this seems to be a show how great nxt is,
they miss out, decentralised distribution of coins, needs a massive cross next to nxt and tick for PeerCoin
and anything else you think off eg
Hybrid design tick Peercoin cross nxt
Also Dev of PrimeCoin, nxt, cross, PeerCoin tick
I find it interesting that “New Design” is touted as a plus. The Bitcoin code base is tested and stable. The Nxt code base is closed source and according to anyone who has looked at it, would be confused with a high school student’s first java program.
After some thinking, I would say NXT’s distribution model is OK. Some may feel it is unfair from the start, but it is actually not so much different from PoW. Basically the early miners are equivalent of the first batch of stake holders as in both cases they take risk and pay a price. If anything, some miners may have the advantage to use electricity freely while it is harder for stake holders to do similar trick. So pure PoS is not an issue. The real concern for the distribution model is in the details as how did they announce it, how many people know about NXT before the “auction” is over, etc.
However, NXT’s real problem is its security. BTC’s code has stood the test of time for several years. Any of btc’s forks inherited this property. NXT’s code is only out for like one month? It is totally possible there are severe flaws. NXT’s propaganda sounds exaggerated. If what they claimed is all true (instant confirming time AND near zero transaction fee AND light size block chain…) , basically it is like the ideal currency. I’m not saying it is impossible to achieve such goals, but a big question mark should be put under their propaganda. In comparison, Sunny has always been objective and set realistic goals and deliver them. NXT might make a hype. And if someone want to speculate it, he might make some money. But if you want to be more than just a speculator, I would say be very cautious before you do the research.
Telling people that Peercoin is a clone is severely dishonest and laughable. Are they really trying to push this garbage? Lying to people isn’t going to help their cause. The energy efficiency mention in their graphic is a non-issue in my opinion. You won’t even be able to tell the difference between them in the future in terms energy efficiency once proof-of-stake takes over. Also, I’ve read a reply from Jensen98 on Reddit that a hybrid approach is actually more secure than pure proof-of-stake. If that is true, I don’t really see any advantage in NXT, unless I’m missing something. Here is the quote by the way…
[quote=" jensen98"]A PoW/PoS hybrid system is more secure. Think of it as a balance of powers.
Here’s how Peercoin works: Peercoin is a hybrid system of PoW/PoS…and this combination is what is presently the most secure. If you look at Peercoin’s blockchain, the proportion of PoW blocks to PoS blocks doesn’t change much over the long-run (it does fluctuate quite a bit from day to day though due to it’s design). But here is what’s important…If you are trying to mess with Peercoin’s blockchain by controlling say 51% of the hashrate, it may be possible to attack the network 2 or 3 times, and then you would be stuck, and the attack would fail to work; this is because PoS blocks will come in and interrupt your attack and there is no way you can guess what the next block is going to be (again the randomness is part of the design).
Peercoin’s hybrid system is also better than a full PoS system because a full PoS system is open to the same sort of attack if you control all the majority of coin age. Again, if you controlled the majority of coin age in Peercoin you might be able to carry out an attack or 2, but you would not be able to keep on attacking this way either because along would come other PoS blocks you do not control as well as PoW blocks, and these would stop your attacks.
To really attack Peercoin, you need to control the majority of hashpower + the majority of coin age, which is much more costly than just one or the other. No perpetual attack on either front can really be carried out on Peercoin, so this is why Peercoin is superior.[/quote]
If that quote I posted above is true, then we need to put something on the website that defends Peercoin’s hybrid design as being more secure than pure proof-of-stake. This will help defend us against the competition, but we should only put it up if it’s true, so it needs to be verified. I think the explanation should be much simpler also.
I agree with Sentinel. It’s another component of the long-term superiority Peercoin can demonstrate relative to Bitcoin if it can be articulated in an easy-to-understand way and verified.
Quote “According to Danny Bradbury, the creator of Peercoin” from picture in OP under 'Let us help"
Where did they get that from?
He is the editor of coindesk.com. Are they suggesting this is the same person?
This is very low stuff, we should probably ignore it and makes sure we have the right information available on our website
Not sure I agree. I didn’t find out about PPC until a solid 8 months after it existed and without buying anything I was able to use my 2 year old graphics card to mine quite a bit throughout the summer.
