Nah. Peercoin is priced higher because it is the first POS coin, and has Sunny and an active community behind it. There are plenty of SHA256 or coins that are cheaper than Primecoin. ASIC friendiness has little to do with high price. I agree that CPU-friendliness brings down price due to botnets, but its only true during the period when mining and exchanging are dominating the economy. With its charm I think Primecoin will survive – in about 15 years 90% of Prime coins will be mined and botnets will be irrelevant on prices. I suspect Peercoin on the other hand will have undergone a lot of hard forks by then to survive.
Perfect, we’re in agreement then.
Indeed, putting a computer into “swap-hell” is the last thing a botnet operator wants to do.
Which is nearly impossible for a Proof-of-Work that requires more than 4GB of memory.
Such of PoW would have good botnet resistance.
Primecoin is a CPU coin with a big weakness of not needing nearly enough memory.
[quote=“tromp, post:43, topic:2039”]Which is nearly impossible for a Proof-of-Work that requires more than 4GB of memory.
Such of PoW would have good botnet resistance.[/quote]
This is true, it would give greater resistance initially. Eventually though, if a coin was worth pursuing, they would just re-write their mining malware to take advantage of clustering and memory virtualization
Or when 4GB of memory becomes a joke, because every one is running 40GB or 400GB of memory in a few years… Now you have this huge block chain full of a Proof-of-Work which is no longer a strong algo to bind every thing together.
To sum it up, Proof-of-stake by real coin holders, is always the best method to use for block creation, and that is true today, and in 20 years from now.
Peercoin is so undervalued, I’m surprised it is taking this long for the world to realize it, but they will.
[quote=“ppcman, post:44, topic:2039”][quote=“tromp, post:43, topic:2039”]Which is nearly impossible for a Proof-of-Work that requires more than 4GB of memory.
Such of PoW would have good botnet resistance.[/quote]
This is true, it would give greater resistance initially. Eventually though, if a coin was worth pursuing, they would just re-write their mining malware to take advantage of clustering and memory virtualization
Or when 4GB of memory becomes a joke, because every one is running 40GB or 400GB of memory in a few years… Now you have this huge block chain full of a Proof-of-Work which is no longer a strong algo to bind every thing together.[/quote]
Using clusters or memory virtualization is not an option, as it would slow the PoW down by many orders of magnitude.
Memory only increases very slowly over time, doubling about every 18 months. Random access latency improves even less (my https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo is the first latency based PoW).
Block chain security doesn’t depend on proof-of-work done in the past, only in the present.
You are right that the memory requirement should increase over time to maintain botnet resistence.
Instead of dynamic difficulty adjustments only to the target value, you could alter the memory requirement as well.
Heh I’m a bit late to this discussion but prime numbers are interesting to just about nobody. Mathematicians don’t care about finding actual primes. Experimentation of this form is extremely useless to math because math is done with thought not data and testing.
That said Sunny King I think did mention in some interview that an ASIC built to crack XPM would be beneficial for science as it would help find large primes efficiently… I guess that’s true, if you’re interested in impractically large keys with RSA encryption. The NSA uses elliptic curve cryptography, and that’s the direction I think you can expect cryptography to go in.