Let’s move the Peercoin Myths into the website, for consistency. Here’s a first draft of a new version of the myths: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdPgrDjzKTCzbHIhIoYjl0x0kg0lkaXdHETuFn3wDIQ
We could also include a Chronos Crypto video on this page.
Open to feedback.
What about Pillow’s myth thread here? I think these are important, but I’m not sure if Pillow is ready to have them officially put up. They may need grammar work and I don’t know think Sunny or Sigmike has verified the accuracy of the statements in there.
Fact: Peercoin is one of the truly unique alternative coins. Although its code is based on Bitcoin, Peercoin is the first coin to introduce a Proof of Stake/[b]Proof of Work[/b] combination [b]for network security[/b].
This is saying that proof-of-work helps with network security, which is false. It needs to be made more clear that this is not the case.
Fact: “The risk of 51% denial-of-service attack on block chain is real, especially to a smaller network ... In fact, I wouldn’t exclude such a possibility to even bitcoin. Of course, such an attack on bitcoin would likely not come from an individual due to the resource required. But it’s irresponsible to say that’s not possible. Just imagine what would happen if bitcoin stops processing transactions for a few days. The advanced checkpoint feature … is specifically designed to deal with this situation. Yes, the network would turn into quasi centralized mode by community consensus, however that’s obviously a lot better than admitting defeat and giving up.” - Sunny King
I don’t like this quote. It doesn’t really seem to address the issue that well. I think we need something that explains why Peercoin has centralized checkpoints and what they’re used for. It needs to be explained that they’re used to protect the network while it’s young until a point in the future when minting participation is at a high enough level that proof-of-stake can sustain network security by itself, at which point checkpoints will start to be phased out. Also add in that opt out of checkpoints is planned to begin with the release of v0.5.
Fact: Peercoin brings [b]with[/b] innovative features, active developers and significant community involvement. As of August 1, 2014, Peercoin is nearly two years old, and has a market cap over $20 million USD.
I don’t think “with” belongs there and maybe "of’ should be inserted between cap and over.
Fact: When the entire money supply grows due to the minting process, all Peercoin holders maintain their relative share of the network.
I think this needs to be more clear. As far as I understand it, as long as everyone participates in the minting process, everyone will maintain the value of their coins. If they don’t participate in the minting process however, the value of their coins will be decreased due to 1% inflation that gets distributed to both rich and poor. As long as they mint their coins and receive their yearly 1%, they should have nothing to worry about, correct?
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:3, topic:2774”]
Fact: Peercoin is one of the truly unique alternative coins. Although its code is based on Bitcoin, Peercoin is the first coin to introduce a Proof of Stake/Proof of Work combination for network security.
This is saying that proof-of-work helps with network security, which is false. It needs to be made more clear that this is not the case.[/quote]
I would suggest this:
Fact: Peercoin is one of the truly unique alternative coins. Although its code is based on Bitcoin, Peercoin is the first coin to introduce Proof of Stake to secure the network. Proof of work is also used in Peercoin to reach a fair coin distribution, but does not affect chaintrust.
(The term chaintrust is not known to casual Crytocoiners, but I think it can be understood intuitively)
[quote=“Ötzi, post:4, topic:2774”][quote=“Sentinelrv, post:3, topic:2774”]
Fact: Peercoin is one of the truly unique alternative coins. Although its code is based on Bitcoin, Peercoin is the first coin to introduce a Proof of Stake/Proof of Work combination for network security.
This is saying that proof-of-work helps with network security, which is false. It needs to be made more clear that this is not the case.[/quote]
I would suggest this:
Fact: Peercoin is one of the truly unique alternative coins. Although its code is based on Bitcoin, Peercoin is the first coin to introduce Proof of Stake to secure the network. Proof of work is also used in Peercoin to reach a fair coin distribution, but does not affect chain trust.
(The term chain trust is not known to casual Crytocoiners, but I think it can be understood intuitively)[/quote]
I like this, but maybe just change chain trust to security? “Proof of work is also used in Peercoin to reach a fair coin distribution, but does not contribute to the security of the network.”
The myth thread I’ve been working on only been partly reviewed by our gurus.
The myths listed on peercoinmyths are good, but in my opinion they do not address the myths that are being used to attack Peercoin the most.
The nothing-at-stake myth is, in my experience, by far the most used myth when talking down Peercoin.
[quote=“pillow, post:6, topic:2774”]The myth thread I’ve been working on only been partly reviewed by our gurus.