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:4, topic:1815”][quote=" jensen98"]A PoW/PoS hybrid system is more secure. Think of it as a balance of powers.
Here’s how Peercoin works: Peercoin is a hybrid system of PoW/PoS…and this combination is what is presently the most secure. If you look at Peercoin’s blockchain, the proportion of PoW blocks to PoS blocks doesn’t change much over the long-run (it does fluctuate quite a bit from day to day though due to it’s design). But here is what’s important…If you are trying to mess with Peercoin’s blockchain by controlling say 51% of the hashrate, it may be possible to attack the network 2 or 3 times, and then you would be stuck, and the attack would fail to work; this is because PoS blocks will come in and interrupt your attack and there is no way you can guess what the next block is going to be (again the randomness is part of the design).
Peercoin’s hybrid system is also better than a full PoS system because a full PoS system is open to the same sort of attack if you control all the majority of coin age. Again, if you controlled the majority of coin age in Peercoin you might be able to carry out an attack or 2, but you would not be able to keep on attacking this way either because along would come other PoS blocks you do not control as well as PoW blocks, and these would stop your attacks.
To really attack Peercoin, you need to control the majority of hashpower + the majority of coin age, which is much more costly than just one or the other. No perpetual attack on either front can really be carried out on Peercoin, so this is why Peercoin is superior.[/quote]
If that quote I posted above is true, then we need to put something on the website that defends Peercoin’s hybrid design as being more secure than pure proof-of-stake. This will help defend us against the competition, but we should only put it up if it’s true, so it needs to be verified. I think the explanation should be much simpler also.[/quote]
Here’s my understanding and attempt to simplify:
To make a 51% attack on peercoin you need both 51% of PoS and 51% of PoW.
It’s like requiring 2 keys instead of 1.
What’s unclear however is how it’s difficult to get the other key when you have the first one.
If PoW indeed decreases over time, difficulty will also decrease. So getting 51% of PoW will not be very difficult.
If a large bitcoin miner or pool switched all his hashing power to peercoin, he would probably get more than 51% instantly.
It looks like getting getting 51% of PoW will be much cheaper than getting 51% of PoS, so I’m not sure it really adds a lot of security.
Agree, PoS would be far more expensive and requires huge investment as price of Peercoin would rise steeply if someone would try to obtain 51% of Peercoins. Therefore an 51% PoS attack is more unlikely than 51% PoW attack.
In my view PoS is mainly to protect 51% PoW attack. My view is that Peercoin only needs PoW for a fair and relatively even distribution of coins. Fair and even distribution seems to be a problem for 100% PoS coins at the moment. NXT is in that same boat. There is chance that they might eventually overcome that, but that will take some time.
[quote=“sigmike, post:9, topic:1815”]If PoW indeed decreases over time, difficulty will also decrease. So getting 51% of PoW will not be very difficult.
If a large bitcoin miner or pool switched all his hashing power to peercoin, he would probably get more than 51% instantly.
It looks like getting getting 51% of PoW will be much cheaper than getting 51% of PoS, so I’m not sure it really adds a lot of security.[/quote]
This is for the long run. In the meantime (until PoS is strong enough), being protected by both PoW and PoS is a big increase in security.
I really don’t want to sound like a NXT defender. But let’s try to be objective. When you use your 2-year old graphics card to mine ppc, you did pay the price of the electricity unless you had some free energy source to use. You like it better because you already own a card so saved you quite a bit of pre-required investment. If it is a pure PoS coin, you need to pay money to buy it just like everyone else (well, everyone except the early stake holders). Objectively, the latter model is more ‘fair’ because literally ‘everyone’ have equal chances while the PoW model gives people with graphics cards a huge edge. You mother could buy NXT just as easily as you but I guess she would feel unfair if she need to use computing device to mine coins.
While it is arguable whether it benefits cryptocurrency more if tech nerds are given an advantage in the first place, our topic right now is about the mysterious word ‘fairness’.
Please notice, I’m not saying NXT’s distribution model is more fair than Peercoin. I’m just saying that I don’t see why pure PoS can not achieve the same level of fairness in earlier distribution if handled properly.
