I know, replace it with Peerunity. That should have a little mention at the end there. River, could you make that simple change and then attach Sportscliche’s writing to each slide so we can properly go through and check it to make sure everything flows smoothly? If there’s no more changes after that then I think this thing is done for now until it needs to be updated later.[/quote]
It’s gonna need some re-work. The current Slide 11 should go immediately after Slide 5, which sets up the 51% attack. Also need to edit the cost of running the network among other things. I’ll work on this some more in the next couple of days. I think it’s shaping up nicely though.
Ok great, just post all the changes you want me to make and then I can post the final version, including the PowerPoint file.
I’m also thinking that the imgur album will be good for linking to newcomers. It’s probably more accessible for some people than the cointrader article.
Ok great, just post all the changes you want me to make and then I can post the final version, including the PowerPoint file.
I’m also thinking that the imgur album will be good for linking to newcomers. It’s probably more accessible for some people than the cointrader article.[/quote]
River, once you have the imgur album finalized can you please PM me the link? Rather that any potential confusion from the thread assuming it being final. I will be more than happy to set the links for the album out on Twitter once it is ready. If you do not mind, I mean.
Slide 2. Edit one sentence in the narration: This will be explained in the following slides.
Slide 11 goes between Slide 5 and 6. Replace text on this slide with the simple headline: The 51% threat is very real!
Edited narration for this slide: In early 2014, the largest mining pool came dangerously close to attaining a majority of the hashing power of the Bitcoin network. The community became aware of this problem as shown in some Reddit posts from that time. In response, the miners voluntarily moved elsewhere, but this threat will always be present in a Proof-of-Work system.
Option: Could throw in pictures of the server farms and ASIC hardware here. Optional narration: Here are some photos of the dedicated hardware that could potentially pool together and execute a 51% attack on a Proof-of-Work network.
New narration for Slide 7 (former Slide 6): Peercoin replaces Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work with Proof-of-Stake. Here’s how it works: Each node in the network has but one task – verify transactions. Anyone with a Peercoin wallet can participate. Participants are rewarded based on the number of Peercoins they hold. This is called “minting” and produces a 1% annual return, which is the reward for their Proof-of-Stake. So little computing power is required to maintain Peercoin’s network that even hardware with minimal capability such as a Raspberry Pi can participate. There is no reason for the wallets to form alliances, so the threat of a 51% attack essentially vanishes. To gain control of the network, an entity would have to acquire 51% or more of all Peercoins. Supply-and-demand economics would then drive up the price to astronomical levels.
Remove current Slide 7; it’s redundant
Edited narration for current Slide 10: At current prices, the energy required to run the Bitcoin network is about $36 for each transaction. This cost is absorbed by the miners because it is offset by their block rewards. As the hashing difficulty increases and mining hardware improves, costs will continue to go up. Economic reality will eventually force out all but the most well-equipped miners and push the network towards centralization.
Edited narration for current Slide 13: …Other crypto-currencies based on Proof-of-Work are experiencing similar “blockchain bloat”. Examples are Dogecoin, Litecoin, and Namecoin. The Peercoin blockchain, in contrast, is…
If there are no more changes to be made, then I think it is finished. I think it looks pretty good, and am happy to be hopefully finally finished with it
Sentinelrv, if you make a sticky which includes this, could you maybe add a little note beside it suggesting that people can update some of the information if they want before they use it.
[quote=“river333, post:68, topic:1760”]Tea42 noticed (http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2696.msg23477#msg23477) that the presentation seems to imply that the 2 raspberry pi could attack Peercoin, so I’m thinking of moving slides 7 and 9 to after slide 12 and changing the text. That ok?
Any other changes let me know.[/quote]
Yeah, that makes sense. Those two images really do a good job of showing what Peercoin energy efficiency means.
I used this presentation yesterday (in dutch) at a bitcoin meetup in Amsterdam. There were about 40 people, more than I expected! I also noticed the error in slide 7 and corrected it. I also added the term ‘arms race’ to slide 4, put some more censor blocks over slide 6 and added a bit about checkpointing to slide 8.
I heard several gasps from the audience when I told about the ~30 dollar transaction cost of the bitcoin network I think the message came over well. I also added the total amount of transaction per day as extra figure (60 000), and the power cost per day in dollars (1.8M).
I did get some questions I didn’t have an immediate answer on, I posted them here:
[quote=“Tea42, post:73, topic:1760”]I used this presentation yesterday (in dutch) at a bitcoin meetup in Amsterdam. There were about 40 people, more than I expected! I also noticed the error in slide 7 and corrected it. I also added the term ‘arms race’ to slide 4, put some more censor blocks over slide 6 and added a bit about checkpointing to slide 8.
I heard several gasps from the audience when I told about the ~30 dollar transaction cost of the bitcoin network I think the message came over well. I also added the total amount of transaction per day as extra figure (60 000), and the power cost per day in dollars (1.8M).
I did get some questions I didn’t have an immediate answer on, I posted them here:
Do we really want to put checkpoints on there? That’s something most people don’t seem to like and it’s going to be removed in the future anyway. There’s a reason why we didn’t put it in the video script. Anyway, I haven’t put this in a sticky yet because I’m waiting on my designer to make me merchant badges for Peercoin. Once that’s done I should be ready.
At the cost per transaction page, there is a potential pitfall: The mining revenue is about 1.8M (now 1.9, that fluctuates) per day. If you divide that by the number of transactions per day (around 60 000), then you get the cost per transaction. In practice the electricity cost tends to grow towards the mining revenue and even out in the long run, but they are not exacly the same.
[quote=“river333, post:78, topic:1760”]Here’s Tea42’s version on imgur: http://imgur.com/a/6m2v5
Maybe we should just leave out an exact figure for the cost of transaction page.[/quote]
River, I think I agree with this. I liked it the way you had it before where it just said that it cost millions of dollars per day. These figures are going to get outdated and we’re going to have to keep changing them. If you change that part back, you’ll probably have to change Sportscliche’s commentary underneath so it doesn’t give an exact dollar amount. I’m referring to this: “At current prices, the energy required to run the Bitcoin network is about $36 for each transaction.” This is going to change and we’re going to have to keep updating it. Do you think it would be better to leave this part a little generic so the speaker can fill in the information gaps?
In my experience, a presentation that uses real-time or close to real-time data makes a bigger impact. If the Bitcoin transaction cost for the same date as the presentation is included, the speaker could say something like “I ran a transaction cost just this morning”. This adds credibility and can make the audience feel special because part of the presentation has been made just for them. It’s entirely at the discretion of the speaker of course, but the arithmetic is not hard and well worth the effort.
