Peercoin.net proposed edits

Protocol
1

In the chat box we had a little informal convo about tightening up peercoin.net. Here are some suggested potential edits. Thoughts??

[center]DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT*[/center]

[size=24pt]Peercoin[/size]
[size=14pt]innovative, efficient, secure[/size]
Through innovative minting algorithms, the Peercoin network consumes far less energy, achieves greater security, and rewards users in more sustainable ways than other cryptocurrencies

[center]Features[/center]
[center]Peercoin is a more advanced cryptocurrency. Through it’s innovative Proof-of-Stake algorithm, Peercoin uses far less energy, has stronger security, and can operate in a more decentralized way than other coins currently on the market. With a marketcap of over $30 Million USD Peercoin is disrupting the exciting cryptocurrency landscape [/center]

[table]
[tr]
[td][center]Original Innovation[/center]

Peercoin’s original and noteworthy innovation is the proof-of-stake/proof-of-work hybrid system. Like other crypto currencies, initial coins can be mined through the more commonly used “proof-of-work” hashing algorithm. However unlike other coins, as the hashing difficulty increases over time, users continue to be rewarded with coins generated by the “proof-of-stake” algothrithm. This means that anyone holding 1% of the currency will be compensated with 1% of all proof-of-stake coin blocks. Read more about Proof-of-Stake Here[insert link]
[/td]

[td][center]Increased Security[/center]

Generating blocks through the Proof-of-stake algorithm reduces the risk of the Selfish-Miner Cornell Flaw , “>50%” attacks, and the block bloating that have been used to exploit other currencies. Proof-of-Stake stands at the heart of this security because it drastically raises the cost of an attack. The cost of acquiring 51% of all stake is much higher than the cost of acquiring 51% of all mining power. Further, in a “>50%” stake attack the attacker’s investment will by definition be directly at risk of losing value thus reducing the incentive to attempt such an attack. Moreover, Peercoin enforces transaction fees at protocol level to defend against block bloating attacks. Read more about Peer Coin security Here[insert link]
[/td]

[td][center]Energy Efficiency[/center]

Unlike hardware intensive Proof-Of-Work hashing, generating Proof-of-Stake blocks require minimal energy consumption. Thus, Peercoin network energy consumption decreases over time as proof-of-work blocks become less rewarding and blocks are generated instead by the proof-of-stake algorithm. This algorithm also combats the deflationary tendencies that crypto currencies can suffer from because of their hard mintage caps. Read more about Peer Coin energy efficiency Here[insert link]
[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

2

I didn’t see this post until now, but I commented on Github about some errors and things to take a closer look at…

[quote=“Sentinelrv”]This is so much better than what we have now. Thanks for helping out! There are just a couple things I should point out…

  • In the intro text, algorithm is plural. Are you referring to both pow and pos here?
  • At the end of the intro text and at the end of the Features text there are missing periods.
  • Throughout the text, the word cryptocurrency is either one word or split into two words. We should be consistent with our wording.
  • Similarly, sometimes proof-of-stake and proof-of-work are capitalized and sometimes they’re not.
  • “Peercoin is a more advanced cryptocurrency.” Than what? Should we point out Bitcoin here?
  • Under the features text you have this: “Through it’s innovative…” Its doesn’t need an apostrophe because it shouldn’t be a contraction.
  • I believe market cap is two words, not one.
  • Check the spacing between sentences. Some have too many spaces or too little.
  • Under the proof-of-stake section, the second "algorithm is spelled wrong. It says “algothrithm.”[/quote]
3

Also, I’m not sure if there is enough room to include “innovative, efficient, secure.” I guess try it out and see.

4

Okay, little tough to edit, but here’s what I saw from a grammar/sentence structure perspective:

“Peercoin is a more advanced cryptocurrency”. Doesn’t sound quite right. “Peercoin is an advanced cryptocurrency” or “Peercoin is at the leading edge of cryptocurrency technology” sounds more accessible to me.

“Through it’s innovative Proof-of-Stake algorithm” should not have an apostrophe in “it’s”

Marketcap should be “Market capitalization”. And we’re over $40M now.

Under the “Original Innovation” paragraph, “crypo currencies” should be one word. I also noticed “proof-of-work” is not capitalized while “Proof-of-Stake” is under the “Features” section. It should be consistent throughout the paragraphs, there are multiple instances of random capitalization on these terms.

“Block bloating that have” should be “has” I think, not “have”. And should be “cryptocurrencies” not “currencies” for standardization purposes.

Under “Energy Efficiency”, the first sentence is passive structure, and should be active instead to be more powerful. Re-worded, it would read “Generating Proof-of-Stake blocks requires minimal energy consumption, unlike hardware and energy-intensive Proof-of-Work hashing”.

“Thus, Peercoin network” should be “Thus, the Peercoin network”. More random PoW and PoS capitalization issues here too, and I see another instance of “crypto currencies” rather than “cryptocurrencies”.

I see “Peer Coin”…for shame! Just kidding. it should be “Peercoin” always though.