Exactly that, if handled properly 100% PoS can be fair. As this still have to be proven, Peercoin went the other way with a combined PoS/PoW model. By now Peercoin is 82% PoS and this will increase, eventually close to 100% as it won’t be profitable to mine. So the amount of new mined PoW coins decreases and new PoS coins are being minted by owners of the coins.
So my mother can buy as easily Peercoins and mint them as they can get NXT. With the upcoming v0.31 release of the wallet even the minting can be done securely and easily by my mother.
Peercoin is proven, secure and tested, NXT is still bugfixing and will need at least 6 months to prove itself to be stable and reliable.
Sorry for the cross-post, but this does belong in here too.
[quote=“ppcman”]I think too many people take coinmarketcap.com too seriously. It rates Dogecoin as one of the major upcoming competing currencies, and we all know that is dogecoin will probably always be a popular joke coin.
In the top right corner of their site, they have a switchable link to turn mineable on / off
Try it with only mineable coins:
http://coinmarketcap.com/mineable.html
NXT disappears quite quickly.
Proof-of-work initially is important to fairly distribute new coins during the first year or so of launching a new coin. We know how Peercoins were created based on proof-of-work, and then held by proof-of-stake afterwards. This gave everyone a fair chance at obtaining PPC.
NXT Initial Stake Holders might have hidden their true holdings by transferring them to multiple wallets.
Since NXT didn’t have proof-of-work for initial coin creation, we have to assume that the initial stake holders and coin giveaways, etc, were all fair. We have to assume that NXT coins were distributed to strangers and legitimate investors. We also have to assume that the majority of NXT holders to date, are assumed to be people who legitimately bought the currency on exchanges for actual value and not given to friends and family. We also have to assume that transfers of NXT from wallet to wallet, are in fact different people, and not a bunch of coins held by the same group of people who have “spread out the load” with different wallet addresses. Doing so, would artificially inflate NXT, and we assume that no one involved in the creation of NXT would want to artificially inflate its value, right?
So if we assume that the distribution of NXT is indeed fair, then we should assume it hasn’t been pumped. We should also assume that multiple wallet addresses are different people, even though there is no way to prove that…
I prefer the hybrid approach that Peercoin used when it launched. It basically made it “provably fair” for the initial creation of the coins and distribution of wealth. Too bad NXT can’t say the same thing.
To really put NXT in perspective, a purely PoS coin, couldn’t the following artificial inflation work?
John and Jane are brother/sister
John has 25000 NXT. He wants to give 12500 to his sister Jane, because they are family.
Instead of just transferring it to her, he tells Jane, we can artificially inflate the value of the currency by doing this, it is going to cost us 0.2% of an exchange fee to buy and 0.2% of an exchange fee sell, but the perceived value on coinmarketcap.com will be worth it. This way we can show the trading volume and the price.
So John lists 12500 NXT for sale on exchange XYZ at 0.10 USD = $1250
Within seconds, Jane buys $1,250 USD of NXT (from John basically) at that price.
There is a combined 0.4% exchange fee for this transaction, which is $5 for both sides of the transaction.
Guess what happens?
John now has 12500 NXT, Jane now has 12500 NXT, they paid an exchange $5 to “show the transaction”
coinmarketcap.com reports the transfer, oh look, NXT just traded at 0.10 USD in the amount of 1,250 coins! However, the NXT coins stayed in the same family, and brother and sister have colluded together to artificially inflate the true value of the coin.
Now. Think of this same situation again, but this time it isn’t John and Jane. Because John can do this himself, through two different wallets, and two different exchange accounts.
In fact, all initial NXT take holders could be teaming together to pump up the majority of the initial coins through a bunch of fake wallets, and all suckers who invested legitimately in NXT are just there for the ride until they decide it’s time to dump.
Peercoin’s method of purposely having proof-of-work as part of its launch stops this from happening while the coin is young. Once again, Sunny King thought of this when he came out with Proof-of-stake. He knew what type of abuses a single proof-of-stake system could cause.
[b]NXT = most probably a scam coin.
We’ll find out in 1-3 years, won’t we?
[/b][/quote]
Shame on NXT. Extremely ugly.
+1
lol at Colored Coins too! Astonishing ignorance.
+1
lol at Colored Coins too! Astonishing ignorance.[/quote]
NXT can do whatever they want. But why do they attack Peercoin? Does Peercoin owe them anything?
