Take a peek and let me know if you find any issues.
#4: I need to talk specifically about PPC’s checkpointing a bit more
They should change your nickname on the forum to “The Machine.” I didn’t get to read the whole thing yet, but I noticed #5 says proof of state.
*fixed
Popping in and out tonight for minor fixes like this. 
Can we change all the PPcoin mentions to Peercoin? Also, when I was on the Reddit thread you posted by the Vault of Satoshi, I saw somebody posted a link to this comment on the Bitcoin subreddit, which received a lot of upvotes. Is this something we’re going to cover on the myth website?
"I think Andrew Miller put it best: “The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake.” Consider the basic function of proof-of-work and the blockchain: together, they let the network come to a consensus when there are two (or more) different, competing chains.
Miners must decide to dedicate their hashing power to just one chain-- they cannot “bet on” more than one. So their best strategy is to work on the chain that they think most other miners are working on, and that quickly drives the system to a consensus on a single, best chain.
The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains. If you try to create such a system, you “go meta” – you started by trying to solve the transaction double-spend problem (which proof-of-work and the blockchain handle nicely), and end up trying to solve a proof-of-stake double-spend problem."
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:5, topic:577”]Can we change all the PPcoin mentions to Peercoin? Also, when I was on the Reddit thread you posted by the Vault of Satoshi, I saw somebody posted a link to this comment on the Bitcoin subreddit, which received a lot of upvotes. Is this something we’re going to cover on the myth website?
"I think Andrew Miller put it best: “The trouble with Proof-of-stake is that there is nothing at stake.” Consider the basic function of proof-of-work and the blockchain: together, they let the network come to a consensus when there are two (or more) different, competing chains.
Miners must decide to dedicate their hashing power to just one chain-- they cannot “bet on” more than one. So their best strategy is to work on the chain that they think most other miners are working on, and that quickly drives the system to a consensus on a single, best chain.
The trouble with proof-of-stake is there is no natural incentive stopping a miner from assigning their stake to multiple, competing chains. If you try to create such a system, you “go meta” – you started by trying to solve the transaction double-spend problem (which proof-of-work and the blockchain handle nicely), and end up trying to solve a proof-of-stake double-spend problem."[/quote]
-
I’ll take a look at the myths site later. Off the top of my head, I believe I said Peercoin throughout. If there was a PPCoin mention, it was most likely a quote which I didn’t want to change.
-
I’ll need Sunny’s input on the Miller quote. If he could answer that criticism, I’ll make sure it goes on the myths site.
-
Email sent to Sunny concerning the Miller quote
-
Posted site on Bitcointalk
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=320801.0
There are 7 PPcoin mentions on 7, 10 and 11.
Those are quotes and not my wording. I’m hesitant about pulling quotes and then modifying them. Whoever is in control of that wiki project, I’d strongly recommend making the flip from PPcoin to Peercoin. At that point, I can adjust the quote.
Ok, well there are a lot of grammar errors in the quotes also. It doesn’t make us sound too professional. Is there no way to fix these? A couple examples…
On #8, this sentence needs to be fixed: “Myth: “The main strategy of the team has already be shown, ppc/xpm would be our combo attack in the market.”
On #4, I believe this should be are instead of is. It sounds funky to me. “The checkpoints in xpm is like the alert message"
Throughout there are also missing commas and commas where there should be periods. Maybe we could ask the original posters of some of the comments if we could fix the errors.
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:10, topic:577”]Ok, well there are a lot of grammar errors in the quotes also. It doesn’t make us sound too professional. Is there no way to fix these? A couple examples…
On #8, this sentence needs to be fixed: “Myth: “The main strategy of the team has already be shown, ppc/xpm would be our combo attack in the market.”
On #4, I believe this should be are instead of is. It sounds funky to me. “The checkpoints in xpm is like the alert message"
Throughout there are also missing commas and commas where there should be periods. Maybe we could ask the original posters of some of the comments if we could fix the errors.[/quote]
It’s up to the community, you guy tell me. I didn’t touch any of Sunny’s quotes from the interview, however, if we need to clean it up… just let me know all the changes.
Btw… the goal is to turn this over to someone on the PR team. I have a lot of different projects in the works, I don’t mind getting this set up, but long term maintenance will need other hands stepping in.
What does everyone else think then? We need some more participation and opinions on this so we can decide what to do here. Let’s get it sorted out.
I understand, and we don’t want you doing everything anyway. You’ve done a great job setting this up and getting it started though.
after Friday 8th of November I have a little bit more time and could do stuff like this