Rumor: Peercoin Partnership With Tesla?

Alloy sounds good my friend cant wait to hear more about this partnership with PeerCoin. Timing, planing and proper implementation of the plan will all make the future look bright for Tesla and Peercoin…Peer Electric Efficiency

all right, apologies, I’ll stand and wait for whatever answer you might give us. will be appreciated.

But for the time being, our interest in Peercoin is far greater than any $5m pump and dump. I'm probably one of the deepest bagholders of PPC since inception and am a long-term player. Short-term gratification is for trainees and children.

mine too, while I play some other alts for fun and get rid of them as soon as they raise their heads, I’m in PPC for the long term too.

Something like ‘PeerPay’?

I believe coinpayments to be a great service… for those who understand how and why to use it.

Something built around Peercoin itself exclusively/specifically would be helpful for those new to the crypto community. Outside of the tweaks and variances of ‘the mother coin’, the brand of Peercoin is what need to be positioned for that.

Please define: surely

Then please do yourself and the community a huge favor and always remember what it means.

Bonus tip: anecdotal data – learn it. embrace it.

A lot of what you mention is very much in alignment with our view, but we are not looking at Peercoin as a payment processor. It’s a developed brand that I’m personally a huge fan of and we have been working hard to introduce it to merging markets and eco-friendly visionaries, investors, and adopters.

There are a a few other digital brands we’ve looked at and considered that are claiming eco-friendly and solar supportive, but the development and brand management is very weak, if that.

We have a few concepts that we’ve half baked in order to help place markers on the timeline we have set out. We’re still chewing on this one.

I hope you know that our community is not usually like that. I personally find arbitrageur’s claims unacceptable. I can understand people having a healthy sense of skepticism about something like this, especially when the larger crypto community is so rampant with scams, but I don’t believe anybody should be making accusations like this when they have absolutely no proof. On the contrary, I gave some small amount of evidence that shows this could be true. So I ask arbitrageur and anyone else to please think before you post things like this. Your skepticism is warranted, but if you’re going to make accusations without proof, you’re likely offending a long-time member that is trying to help our community.

I can understand this. I was actually wondering why you chose to mention this in a tweet, rather than Tesla doing it. Should we be taking this only as a teaser, rather than an announcement?[/quote]
It was somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction but wasn’t outside of anything that currently being discussed and finalized. I will verify this though: Tesla Motors is currently a direct client on a completely different project I have been a part of and has been for us going on two years now. I simply leveraged the rapport that was already in place.

I think it would be awesome if a peerbox would be embedded inside the powerwall, it is easily done, and win win, do you think something like that is possible with Tesla & PeerCoin joining forces?[/quote]
Not sure how we missed this but love EVERYTHING about it.

Overstock acceped BTC but bitcoin price not get benefited yet. Peercoin is an excellent testbed for its variants.

The interest is in broadening the ecosystem, utilizing Peercoin/PPC to educate new cryptocurrency users. We’ve found Tesla Motors and several of Tesla’s current R&D projects to be aligned with what we’re working on. After roughly 12 months of mining data, engaging with Tesla’s current customer base and market interest, Peercoin and most of its supporting projects have proven to us that we’ve needed to take this step now, rather than later to assist in the discussed rollout.

the selling pressure on btc-e is just amazing. they throw thousands at you below 125 like it were garbage (was 144 when the tweet came out). Keep watching, but I have a bad feeling about this. anyway, I keep holding ppc as a POS alternative to btc. not sure it can achieve something but I have great admiration for sunnyking and his vision. (vs almost nothing for those idiots debating on BTC blocksize these days)

Thank you for you confidence inspiring post.

Please stay on topic or consider various trollboxes to vent.

sure, np, was just a note about how the market is acting around this rumor.

so let’s get back to the topic. can you give us any rough timeline of future events? will be there an official announcement if the “partnership” takes off?
I do like this idea if it really materializes, in the past I put forward the idea of proposing PPC to a social network, and honestly a great brand like Tesla with his own community can be a good start for wider awareness and adoption. keep us posted.

Using peercoins as a currency is just a sidenote. Use of it as a rewardable commodity is really where it’s at. That’s what peershares has been about. For instance, find some way to do Proof of Energy Efficiency. Using peercoin allows for a secure, decentralized, energy efficient transaction process such that you aren’t just giving out Tesla-Rewards-Points.

