[PPC] Peercoin - Indicium Logo & PeerAssets Diagram Released

[muto]

Looking forward to NuNits release, something big is coming for Peercoin and the whole crypto community 

[lovely89]

Nice copy of Nxt thread layout. Let's see what more is new in Peercoin universe.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

[Sentinelrv]

Nice copy of Nxt thread layout. Let's see what more is new in Peercoin universe.

I admit, I really liked their format and felt it was the best way to present things. I changed it up though by adding a text intro to Peercoin, as well as videos, etc...

[onefix]

Certainly been lots of hype surrounding Nubits and that has raised a little more awareness for a great coin.
I will certainly be glad when the countdown is done and dusted though.... After countdown we can then digest what nubits actually is/does and move forward.
It is really nice to see a committed team of devs, with a great community,  developing and innovating.
 

[masterOfDisaster]

Nice copy of Nxt thread layout. Let's see what more is new in Peercoin universe.

I think it is a good idea to lean on good concepts and to learn from them.
Why not using NXT's thread format?

Oh, have you ever thought about where NXT got the idea of PoS from?
...one hint: Peercoin invented PoS

[stdset]

You really want to put things like the block time and the number of coins generated in the PoW phase (was there one?)  in the ANN OP.  The tech specs basically.

Those are not tech specs, those are cosmetic specs.

[stdset]

It is also the first cryptocurrency to use proof-of-stake technology, an energy efficient solution to securing its network, which was invented by Peercoin's architect, Sunny King.

Not true. PoS was invented much earlier https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0 . Sunny King though was the first to implement it.

I've got an idea, and I'm wondering if it's been discussed/ripped apart here yet:

I'm wondering if as bitcoins become more widely distributed, whether a transition from a proof of work based system to a proof of stake one might happen.  What I mean by proof of stake is that instead of your "vote" on the accepted transaction history being weighted by the share of computing resources you bring to the network, it's weighted by the number of bitcoins you can prove you own, using your private keys.

For those that don't want to be actively verifying transactions, and so that not all private keys need to be facing the network, votes could be delegated to other addresses via some kind of nonstandard Bitcoin transaction.  In this way, voting power would accumulate with trusted delegates instead of miners.  New bitcoins and transaction fees could be randomly and periodically distributed to delgates, weighted by the number of votes they've accumulated, thereby incentivising diversity of the delegates and direct voters.

If the implementation could be done, it proved to maintain at least a similar level of privacy and trustworthiness, and it only minimally complicated the UX, I'm thinking that a proof of stake based fork could out-compete a proof of work one due to much lower transaction fees, since its network wouldn't need to support the cost of the miners' computing resources.  (Note that the vote delegation scheme has bandwith/storage overhead that would offset these savings by some amount which would hopefully be relatively small.)

Some other potential improvements this system could offer:

• Possibly quicker, more definite confirmation of transactions, depending on how it can be implemented.
  
• The "voting power" may be more trustworty, since it would accumulate in a bottom-up fashion via a network of trust, instead of in the somewhat arbitrary way it accumulates now.  (Note the potential problem of vote-buying here.)
• It would remove the physical point of failure of bitcoin mining equipment, which can be confiscated or made illegal to run.
• It could be used to provide stakeholders a means of making their voices heard (via the delegated voting system it establishes) when it comes to proposals for software updates and protocol changes.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out here to see if there are any obvious reasons why it couldn't be implemented, and to hopefully spark a discussion amongst those better qualified than me.

Cheers.

[Sentinelrv]

It is also the first cryptocurrency to use proof-of-stake technology, an energy efficient solution to securing its network, which was invented by Peercoin's architect, Sunny King.

Not true. PoS was invented much earlier https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0 . Sunny King though was the first to implement it.

Proof-of-stake was invented by Sunny King and Scott Nadal independent of what was going on at BitcoinTalk. Check this interview...

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-real-sunny

SM: What led to the creation of the proof-of-stake algorithm? What inspired you? Do you remember where you were or what you were doing when you came up with it?
 

SK: That was in 2011, we had a small study group on bitcoin

Back then there were already a few 'altcoins' floating around, and more being created, but of course not as much as nowadays. We were thinking about something different, not a clone of bitcoin, but different algorithms, for example, addressing the energy problem of bitcoin.

