Cold storage minting proposal


i didn’t know about that, that’s an amazing strategy. does that means that ppc will be compatible with LN out of the box?


I feel everyone should read's_Shadow
although it is fiction for young adults, peercoin is like bean, a shadow that stays unnoticed


I think the last time Sunny talked about it he said he was still considering including it but he had to think more about it because it’s a significant change in the protocol that will have to be supported forever.

I think learnmore is right here:

But Sunny already made some significant changes in the protocol. Cold minting makes changes in a part he never changed though: the scripts.


I am not sure it will happen that way because it will become POW in the end. see thoughts here


I am not sure it will happen that way because it will become POW in the end. see thoughts here[/quote]

It wouldn’t make sense indeed, as in the end their will be only one accepted chain and the revenue is just 1% per year. What a waste of mining resources, it would be stupid to do so.
The 30day minimum prevents this, as it is more profitable to build on the accepted chain only, instead of wasting resources on other chains as you can only get one block per month on the accepted chain, with only one 1% per year total revenue.
Minting multiple chains is by definition less profitable.


Sigmike made another post on this on the Nu forum…

@sigmike, would you explain in a simple way to us what's the pros and cons of cold minting?

We should encourage the PoS minting but keeping the private key in memory is a worrying issue for many potential miners.

The obvious pro is you can mint while keeping your spending private keys offline.

Most cons are speculative:

It introduces a change in the protocol that we would have to support forever. It may add development work if it’s broken or during other changes like bitcoin merges. It adds a new script opcode for which I had to pick a number, and this number may conflict with a future feature in bitcoin. I think that’s the reason it hasn’t been merged into Peercoin yet. The problem is less important for Nu and B&C where we already made a lot of changes in the protocol.

It may increase centralization because some people may pay service providers to mint for them to a point where a few important actors mint most of the shares like Bitcoin pools. I think that’s the reason why Jordan didn’t want to include it in Nu. I don’t think this will happen though, because it will be easy to set up your own cold minter and because contrary to bitcoin you can’t reduce the reward variance by pooling your shares. (That’s what I chose in my implementation at least, it’s also possible to make a version that makes variance reduction possible). And in Nu and B&C that would also mean giving your votes to the provider.

Some people think careless users will just publicly release their minting key hoping someone will mint them. But it would not work with my implementation because the person minting could burn the reward, and if more than 1 person is minting the same shares the resulting blocks will be rejected.

I also made some technical choices during implementation that may have pros and cons (and alternatives with different pros and cons), but that’s probably out of the scope of your question.

It’s also not finished yet. The Peercoin version lacks the GUI changes to handles cold minting addresses, and it would require some changes to be implemented in Nu and B&C. There was also a suggestion on the Peercoin forum to add support for multisig spending keys. I think it’s a good idea and the implementation should be changed to support that (it’s not a big change).

If you want the full story you can read the long peercointalk thread here:


[quote=“learnmore, post:212, topic:2336”]However, the problem with this is and pretty much any proposal thus far is that it theoretically leads to increased incentive for minting on every available fork indefinitely. Without checkpoints, Peercoin could potentially fragment into multiple irreconcilable chains.

I believe that Nu implemented some protections against this that seem to have worked.[/quote]

This protection was also implemented in Peercoin. Basically if you mint on multiple chains your blocks get rejected.


do u know then why vitalik insists that current PoS models are weak and wants to create casper?


My understanding is that current PoS models just don’t work for ethereum as they want very fast blocktimes and have very expensive transactions to validate. The combination of fast blocktimes and expensive txn validation will lead to minters not including transactions in their blocks.

So IMO it is not a weakness to PoS in general, but just a patch they need to make it work on their bloated chain.

With Peercoin, we don’t have this issue as we have cheap transactions (efficient and limited script execution times) and large block spacing.


Can anyone tell me what Vitalik has built, that is mainstream, stood the test of time, and is in production mode today?

He’s brilliant yes, for ideas. To me, he has yet to prove solid execution yet. So while he denounces Proof-of-Stake or Sunny King, I have yet to see how he has earned that authority.

Sorry for being so blunt, but I’m getting tired of popular individuals slinging mud without any proof that they’ve created and run something better that hasn’t fragmented into bits after launch.

“Fast block times” should happen off-chain, and Sunny King has suggested that multiple times. No one seems to listen though.

You can have fast blocktimes in a side-chain with centralization, and every time you need to move large value, you can do it with Peercoin.

I’ll give you an example.

There was an advertising scheme (don’t have the link or name reference) which basically said… you view these ads, or these videos, and we’ll pay you 0.00000050 satoshi each time.

Naturally they couldn’t send that 0.000000050 satoshi to your wallet everytime, because they were microtransactions and the transaction fee would over weigh the payment.

So what they said was “Once you accumulate 0.01 BTC of rewards, we’ll initiate a transaction and send them to your wallet”

Which made sense.

This is a very crude, but obvious example of how a side-chain (centralized system) could work when you’re referring to Microtransactions.

There was nothing stopping Vitalik and ETH from using smart contracts, but pulling and storing their value onto Peercoin, while still giving the ETH token its own value. Instead, they wanted to run their own chain without any help, and the result… well, we know what happened. ETH fragmented its chain and the beta-version of smart contracts cost millions of dollars lost in a short time. It’s a mess.

So if anyone has to redeem themselves now, it surely isn’t Sunny King – that would be Vitalik Buterin.

I am now going to say how I feel about something that I know I’ll probably be trolled and regret later.