This is interesting. Sunny has always suggested that Peercoin by itself isn’t suitable for microtransactions. I believe he said it’s used better as a store of value, rather than medium of exchange. This is due to the 0.01 PPC/kb transaction fee which prevents transaction spam and keeps the blockchain small and lean. If it wasn’t for Sunny’s design choice to include the fee, we would end up suffering from the same problems that Bitcoin is right now. As an example, this is one of his famous quotes from his 2nd interview on Peercointalk…

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one 'backbone' currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don't transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

This idea of a backbone currency which isn’t suitable for microtransactions has been one of the most debated subjects on our forum. The reason is because without microtransactions, what is Peercoin good for? What is its main purpose? Now the following quote is a little bit further into the same interview…

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

What this suggests is that the Peercoin blockchain by itself cannot support microtransactions, but if you connect it with high speed off-chain networks, suddenly you can use it for microtransactions and avoid the fee altogether. This keeps the blockchain small while still allowing you to transact in tiny amounts at high speeds.

Still, I wonder if Sunny was suggesting a different purpose for Peercoin when he wrote the first quote. Maybe you guys have thought of something?

When you speak of Peercoin’s supporting projects, are you including off-shoot projects like Nu in this, or are you only speaking of Peercoin specific projects like Peerapps, Peermessage, Peerbox, Peershares, etc…?

Interesting. To extend this idea …

  • Every Tesla car computer (or an embedded peerbox) has a pre-installed green point wallet (implemented as tailored peershares) pre-charged with, say, 10,000 green points.
  • When the car is driven, the wallet mints new green points. Minting difficulty can be tied to inverse speed – the more you drive, the more you use green enerygy, the more you mint.
  • Green points can be redeemed, like airliner mileage, by green point program partners for charging, servicing etc.
  • Partners will send the collected green points back to Tesla for a green point program reward.
  • Green points can be traded like a cryptocoin by users so Tesla is not burdened with users’ accounting, although by examining the block chain Tesla could know how every point was spent (which partner collected how much).
  • Green points can be recycled and colored. Your wallet could be having a point used to belong to, or minted by, Elon.

[member=890]Sentinelrv[/member]
This is a long post, but I think you might like it.

I believe that Sunny King had tremendous foresight and that he is well informed about what constitutes money. People that don’t have the same foresight or depth of knowledge, might not appreciate what I think Sunny King means with “backbone”. Take the block-size discussion right now. Bitcoin developers disagree not on the problem, but on the solution of the block-size. When Satoshi created Bitcoin, only at the end did he add the transaction fee. Only after launch did he set a block-size limit, as a temporary fix. Now the debate is whether to raise the block-size or not. Gavin want to raise it because by doing so, everyday users will ultimately not have to rely on centralized off-blockchain processing (they can “just use the Bitcoin network”). This would be aligned with what Satoshi would have wanted. Satoshi himself stated that mining would eventually be more centralized anyway (and there should be no upper limit on the size). In a recent interview with Peter Todd, he points out that this kind of centralization, the one Satoshi predicted, will hurt the credibility of the system. Todd argue that the block-size should be so low, that people are forced to use off-blockchain solutions to pay for their coffee. That way the Bitcoin blockchain would be more light-weight and hence it could be more decentralized.

To summarize, Gavin wants to raise the block-size to ensure that people will not have to use centralized services. Todd argues that this will in-itself create a centralized network and it would be better if people used centralized services, so that Bitcoin can remain more decentralized. At the core, both the devs here, are wrestling over whether technology will keep up with a growing blockchain. Many people share the worry that technology will not be able to keep up with expanding use of Bitcoin. There seems to be some sort of growing consensus among Bitcoin developers that, it is likely that Bitcoin will end up as some sort of “settling network”, i.e. you conduct business on other networks (say trading on btc-e) and then settle on Bitcoin.

There are other crypto networks, that are skipping the whole debate and just making a run for the eventual end game of a settlement network. Ripple is one such example. However, Ripple is centralized solution (no matter what they say) and have some other flaws that makes it unsuitable as a money settlement network (such as freezing of funds). Bitcoin is, in my opinion, a much better alternative but the number of nodes are only shrinking and should the block-size go up, probably more people will turn off their nodes. Also nodes that do not mind, help verify blocks, but as they go away the load and dependency on the remaining nodes increases.

