It’s a good article, and he seems genuinely concerned, but I was puzzled to see that he had a donation button for sending him BTC, not PPC. He’s done a lot of research but he clearly needs to do a bit more.
He listed a contact e-mail address… did you contact him already, or shall I? 
But to be honest I’m concerned that PPC isn’t so “pure” either, just better, at least in the near future (in the long run of course it is much better, both in f’n and efficiency). My impression is that what motivated the POW/POS combo design for PPC was coin functionality, to make it more secure, and energy efficiency in the long term was a fortunate byproduct of that. So, it wasn’t optimized for energy efficiency, at least not yet, and it should be far easier to tweak for increased efficiency than to accomplish that for BTC. I understand the need for the POW/POS combo design so I’m truly thinking of small tweaks, not a major redesign.
The author is correct that bitcoin doesn’t have a long future in its present design, so he is hopeful that it could be “tweaked,” but it would need more than just a “tweak” because it would need to be a completely different coin design, really. That is not an absolute impossibility (it could be a new coin and yet still be called bitcoin, continuing the blockchain of the old coin, no?). But bitcoin is so big now and probably too difficult to change very significantly, while Peercoin is far ahead in the needed redesign, plus much more nimble for tweaks. And the carbon footprint for BTC is huge right now, not just in the future (at least according to his calculations, which I admit I didn’t double-check, it’s at the level of Cyprus now, 0.03% of the total global carbon footprint). The 51% attack possibility is here and now as well. Scary times for bitcoin.
So everyone should just switch to PPC sooner rather than later!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg3676193#msg3676193
According to FC’s statement, the power demand for their 40nm chips is <0.2W per G on low power mode。
The PoW/PoS design is for two different purposes. Basically peercoin already proved PoS can secure a cryptocurrency network. In the far future, when PoW in peercoin practically dies out, a near pure PoS mechanism is enough to maintain and secure the whole peercoin network. On the other hand, PoW is used as a scheme to distribute the coins. This makes sense because it actually is pretty hard to think of a better way. For example, NXT tried another way, namely just selling all the coins to several dozen “wise men”. And the task of spreading these coins now is in these “wise men”'s hands. Will it work? Only time will tell.
I personally am very doubtful of NXT’s scheme to distribute coins. I think PoW is a more sensible way.
So this is my understanding: in peercoin, PoW for the original distribution, PoS for maintaining the network.
[quote=“maka, post:4, topic:1427”]The PoW/PoS design is for two different purposes. Basically peercoin already proved PoS can secure a cryptocurrency network. In the far future, when PoW in peercoin practically dies out, a near pure PoS mechanism is enough to maintain and secure the whole peercoin network. On the other hand, PoW is used as a scheme to distribute the coins. This makes sense because it actually is pretty hard to think of a better way. For example, NXT tried another way, namely just selling all the coins to several dozen “wise men”. And the task of spreading these coins now is in these “wise men”'s hands. Will it work? Only time will tell.
I personally am very doubtful of NXT’s scheme to distribute coins. I think PoW is a more sensible way.
So this is my understanding: in peercoin, PoW for the original distribution, PoS for maintaining the network.[/quote]
You summed up my feelings on this perfectly.
[quote=“Dini, post:2, topic:1427”]It’s a good article, and he seems genuinely concerned, but I was puzzled to see that he had a donation button for sending him BTC, not PPC. He’s done a lot of research but he clearly needs to do a bit more.
He listed a contact e-mail address… did you contact him already, or shall I? :)[/quote]
Good initiative Dini! He seems like someone who would appreciate the energy-efficiency advantages of Proof-of-Stake coins like Peercoin.
This is definitely one good thought. Of course we have to consider the power efficiency in mining. The estimated carbon footprint or total greenhouse gas emissions consumed by bitcoin mining is 8.25 megatonnes (8,250,000 tonnes) of CO2 per year, according to research by Bitcarbon.org. This is the dark side of bitcoin ecosystem so far. I guess we need more power modes and network design to lessen our carbon footprint.