That's how we started looking into alternative consensus mechanism, that using coins itself to secure cryptocurrency. We came up with the ideas ourselves, but later we learned that some people were discussing related ideas on bitcointalk forums in 2011 as well. Overall I think proof-of-stake is a good term describing the general ideas. The difference is, in 2011 we were pretty much the only people committed to use pure proof-of-stake as consensus mechanism. Everyone else were just trying to see if proof-of-stake can provide some patchwork to bitcoin's proof-of-work.

[lovely89]

Nice copy of Nxt thread layout. Let's see what more is new in Peercoin universe.

I think it is a good idea to lean on good concepts and to learn from them.
Why not using NXT's thread format?

Oh, have you ever thought about where NXT got the idea of PoS from?
...one hint: Peercoin invented PoS

Oh nice. Forgot about that. I guess nxt is finally giving back? Haha

[peligro]

It is also the first cryptocurrency to use proof-of-stake technology, an energy efficient solution to securing its network, which was invented by Peercoin's architect, Sunny King.

Not true. PoS was invented much earlier https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0 . Sunny King though was the first to implement it.

I've got an idea, and I'm wondering if it's been discussed/ripped apart here yet:

I'm wondering if as bitcoins become more widely distributed, whether a transition from a proof of work based system to a proof of stake one might happen.  What I mean by proof of stake is that instead of your "vote" on the accepted transaction history being weighted by the share of computing resources you bring to the network, it's weighted by the number of bitcoins you can prove you own, using your private keys.

For those that don't want to be actively verifying transactions, and so that not all private keys need to be facing the network, votes could be delegated to other addresses via some kind of nonstandard Bitcoin transaction.  In this way, voting power would accumulate with trusted delegates instead of miners.  New bitcoins and transaction fees could be randomly and periodically distributed to delgates, weighted by the number of votes they've accumulated, thereby incentivising diversity of the delegates and direct voters.

If the implementation could be done, it proved to maintain at least a similar level of privacy and trustworthiness, and it only minimally complicated the UX, I'm thinking that a proof of stake based fork could out-compete a proof of work one due to much lower transaction fees, since its network wouldn't need to support the cost of the miners' computing resources.  (Note that the vote delegation scheme has bandwith/storage overhead that would offset these savings by some amount which would hopefully be relatively small.)

Some other potential improvements this system could offer:

• Possibly quicker, more definite confirmation of transactions, depending on how it can be implemented.
  
• The "voting power" may be more trustworty, since it would accumulate in a bottom-up fashion via a network of trust, instead of in the somewhat arbitrary way it accumulates now.  (Note the potential problem of vote-buying here.)
• It would remove the physical point of failure of bitcoin mining equipment, which can be confiscated or made illegal to run.
• It could be used to provide stakeholders a means of making their voices heard (via the delegated voting system it establishes) when it comes to proposals for software updates and protocol changes.

Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out here to see if there are any obvious reasons why it couldn't be implemented, and to hopefully spark a discussion amongst those better qualified than me.

Cheers.

Cool find. Quoted to keep it.

Funny to see spelling mistakes there

[river333]

Though I believe Sunny when he says that him and Scott Nadal invented it independently, if you're interested in the history of Proof of Stake you might also like this reddit thread by cunicula 

Bitcoin, Namecoin, and Peercoin are first attempts at solutions to important, long-standing problems. Bitcoin is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Long before bitcoin existed, people believed that the problem of decentralized cryptocurrency was important.

Namecoin, as far as I know, is the first decentralized DNS system. Again, long before namecoin existed, people hoped for a decentralized DNS system.

Peercoin is the first decentralized cryptocurrency based on proof-of-stake. Peercoin's inspiration is the 'tragedy of the commons' associated with PoW mining. The 'tragedy of the commons' problem in mining has a history dating back to this thread in Nov 2010. People began searching for a solution before peercoin existed and before the term of proof-of-stake had been coined.

When I found out about bitcoin (March 2011), it sounded awesome to me. Proof of stake was not a term yet. In April 2011, I became aware of the the tragedy of the commons problem. I saw it as a nail in bitcoin's coffin and I still see it this way.

