let’s face it. what you read first is the time you make up your mind if you will invest or not.
my views on the website (im a web content management administrator btw)
1)proof of stake/work difference is poorly articulated so that laymen can’t understand why it is advantageous. simpler wording?
2)nowhere on the first page is mentioned that there is a precalculated inflation built in, thats a good thing no? we should advertise this. many people think bitcoin will fail (including me) ultimately because of its restriction.
3)no mention of no restriction in the number of coins to be generated
4)why isn’t the site peercoin.org?
[quote=“Master K”]I might throw in here an idea. We have tons of technical terms that we can’t avoid simply by the nature of what PPC is. It’s impossible for the front page to truly explain everything clearly for the layman without getting too wordy.
What if each technical term is a slightly different color and thus, is a link to a pop-up window explaining in laymen terms what it’s definition is in very easy to understand terms?
Good or bad idea?[/quote]
Good idea but I would suggest just having bold/underlined hyperlinks instead of loads of mad colours
At least with the intro text at the top of the website, we wrote something up together, but we’re still waiting on the web dev Super3 to implement the changes. He said he’s busy with school and work right now. I think he needs some help from somebody here. Also, .org was taken by a squatter and the guy that owns .com wanted to charge us 300,000 ppc. We’re stuck with .net for now.
That is OK. Sunny said he doesn’t want a Peercoin foundation (a systemic weak link) so we don’t have an organization. But Peercoin definitely have a strong network and the community forms a net, too. So there you go…
I have an idea. The “peercoin” in the upper left doesn’t need to be there and looks funny anyway since it’s redundant and of a different font. What if we had the twitter/facebook/reddit symbols there? Wouldn’t that be better?[/quote]
[quote=“Master K”]Well, he changed it since I make that post and it’s a 1000% better now.
Now I think we need the social media icons on the top-right corner.[/quote]
I already messaged him about that. He said on Github that the buttons weren’t working out in that area, but I’m not sure what size buttons he was trying to use there. There are some great smaller icons right here that would go great with it…
There are two brief summary statements (under “peercoin” and under “features”). These are repetitive. I think it would be neater to replace the text under “peercoin” with the text below “features”, and not have any text below features so that the reader goes straight to the three key features.
“based off” should be “based on”: “based off” is an American colloquialism.
The key features read quite well. I dont think you need the “could” in the increased security section.
Overall, it does come across a bit dry: there is no real argument why it might be good for ordinary people to invest in. e.g. “With high-level security and efficiency features, Peercoin is ideally placed to become a cornerstone crypto-currency.” There could also be sets of links to “media” e.g. articles and “services” (e.g. shops).
[quote=“Eugen, post:10, topic:868”]Some comments on the website:
There are two brief summary statements (under “peercoin” and under “features”). These are repetitive. I think it would be neater to replace the text under “peercoin” with the text below “features”, and not have any text below features so that the reader goes straight to the three key features.[/quote]
The text under features was originally supposed to go under Peercoin, but it was too long to fit. I agree the features text needs to be removed though, since it’s almost the same exact paragraph as above.
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:11, topic:868”][quote=“Eugen, post:10, topic:868”]Some comments on the website:
There are two brief summary statements (under “peercoin” and under “features”). These are repetitive. I think it would be neater to replace the text under “peercoin” with the text below “features”, and not have any text below features so that the reader goes straight to the three key features.[/quote]
The text under features was originally supposed to go under Peercoin, but it was too long to fit. I agree the features text needs to be removed though, since it’s almost the same exact paragraph as above.[/quote]I was trying to expand upon the header text, but it does come across as repetitive. I still think the text has the everyday man feel to it. Anyways just put issue when yall have something.
Perhaps just remove the text under “peercoin”, and move text “Features” under the intro blurb that is currently below it? e.g.
[center]Peercoin is based on the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Peercoin offers technological advances over Bitcoin that allow its network to consume far less energy and achieve a higher degree of security and decentralization. This is achieved through an innovative minting algorithm, called Proof-of-Stake, that places money production in the hands of currency holders.
Features[/center]
We might just lose the first sentence if the text is getting too long.
Like I said, the text under features was too long to fit under Peercoin. Super3 wanted me to cut it in half to fit. I say we just remove the text under features and move everything up. I already put in a Github issue.
In case I wasn’t clear: I meant have no blurb in the upper part of the page (just “Peercoin” and the download buttons), and have the blurb directly above the “Features” heading.
If there was a catch-phrase of two or three words it would ideally go under “Peercoin”, but I’m guessing a good one is tough to come up with!
Brilliant idea of not having a foundation or organization. But I also wonder how much it truly matters. Will the lack of a foundation prevent political attacks if they ever truly get serious about attacking? And if PPC does go mainstream, would lack of a foundation hold it back by making PPC seem less legitimate?
I noticed that the Bitcoin Foundation recently added a political strategist to their team. If BTC is to ever gain full acceptance they will need to steer the political waters of the real world. It makes sense to let BTC do the legwork, however, and remain unstructured for as long as possible.
I agree: from what I saw at the London conference the lack of foundation may be a great feature: there was a lot of complaining that bitcoin is being hijacked by capitalists/anarchists etc. Best to keep it simple for now.