity when required.  We have passed a motion that states our intention to hold 15% of the circulating nbt supply as a btc multisig reserve in Tier 4.  We are developing and growing every day such that we have deeper and more fluid reserves on both buy and sell side.

I think you'll find B&C exchange (block shares) fit the bill very nicely.  As far as Nu (which B&C is forked from) the ability to vote on motions and control a cryptocurrency's supply using block chain consensus is certainly in line with decentralized share and asset issuance.

Coin volatility is certainly an issue.  If you are looking for a pool without volatility, try my nbt/cny pool at http://nupond.net
The rate is 0.15%/day.  The main risk in that pool is exchange default.  If you want to support the pool on poloniex, you will be using nupool run by willy and wooly sammoth, which will certainly have btc volatility risk.  Try here: https://nupool.net

The import password should be your nushares wallet password.  The wallet itself needs to be unlocked totally, not just for minting only, but this is only a problem if you encrypted your wallet.  If your nsr wallet password has spaces, you should use double quotes (") around the password.

4 bks = 40k nsr is correct.  1 BKS is all you need to vote and receive rewards.  I received a 0.01 BKS reward for my first mint, so I think they increased the reward (NSR reward is 40, which equates to 0.004 BKS)