Someone should clone PPC and call it Ecocoin

[killerstorm]

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?

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.)

[efx]

^ 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.

[mr_random]

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.

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

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...

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?

^ 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.

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.

[matt608]

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.

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

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...

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?

^ 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.

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?

[markm]

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?

-MarkM-

[TsuyokuNaritai]

changing the name would be to strike at the very immortality a creator seeks to derive from his creation?

It's his horcrux! It all makes sense now 

[LaggedOnUser]

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

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

-MarkM-

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

[mr_random]

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.

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

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...

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?

^ 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.

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?

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.

[killerstorm]

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?

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.

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.

Why do you trust Sunny?

[mr_random]

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?

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.

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.

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).

[killerstorm]

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."

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.

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.

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

Checkpointing is necessary for security.

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

Please stop trolling.