The worst case scenario that I foresee as not that unlikely is that Bitcoin will be a settlement network consisting of a few mega big nodes and thus is will be much more centralized. BUT, people will ALSO have to use off-blockchain centralized solutions. So it will be the worst of two worlds.

To me it seems as though Sunny King is in the camp of “one blockchain will never satisfy all of the transactional needs of the entire world” and that it is much better suited as a settlement network. But since the blockchain is lightweight and since minting can be done without need for mega big fields of mining gear, Peercoin as a settlement network will in this sense likely remain distributed and offer a high degree of trust.

I think this is the proper backdrop for the backbone argument. I don’t think side-chains, as the ones Bitcoin people talk about, was what Sunny had on top of his mind. Actually I know this for a fact, because he told me so. It’s not certain that those side-chain networks will work either (some argue they are inherently weak because miners can attack them at little cost). The Lightningnetwork is now also being developed by blockstream and is a very exciting solution to more secure off-blockchain transactions. Something like the Lightningnetwork would probably be perfect for Peercoin.

But I’m running long now, so I’ll stop. :))

[quote=“Alloy, post:5, topic:3530”]Tesla is currently in discussions about implementing Bitcoin to offer it at the consumer level. Early adopters were the ones suggesting Peercoin as a complementing option.

This may just be the first phase. If Tesla doesn’t request exclusive licensing, we can offer it to other eco-friendly automotive manufacturers too. This will broaden the marketshare even further.[/quote]

Hi, Alloy

This is fascinating.

Regarding your opening post, can you explain more about who you mean by “early adopters”. I don’t mean names of individuals, but adopters of what - PPC or BTC?

Also, can you explain who you mean by “we” - who/what do you represent?

Thank you

[quote=“pillow, post:38, topic:3530”][member=890]Sentinelrv[/member]
This is a long post, but I think you might like it.

I believe that Sunny King had tremendous foresight and that he is well informed about what constitutes money. People that don’t have the same foresight or depth of knowledge, might not appreciate what I think Sunny King means with “backbone”. Take the block-size discussion right now. Bitcoin developers disagree not on the problem, but on the solution of the block-size. When Satoshi created Bitcoin, only at the end did he add the transaction fee. Only after launch did he set a block-size limit, as a temporary fix. Now the debate is whether to raise the block-size or not. Gavin want to raise it because by doing so, everyday users will ultimately not have to rely on centralized off-blockchain processing (they can “just use the Bitcoin network”). This would be aligned with what Satoshi would have wanted. Satoshi himself stated that mining would eventually be more centralized anyway (and there should be no upper limit on the size). In a recent interview with Peter Todd, he points out that this kind of centralization, the one Satoshi predicted, will hurt the credibility of the system. Todd argue that the block-size should be so low, that people are forced to use off-blockchain solutions to pay for their coffee. That way the Bitcoin blockchain would be more light-weight and hence it could be more decentralized.

To summarize, Gavin wants to raise the block-size to ensure that people will not have to use centralized services. Todd argues that this will in-itself create a centralized network and it would be better if people used centralized services, so that Bitcoin can remain more decentralized. At the core, both the devs here, are wrestling over whether technology will keep up with a growing blockchain. Many people share the worry that technology will not be able to keep up with expanding use of Bitcoin. There seems to be some sort of growing consensus among Bitcoin developers that, it is likely that Bitcoin will end up as some sort of “settling network”, i.e. you conduct business on other networks (say trading on btc-e) and then settle on Bitcoin.

There are other crypto networks, that are skipping the whole debate and just making a run for the eventual end game of a settlement network. Ripple is one such example. However, Ripple is centralized solution (no matter what they say) and have some other flaws that makes it unsuitable as a money settlement network (such as freezing of funds). Bitcoin is, in my opinion, a much better alternative but the number of nodes are only shrinking and should the block-size go up, probably more people will turn off their nodes. Also nodes that do not mind, help verify blocks, but as they go away the load and dependency on the remaining nodes increases.

The worst case scenario that I foresee as not that unlikely is that Bitcoin will be a settlement network consisting of a few mega big nodes and thus is will be much more centralized. BUT, people will ALSO have to use off-blockchain centralized solutions. So it will be the worst of two worlds.

To me it seems as though Sunny King is in the camp of “one blockchain will never satisfy all of the transactional needs of the entire world” and that it is much better suited as a settlement network. But since the blockchain is lightweight and since minting can be done without need for mega big fields of mining gear, Peercoin as a settlement network will in this sense likely remain distributed and offer a high degree of trust.

