Peercoin. Truly Decentralized.

[crypto_coiner]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BriCbP3CEAAX3eE.png

Peer-mined, not pool-driven.

[Rnd2012]

so what?

[lynn_402]

so what?

So that makes it a currency which has the potential to be considerably more secure than Bitcoin in the long-term.

[ChuckOne]

A logo makes a coin truly decentralized? Interesting.

[lynn_402]

A logo makes a coin truly decentralized? Interesting.

Not quite, but PoS and a fair distribution through PoW does that

http://cointrader.org/peercoin-proof-of-stake-and-bitcoin/

[heskey]

so what?

So that makes it a currency which has the potential to be considerably more secure than Bitcoin in the long-term.

But it might be flawed?

"The bottom line is that no proof-of-stake system can ever remain decentralized.

They all will require some sort of delegation of reputation to achieve consensus. I would have to go through a laundry list of examples to cover all the cases. For example, in Transactions as Proof-of-Stake it is required to delegate trust of propagation to the other nodes as I explained above. Thus there needs to be some reputation system to enforce this, e.g. blacklisting, whitelisting, etc.. All the other proof-of-stake systems have a requirement for some form of delegated reputation.

I have many times explained to bytemaster and others the fundamental problem is that any system that attempts to replace proof-of-work will rely on some form of reputation, and reputation is centralization. And centralization is precisely what decentralized crypto-currency is not supposed to be because centralization will always end up control and manipulated (i.e. it is a fiat system)."

[ChuckOne]

@heskey
I see your conclusion. Though, I cannot follow your logic.

Let us start simple: why is it required to have some form of delegation?

[heskey]

@heskey
I see your conclusion. Though, I cannot follow your logic.

Let us start simple: why is it required to have some form of delegation?

The chain will likely fork.

My turn. Whats your sentiment towards the fact that hoarding is encouraged?

[ChuckOne]

Let us start simple: why is it required to have some form of delegation?

The chain will likely fork.

Are you saying? No delegation => Fork

Why is that?

[heskey]

Let us start simple: why is it required to have some form of delegation?

The chain will likely fork.

Are you saying? No delegation => Fork

Why is that?

The whole deal with cryptos is based on the reliability of the network, that all users share the same network. Therefore we must have pillars (nodes) which are always working to keep the blockchain intact.
 
What's your sentiment towards the fact that capital is doomed to become more and more aggregated in a PoS network such as peercoin?

[ChuckOne]

The whole deal with cryptos is based on the reliability of the network, that all users share the same network. Therefore we must have pillars (nodes) which are always working to keep the blockchain intact.

What does this have to do with delegation? Maybe, my English fails here but for me delegation means giving somebody else power to do something on my behalf. So, still the leap from "delegation/no delegation" to "no fork/fork" is too big for me.

Please, elaborate more on this.

What's your sentiment towards the fact that capital is doomed to become more and more aggregated in a PoS network such as peercoin?

Hmm, it is the same in the real world. Richer get richer and poor stay poor. Same goes for PoW. Because rich people can buy mining rigs more easily than poor people. Do not see why this is different.

Cryptos are not supposed to solve that issue btw but to remove trust from the monetary system.

[darkota]

The whole deal with cryptos is based on the reliability of the network, that all users share the same network. Therefore we must have pillars (nodes) which are always working to keep the blockchain intact.

What does this have to do with delegation? Maybe, my English fails here but for me delegation means giving somebody else power to do something on my behalf. So, still the leap from "delegation/no delegation" to "no fork/fork" is too big for me.

Please, elaborate more on this.

What's your sentiment towards the fact that capital is doomed to become more and more aggregated in a PoS network such as peercoin?

Hmm, it is the same in the real world. Richer get richer and poor stay poor. Same goes for PoW. Because rich people can buy mining rigs more easily than poor people. Do not see why this is different.

Cryptos are not supposed to solve that issue btw but to remove trust from the monetary system.

Dude...in case you didn't know, Peercoin uses centralized checkpointing, so the devs technically control everything...It's not decentralized, that's why it's price is so low and it has a small marketcap and that's why compared to say NXT, even with it's 100% premine in the hands of a few people, Peercoin is shit.

[ChuckOne]

Dude...in case you didn't know, Peercoin uses centralized checkpointing, so the devs technically control everything...It's not decentralized, that's why it's price is so low and it has a small marketcap and that's why compared to say NXT, even with it's 100% premine in the hands of a few people, Peercoin is shit.

Thank you. But still, let him answer my questions.