Actually, you have that backwards. Peercoin is more like about 82% Proof-of-Work and this will slowly decrease. There are like 3,500 PoW coins created per day and maybe about 400 PoS coins created per day. 400/3500 = 11.4% PoS. Which means the other 89%of new coins are created from mining them. This is still a good thing, as it offers people the option of mining them, or buying them. The problem with nxt is all of the coins that ever will exist already exist. So the only way you can get them is by buying them. This means they can corner the market and manipulate it without anybody being able to defend against it. Peercoin’s PoW option allows people the ability to mine coins if the price spikes too high, therefore it is much harder to corner the Peercoin market, because you can always mine some if that is cheaper to do. Peercoin mimics precious metals or other commodities in this sense, as it always will allow you the option of getting new coins outside of the system. The problem is fixed supply coins is that they are are so deflationary that it is actually going to be a problem in the long-run and will always end up being a pump and dump. I believe Peercoin offers the solution to all of these issues, which are necessary for any real shot at long-term sustainability. Peercoin is even better than precious metals or commodities because you don’t run the risk of any entity all of the suddent discovering a motherload of gold and flooding the market, or create a technology that can synthetically produce the thing (such as diamonds and gold). Peercoin is immune this risk, not to mention better for the environment.
Actually, you have that backwards. Peercoin is more like about 82% Proof-of-Work and this will slowly decrease. There are like 3,500 PoW coins created per day and maybe about 400 PoS coins created per day. 400/3500 = 11.4% PoS. Which means the other 89%of new coins are created from mining them. This is still a good thing, as it offers people the option of mining them, or buying them. The problem with nxt is all of the coins that ever will exist already exist. So the only way you can get them is by buying them. This means they can corner the market and manipulate it without anybody being able to defend against it. Peercoin’s PoW option allows people the ability to mine coins if the price spikes too high, therefore it is much harder to corner the Peercoin market, because you can always mine some if that is cheaper to do. Peercoin mimics precious metals or other commodities in this sense, as it always will allow you the option of getting new coins outside of the system. The problem is fixed supply coins is that they are are so deflationary that it is actually going to be a problem in the long-run and will always end up being a pump and dump. I believe Peercoin offers the solution to all of these issues, which are necessary for any real shot at long-term sustainability. Peercoin is even better than precious metals or commodities because you don’t run the risk of any entity all of the suddent discovering a motherload of gold and flooding the market, or create a technology that can synthetically produce the thing (such as diamonds and gold). Peercoin is immune this risk, not to mention better for the environment.[/quote]
I think he’s getting that from here…
Actually, you have that backwards. Peercoin is more like about 82% Proof-of-Work and this will slowly decrease. There are like 3,500 PoW coins created per day and maybe about 400 PoS coins created per day. 400/3500 = 11.4% PoS. Which means the other 89%of new coins are created from mining them. This is still a good thing, as it offers people the option of mining them, or buying them. The problem with nxt is all of the coins that ever will exist already exist. So the only way you can get them is by buying them. This means they can corner the market and manipulate it without anybody being able to defend against it. Peercoin’s PoW option allows people the ability to mine coins if the price spikes too high, therefore it is much harder to corner the Peercoin market, because you can always mine some if that is cheaper to do. Peercoin mimics precious metals or other commodities in this sense, as it always will allow you the option of getting new coins outside of the system. The problem is fixed supply coins is that they are are so deflationary that it is actually going to be a problem in the long-run and will always end up being a pump and dump. I believe Peercoin offers the solution to all of these issues, which are necessary for any real shot at long-term sustainability. Peercoin is even better than precious metals or commodities because you don’t run the risk of any entity all of the suddent discovering a motherload of gold and flooding the market, or create a technology that can synthetically produce the thing (such as diamonds and gold). Peercoin is immune this risk, not to mention better for the environment.[/quote]
I think she’s getting that from here…
Ok, interesting, which source is right here? Do we have only 82% of the blocks created by PoS? Instead of 82% of the coins which is indeed different? Guess it is about the blocks.
The network security is than still driven by 82% PoS. New coin creation is still the domain of PoW then and doing its job of fair coin distribution (assuming you are prepared to invest in decent mining equipment). Still prefer to buy the coins directly myself as I don’t need additional heating in the house 