I think this is the proper backdrop for the backbone argument. I don’t think side-chains, as the ones Bitcoin people talk about, was what Sunny had on top of his mind. Actually I know this for a fact, because he told me so. It’s not certain that those side-chain networks will work either (some argue they are inherently weak because miners can attack them at little cost). The Lightningnetwork is now also being developed by blockstream and is a very exciting solution to more secure off-blockchain transactions. Something like the Lightningnetwork would probably be perfect for Peercoin.

But I’m running long now, so I’ll stop. :))[/quote]

[member= 30769]Pillow[/member], I think you’re completely right. I have long tried to decipher Sunny’s backbone comments in the beginning of his 2nd interview, but I’ve always had trouble understanding. For reference, here is the entire quote…

[table][tr][td][pre] [/pre][/td][td]"Both PPC and XPM are designed to last. PPC is designed with energy efficiency, XPM is designed with energy multiuse. Bitcoin has a long term uncertainty as to whether transaction fees can sustain good enough level of security. Before that the main concern is how to balance transaction volume and transaction fee levels. Currently I get the feeling that bitcoin developers favor very low transaction fees and very high transaction volume, to be competitive against centralized systems (paypal, visa, mastercard etc) in terms of transaction volume, to the point of sacrificing decentralization. This also brings major uncertainties to bitcoin’s future.

From my point of view, I think the cryptocurrency movement needs at least one ‘backbone’ currency, or more, that maintains high degree of decentralization, maintains high level of security, but not necessarily providing high volume of transactions. Thinking of savings accounts and gold coins, you don’t transact them at high velocity but they form the backbone of the monetary systems.

Pure proof-of-work systems such as bitcoin is not 100% suitable for this task. This is because transaction fee is not a reliable incentive to sustain network security. If the mining generation amount is kept constant (there have been several such attempts in altcoins) it would work better security-wise but then it would also significantly weaken the scarcity property of the currency. XPM’s inflation model is designed in such a way that it could serve as backbone currency better than bitcoin if needed, because it could maintain high security reliably for longer, with reasonably good scarcity property as well. Of course that’s only from architect’s point of view, whether or not it would be chosen by the market is a whole different matter.

PPC is designed to serve even better as a backbone currency. The proof-of-stake technology in PPC is not only energy efficient; it also maintains high level of security without relying on transaction fee. Thus PPC could be safely designed with strong scarcity property yet serving well as backbone currency. Both PPC and XPM use protocol enforced transaction fees, which reflects my preference that high transaction volume is discouraged in favor of serving as backbone currencies.

Right now if we are talking about micropayments in the US$1 range, both PPC and XPM still handle them with much lower overhead than credit card network. In the long term micropayments should be provided by centralized providers, or a less decentralized network optimized for high capacity transaction processing.

On the other hand there is no promise that minimum transaction fee wouldn’t be adjusted. If processing capacity of personal computers continues to advance at the current pace, both max block size and minimum transaction fee could very well be adjusted at some point. However I do take a very cautious approach to adjusting transaction fees, as opposed to bitcoin devs. The impact to the fitness of the currency as a backbone currency is of great concerns to me."[/td][/tr][/table]

After reading your comments in this thread, I went back and slowly read and reread Sunny’s quote here for about an hour. Sunny’s prediction about Bitcoin in his first paragraph is starting to come true. Bitcoin devs have been sacrificing decentralization in order to compete better and it’s finally coming back to bite them in the ass (Peter Todd sounds like somebody that would agree with Sunny. Have you let him read the above quote?). In the quote Sunny describes a backbone currency as being able to maintain a high level of security and decentralization. Bitcoin could take on the 0.01 PPC/kb fee, but it wouldn’t help them since their blockchain size is already out of control, plus as Sunny explains, proof-of-work can’t continue to maintain its security unless the amount generated from mining was kept constant, but this would also destroy Bitcoin’s scarcity. With Bitcoin on the verge of destroying itself through bad choices, Peercoin is preparing itself to take over its role. Peercoin will need to force people to use off-chain networks for transactions and the blockchain for secure storage of value and settlement. Would you agree with this? Also, is the Lightning Network a better version of OT? As Jordan has said, OT seems like it’s always on the verge of release and then nothing happens.