arguments against Peercoin

[kalon]

I was looking for ppcoin related links and came across thebitcoinchannel where the gentleman there was making arguments against ppc. The points he brings up are as follows (from his site)

----
This is an overview of PPCoin, also known as PPC Coin or Pepsicoin (why, I have no idea)

Essentially it is the bitcoin protocol, but instead of proof of work, it uses a hybrid of proof of work, and proof of stake.

Proof of stake is based on the number of coin-days you own. Holdng one coin, for one day, is one coin day. Two coins for one day, or one coin for two days, is Two coin days.

There is also a small proof of work element, however it is negligible.

Benefits:
1. Lower power consumption

Drawbacks:
1. no way to detect a pending 51% attack
2. control of the network is compounded by the minting algorithm being based on stake
3. the rich get richer
4. Minting can be forced by sending coins to yourself, negating the financial benefits of proof of stake
5. Centralisation of blockchain checkpointing – Interesting proposed solution using less than 1 month coin age = 0 to verify agreement on monthly checkpoints per transaction. ie. one month to be locked in forever.

Other points:
1. Requires Indefinite Inflate to remain secure, could be a good thing, or a bad thing
2. Transaction fees are part of the protocol, so the user can’t decide fees.

Conclusion:
Only solves a non-problem – no where near as secure as bitcoin
Because it rewards those who hold more coins, people will spend less, and it becomes a pyramyd scheme. No contribution of resource other than holding more coins for longer.
It dies if people stop spending money… no transactions = no PPCoin
Non-starter

--- http://www.thebitcoinchannel.com/archives/5487

I find point 3 compelling and do wonder if power consumption will truly be a problem for Bitcoin in the long run seeing as ASIC may make securing the network less power intensive. The other points I'm not quite as sure about.

I'd love to see a rebuttal to his points. Perhaps any particularly well reasoned arguments could also find their way to the comments section of his site.

[1715158412]

1715158412

[1715158412]

1715158412

[1715158412]

1715158412

[Dervana]

6. Pee Pee Coin

[FuzzyBear]

As my understanding...

1) POS actually increases the security of the network and makes 51% attack harder
 - also POS combined with continually adjusting difficulty makes 51% attack even harder

2) ?? not sure what he getting at here? maybe he doesn't like the fact that the more people that mine the less coins are produced each block

3) Awww sounds like he doesn't have any coins so can't be one of the rich folk... if he truely doesn't believe the coin will be a success then he would not be calling the holders of large sums of PPC the "rich" as he would see them as stupid or bad investors... also nothing stopping him buying up coins now and waiting 30 days to start his earning of interest.

4) can it? i know there was a vulnerability disclosed about POS and SunnyKing worked hard and fixed it, is there still an issue, or is this a comment based on bad research

5) the centralised checkpoints are again something SunnyKing has commented on many times and plan is to decentralise this but it still early days in this coins life and better for security... tbh SunnyKing has the coins best interests at heart and has proven time and time again that he is one of the good guys... don't believe me well i'm not going to convince u.. do your own research!! or get in contact with the guy!!

let me know ur thoughts and correct me if i'm wrong...

don't forget PPCoin chat can be done on here http://ppcointalk.org/

[MrWizard]

Drawbacks:
1. no way to detect a pending 51% attack
     - is there any way to detect a 51% attack for any coin. No.
2. control of the network is compounded by the minting algorithm being based on stake
     - stake generation helps secore the network and is the energy efficient component of PPcoin.
3. the rich get richer
      -  at 1% per year your money will double in about 70 years.
4. Minting can be forced by sending coins to yourself, negating the financial benefits of proof of stake
     - The opposite is true.  Sending coins to yourself means you restart the wait clock for stake generation.  Stake generation takes place after 30 days of holding coins.
5. Centralisation of blockchain checkpointing – Interesting proposed solution using less than 1 month coin age = 0 to verify agreement on monthly checkpoints per transaction. ie. one month to be locked in forever.
     - checkpointing is another 51% attack mitigation.  It is a good thing.

Other points:
1. Requires Indefinite Inflate to remain secure, could be a good thing, or a bad thing
2. Transaction fees are part of the protocol, so the user can’t decide fees.


I find the criticism of the coins name rather funny.  I have no problem with it.  Anyone who calls it PeePee Coin I find so very childish, I am embarrassed for them.

[erk]

No existing PPC p2pool nodes, though Novacoin a PPC fork has them.


And the worst thing ever is 4 days to get 520 confirmations on coinotron. WTF was wrong with 120 confirmations like everyone else?

[FuzzyBear]

No existing PPC p2pool nodes, though Novacoin a PPC fork has them.


And the worst thing ever is 4 days to get 520 confirmations on coinotron. WTF was wrong with 120 confirmations like everyone else?

bitbar has 520 confirms... actually makes network and coins more secure... everyone here thinking FAR to short term....

[erk]

bitbar has 520 confirms... actually makes network and coins more secure... everyone here thinking FAR to short term....

Not at all, if you are doubting that 120 confirms doesn't work then BTC would have failed by now.

[kalon]

Drawbacks:
1. no way to detect a pending 51% attack
     - is there any way to detect a 51% attack for any coin. No.
2. control of the network is compounded by the minting algorithm being based on stake
     - stake generation helps secore the network and is the energy efficient component of PPcoin.
3. the rich get richer
      -  at 1% per year your money will double in about 70 years.
4. Minting can be forced by sending coins to yourself, negating the financial benefits of proof of stake
     - The opposite is true.  Sending coins to yourself means you restart the wait clock for stake generation.  Stake generation takes place after 30 days of holding coins.
5. Centralisation of blockchain checkpointing – Interesting proposed solution using less than 1 month coin age = 0 to verify agreement on monthly checkpoints per transaction. ie. one month to be locked in forever.
     - checkpointing is another 51% attack mitigation.  It is a good thing.

Other points:
1. Requires Indefinite Inflate to remain secure, could be a good thing, or a bad thing
2. Transaction fees are part of the protocol, so the user can’t decide fees.


I find the criticism of the coins name rather funny.  I have no problem with it.  Anyone who calls it PeePee Coin I find so very childish, I am embarrassed for them.

I find these points convincing enough to settle most of my concerns. I suppose the issue with inflation is dealt with to a degree by the destruction of tx fees, assuming ppc is being used as currency in daily transactions and is not just a store of wealth. I'm not sure how the calculation for tx is done but I'd find it interesting to know how much ppc in circulation vs. being pos mined would be needed to keep it in equilibrium. I'm not going to ponder that too much since I'm fairly sure that that is math far too complex for my simple brain.

On point 5, it seems reasonable enough that Sunny put the checkpoints in place as a temporary measure to ensure security at an early stage.
I agree fully with your final remark about infantile comments on the name. Though I do prefer Peercoin for this reason. My son burst out laughing when I mentioned ppcoin. He's seven, it's forgivable. I'm not sure, however, about the age of commenters on this board.