The myths listed on peercoinmyths are good, but in my opinion they do not address the myths that are being used to attack Peercoin the most.
The nothing-at-stake myth is, in my experience, by far the most used myth when talking down Peercoin.[/quote]
What do you need for the thread to be complete then? Do you need Sunny and Sigmike to look over them and give the ok? If you want that I could ask them, but I think the grammar should be cleaned up first so they can understand everything. I don’t know if this is the case though. I’m just saying this because the first time I edited it, I had some problems understanding certain things. I’d have to look over everything again to see if there are any problems.
Pillow’s thread is great, but needs to be reviewed by core devs. I’ll get the proposed changes worked in shortly. Thanks for all the excellent feedback!
I think information such as myths it is better suited to a wiki where it can be easily updated. It also keeps the main website simple with only the most important information. The Bitcoin wiki myths page for example: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths
Here’s what I said in chat earlier:
river333: thoughts on having a wiki on peercoin.net? the peercoinwiki.org domain could point there instead, and it could not be linked on the home page until it is filled out enough
river333: a wiki would also be a good place to have the myths page
Sentinelrv: Yes, we do need one. The Github wiki doesn’t cut it in my opinion. I like the Bitcoin wiki.
Sentinelrv: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page
river333: ben was saying he doesn’t have much time to set it up, so maybe we should ask TheWildHorse
Sentinelrv: I don’t know anything about wikis. If you’re going to ask TheWildHorse, maybe that should be started after the website is nearly complete and ready to launch. We don’t want to distract him.
river333: ok, I’m just thinking maybe some information could easily be put in a wiki instead of having to design a special page on the website, myths for example as I said.
Good thoughts. I’ve updated the doc with everyone’s suggested changes. The centralized checkpointing myth is completely rewritten, based on content from our old wiki.
River, good thoughts on how to use this page. If we integrate a wiki, we can move the content there. In the meantime, for the purposes of cohesion, it makes more sense for the link in the footer to link to this content instead of to peercoinmyths.com.
Again, open to feedback. Thanks!
[quote=“Chronos, post:10, topic:2774”]Good thoughts. I’ve updated the doc with everyone’s suggested changes. The centralized checkpointing myth is completely rewritten, based on content from our old wiki.
River, good thoughts on how to use this page. If we integrate a wiki, we can move the content there. In the meantime, for the purposes of cohesion, it makes more sense for the link in the footer to link to this content instead of to peercoinmyths.com.
Again, open to feedback. Thanks![/quote]
These changes are much better, thanks. The only error I see is the “a” in myth #2: " Peercoin is the first coin to introduce a Proof of Stake to secure the network.
"
TWH, let’s put this “Myths” link in the “Learn” dropdown at the top, and take it out of the footer. It’s not really parallel with Forum or Wiki.
Thanks!
If this will eventually be moved to the wiki, should I create graphics for this section or just a header graphic and that is it?
I think perhaps just a header graphic is fine. We may also be adding to this list of myths as time goes on, so that makes the page a bit more future-proof, as well.
We’ll also have the option to go back and add more images at a later point.
Ok, then it will probably be included in revision v2.5.
Myths page finished and will be included in revision v2.5.
ETA: +0 hours
TheWildHorse: Nice work on the art today! I’ve made just one change: swap Myths #2 and #3, so they align better. I hadn’t anticipated that they would be in two columns, and they’ll look better this way.
Love the layout!
I agree with moving “Myths” into the main website, rather than have it floating about, outside
However, my gut feeling is that the “Myths” concept is too defensive. It is though as Peercoin is involved in a flame war, and we feel the need to justify ourselves. I think it will communicate negative vibes to newcomers, since it implies we have a lot of critics, even enemies
I wonder whether Chronos would consider switching the context from “Myths” to something like “Fast Facts”?
So, to take Myth #1, presently worded as follows: Myth #1: Peercoin was pre-mined and unfairly launched.
It could be reworded as: Fast fact #1: Peercoin had a fair launch, and was not pre-mined
Another option is to remodel this page as a “Frequently asked Questions” (FAQ): Question #1: Did Peercoin have a fair launch, and was it pre-mined?
A Fast Fact or FAQ angle would convey the same information, but without any negative overtones of perceived “Myths”
Right, “Myths” does make us appear on the defensive. I like FAQs or Fast Facts, leaning toward the former.
Good one Robertlloyd, and I agree FAQs is better than the more creative fast facts. For mass communictions, stick with what people are used to.