[heskey]

The whole deal with cryptos is based on the reliability of the network, that all users share the same network. Therefore we must have pillars (nodes) which are always working to keep the blockchain intact.

What does this have to do with delegation? Maybe, my English fails here but for me delegation means giving somebody else power to do something on my behalf. So, still the leap from "delegation/no delegation" to "fork/no fork" is too big for me.

Please, elaborate more on this.

We have to delegate our trust nodes, otherwise we'd all have to run full nodes, which eliminates the whole finesse of the crypto(being simple to use). Determining this in PoS is, as I've come to understand, will most likely be the "trust of propagation" - that is to say our trust that the node will continue to hold its stake. I presume and assume that this means that we will prefer to delegate our trust to the nodes which has the most coins/longest staked coins(coin-age).

Trust does not seem to be a problem for you however, since you're advocating NXT.

[ChuckOne]

We have to delegate our trust nodes, otherwise we'd all have to run full nodes, which eliminates the whole finesse of the crypto(being simple to use). Determining this in PoS is, as I've come to understand, will most likely be the "trust of propagation" - that is to say our trust that the node will continue to hold its stake. I presume and assume that this means that we will delegate our trust to the nodes which has the most coins/longest staked coins.

Being simple to use and running full nodes is something different, right? For instance, the Wesley Nxt client is a full node but it is a one click client and therefore simple to use (not even speaking of the modern design).

May I summarize your statement to

We need delegation in order to sustain the amount of active/participating stake/stake-age. Otherwise, the amount of active stake would decrease steadily until the security of the network cannot be guaranteed.

?

[Sentinelrv]

Dude...in case you didn't know, Peercoin uses centralized checkpointing, so the devs technically control everything...It's not decentralized, that's why it's price is so low and it has a small marketcap and that's why compared to say NXT, even with it's 100% premine in the hands of a few people, Peercoin is shit.

According to Sunny King, checkpoints are going to start being phased out in v0.5. The purpose of them was to provide extra security while the network was young. Soon, they will no longer be needed...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg7481470#msg7481470

[cybnate26]

Dude...in case you didn't know, Peercoin uses centralized checkpointing, so the devs technically control everything...It's not decentralized, that's why it's price is so low and it has a small marketcap and that's why compared to say NXT, even with it's 100% premine in the hands of a few people, Peercoin is shit.

Thank you. But still, let him answer my questions.

Not sure why you thank him, hopefully not for the content of his comments.
That sort of people doesn't help to make NXT popular.

However I do disagree with the OP as where we are now, but as Sentinelrv mentioned this can and will be fixed. Primecoin already has the type of voluntary checkpointing Peercoin will get and it happens to be that the same developer/architect is behind both coins.

For the time being we enjoy a very secure and stable network while NXT enjoys the temporary benefits of 100% premine which it desperately needs as it needs to build it's own expensive infrastructure. Both are therefore not 100% decentralised from a different perspective, but we will most likely both evolve to that stage eventually, although I have my doubts on when NXT stakeholders are prepared to let things go and allow true decentralisation.

Anyway, we all have our own preferences on what way will provide the best results in the next months. Let's hope that decentralisation wins in the end!

[devphp]

According to Sunny King, checkpoints are going to start being phased out in v0.5. The purpose of them was to provide extra security while the network was young. Soon, they will no longer be needed...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg7481470#msg7481470

But until centralized checkpoints are removed, we can't say Peercoin is decentralized, even truely decentralized, right?

[lynn_402]

We have to delegate our trust nodes, otherwise we'd all have to run full nodes, which eliminates the whole finesse of the crypto(being simple to use). Determining this in PoS is, as I've come to understand, will most likely be the "trust of propagation" - that is to say our trust that the node will continue to hold its stake. I presume and assume that this means that we will delegate our trust to the nodes which has the most coins/longest staked coins.

Being simple to use and running full nodes is something different, right? For instance, the Wesley Nxt client is a full node but it is a one click client and therefore simple to use (not even speaking of the modern design).

May I summarize your statement to

We need delegation in order to sustain the amount of active/participating stake/stake-age. Otherwise, the amount of active stake would decrease steadily until the security of the network cannot be guaranteed.

?

Running a Peercoin full node only requires a raspberry pi, which is considerably more affordable than buying a PoW mining machine.

I do believe, though, that those who run nodes should get a small incencitive (tx fees?) to do so, to keep the network as decentralized as possible. Members of the Peercoin community have taken a step in the right direction by giving some Peercoins to anyone who could prove they had set-up a node!

[Magic8Ball]

Peercoin has centralised checkpointing, so can hardly be termed as truly decentralised.

What was the point of this thread though. New logo?