Discovering proof-of-stake got me excited again. The beauty of PoS is that it does not require miner rewards to function. With proof-of-stake, the tragedy of the commons doomsday scenario becomes a non-issue. Sure they may be no txn fees, but so what? If you are using PoS this is a great feature. If you are using PoW low fees are a showstopping bug. Once I learned about proof of stake, I saw possibilities: 1) Bitcoin adopts proof-of-stake (or some other rule-breaking alternative) and remains dominant in the long-term. 2) An altcoin adopts proof-of-stake and remains dominant in the long-term. Personally, I see exit to a new cryptocurrency as much more likely. The political challenges of rule-breaking changes in bitcoin are just too daunting. If you need to rewrite the rules, starting from scratch can be a valuable asset.

Today, few people understand that the proof-of-stake idea came out of the debate about the tragedy of the commons problem. If you haven't done so already, I recommend reading one of the most influential threads in the history of bitcoin talk: the tragedy of the commmons thread by Vandroiy. Vandroiy's thread attracted a lot of interest, but did not really make any progress towards a solution for two months. Things changed when Quantum Mechanic posted the thread "proof of stake instead of proof of work" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0). Quantum's thread is the first instance of the term 'proof of stake' in the bitcoin community. It may be the genesis of the concept as well. Quantum suggests that proof of stake could allow for lower txn fees. Quantum's concept of proof of stake starts to gain traction once it appears in Vandroiy's thread. Quickly, Vandroiy, Meni, myself, and others realize that proof-of-stake is the likely solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. From this point on, I make it a personal mission to promote proof-of-stake cryptocurrency.

To date, proof-of-stake remains the only proposed solution to the tragedy of the commons problem. With peercoin's arrival in Aug 2012, we have seen this solution realized. Bitcoin devs have spent three years searching or an alternative answer, but have yet to even propose anything.

The tragedy of the commons problem matters. Gavin has often said that a working market for txn fees is perhaps bitcoin's most pressing development issue. This is just a different (and less dramatic) way of referring to the tragedy of the commons problem. Game theory I learned in school told me that bitcoin has 0% chance of remaining valuable in the long-term unless the problem is fixed. If bitcoin can't be valuable in say... march 2050, then why would it be valuable in february 2050? Working backward to the present, the implication is that bitcoin's value depends on faith that this will get sorted out.

Freicoin and Primecoin also solve novel problems, so they deserve credit too. However, very few people see the motivating problems behind Freicoin and Primecoin as important. The tragedy of the commons problem, on the other hand, is one of bitcoin's most important lingering issues. For the past 2 1/2 years, I've viewed this problem as the number one threat to bitcoin's survival.

tl;dr Peercoin offers the first solution to one of bitcoin's most important problems. Can you tell a similar story about the intellectual contribution of litecoin, Quarkcoin, [Insert Scamcoin name here], etc.? Even if Peercoin gets replaced by something else and loses all value, it will still have made history. Nothing can change that. Very few coins can say the same.

[pbassjunk]

The website is a complete mess.

[Sentinelrv]

The website is a complete mess.

They're just having a little problem. It will be fixed soon.

[masterOfDisaster]

The website is a complete mess.

What in particular do you find messy?

[Yurizhai]

Read the whitepaper. It will take a while to sink in..

https://nubits.com/about/white-paper

[Sentinelrv]

Read the whitepaper. It will take a while to sink in..

https://nubits.com/about/white-paper

It took me several days to digest all that info. Take your time guys. By the way, here is an interview with Jordan Lee from TheCoinFront...

http://thecoinfront.com/an-interview-with-nubits-head-developer-jordan-lee/

[sumantso]

Read the whitepaper. It will take a while to sink in..

https://nubits.com/about/white-paper

From a quick read sounds just like a pegged asset. Have to see if it holds in the face of volatility.

[Sampey]

5 Minutes after NuBits rel, PPC Crash from 0.038 to 0.030 
Why??

[vlad12]

5 Minutes after NuBits rel, PPC Crash from 0.038 to 0.030 
Why??

Classic buy the rumor sell the news. The fact that the details were kept secret pretty much sends the message (intended or not) that the news may not be live up to the hype. This indeed, turned out to be true.

[Yurizhai]

5 Minutes after NuBits rel, PPC Crash from 0.038 to 0.030 
Why??

1. The site was not working correctly for the first 10 minutes or so.

2. BTC-E loves to make everything look like  scam for a flash crash, so they can buy cheap.

3. NuBits is an involved project that requires time to digest. At a super quick glance, it doesn't look like anything special. Whereas the first two pages of the whitepaper make it clear this has never been done before.