Vitalik Buterin and Dan Larimer “could” have worked together, if they would just agree. They never did. There’s a video released where they were at the same convention and they went toe-to-toe with one another… Dan released that video (2 years ago? maybe 3)

Dan Larimer wrote a blog post complaining about “PoS” and then later recinded his “nothing at stake” issue… again, I don’t have the references infront of me… but it basically happened.

Both Vitalik and Dan are kingpins in the industry that have huge followings… Both of them thought they had better ways to do things, and neither one of them have proven that Peercoin can’t work, isn’t secure, and can’t operate.

Peercoin operates and is secure.

So while both Vitalik and Dan continue to build things (maybe at the cost of investors)…

Sunny King sits here with his Peercoin blockchain signing each of his messages “Have Fun” and the chain continues to operate quite well.

So if there is FUD… none of it is generated from Peercoin’s chain.

Show me the post where Sunny King asked anyone to buy anything. You can’t

Show me the post where Vitalik did an initial offering for ETH – he did

Show me the post where Dan did an intial offering for Protoshares, PTS, AGS, etc – he did.

The only clean person here, with a solid blockchain that is humming along is Sunny King’s chain. We need to stop beating around the bush about it.

Enough said.


from my limited understanding i thought casper could have been superior because it would punish minting on multiple chains. i now understand that most likely casper is needed only for eth because of some [dumb] choices they made. i’m just worried that ppc may end up like betamax [superior] vs vhs [inferior but popular]. could we maybe come up with a short explanation that the public can understand and that we can use as a rebuttal to vitalik arguments so that we don’t end up like betamax?


if we can produce this i’m willing to organize a small PR campaign to communicate it



As time goes on… historical blockchains that are not hacked, forked, or controlled mean something. There hasn’t been a long-term in this space yet. Bitcoin was only released 2009. Peercoin 2012. It’s 2016 now.

In the last 4 short years – that’s still 4 years of Peercoin’s block chain.

We’re not betamax. We’re only betamax if we allow ourselves to be seen that way.

CASPER means as much to me now as Novacoin, or Blackcoin. It actually mean as much to me as Cryptsy or Mt.Gox

Without reading the whitepaper or believing on how Peercoin can’t work, and doesn’t work…

Peercoin works. I trust Peercoin. It still works.

The concept of CASPER must be selling an idea, a technological concept, on why it is better.

That’s fine if you want to do that, but ONLY if you can prove that Peercoin’s chain is stuck, is dead, and can’t function.

The problem is that Peercoin’s chain IS NOT stuck. IT DOES work. and STILL functions.

So with that in mind… why are we even looking at CASPER?

Oh I understand…

CASPER is a new popular way of doing something different than Peercoin like this:

Ok folks, we found a way to re-engineer proof of stake “our way”. The reason we spent this much time on this, is for these reasons:

  1. We’re in control of the code, and we don’t have to submit commits for approval (we like that)

  2. We invented it, before any of you knew what it was (we like that)

  3. We can control what happens to the protocol, so as long as we’re in charge, we’re good with that, aren’t you

  4. yes, yes, yes, we know. We don’t have a 4 year long blockchain like Peercoin. All we’re asking you to do is trust your savings and investment to ours. We haven’t proven it can work under extreme circumstances yet, but we hope to…

  5. The reason we created this, is because if you own the first PoS currency peercoin, you can no longer transfer peercoin to an exchange back and forth. See how broken it is? Oh wait… it’s not broken? It still works? OK, never mind that. The fact that Peercoin works after 4 years straight means absolutely nothing. Try the casper chain. We think in 4 years we’re going to be just as strong as peercoin, and that’s our hope. This way we don’t have to buy any ppc and neither do you

…after me putting words in their mouth, do you see where this might be going?

Peercoin is at 34 cents today. It is not expensive to buy in and use your developers talents to be part of it.

Ever watch Dragons Den or Shark Tank on TV? One of the sharks will say:

“You have a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist yet. This is a waste of time and money. Why would I invest in a product or service that solves a problem that doesn’t even exist?”


i agree with u, but most people won’t understand that. also an argument ppc opposers use is that since ppc market cap is small there is not much incentive to attack it. i think we should write a short PR document that explain why ppc PoS is strong, and why casper is only useful to ethereum because of previous bad choices they made [fast blocks and bloated chain] and is in no way superior to ppc PoS


also i believe vitalik is still insisting that nothing as stake is an issue and that casper would solve it. we should expose the truth to the public [in a way that they can understand]

  1. Buy a peercoin

  2. Wait several weeks

  3. Transfer your holdings to an exchange.

  4. How is Vitalik correct in his fud?


One big difference. Betamax was more expensive than VHS.
In this case, Ethereum is more expensive than Peercoin.

Also, we should just be the first to have porn on chain.
Anyone posted some porn on our chain using PARS?


i’m referring to vitalik theoretical claim that one could mine multiple chains. since vitalik is more well known than sunny we have to “prove our innocence”. since his argument is theoretical we can’t just say “it hasn’t happened yet”, we have to debunk it in a way that is easily understandable to the public

  1. Buy a peercoin

  2. Wait several weeks

  3. Transfer your holdings to an exchange.

  4. How is Vitalik correct in his fud?[/quote]


put another way eth is a cult, vitalik is a guru, we are scientists and we have to disprove his creationism because to make eth look better he is attacking our PoS [scienfic method]


Back in March 2014, look what I said:

That’s exactly what happened to them. They had a bug in one of their smart contracts because of a coding error. Millions of dollars disappeared quite quickly. It wasn’t millions of dollars of Vitalik’s either.

The last thing Vitalik should be doing, is making accusations about what’s wrong with Peercoin. Unlike ETH, we’ve been in production mode for 4 years already.