(script draft) Peercoin Primer #2: Security

[Chronos]

I think it’s fine to reference video #3 before it comes out. It won’t be long until it is available, after which point it will be a smooth integration. In the meantime, it builds hype.

[Chronos]

Looks great. A few small suggestions, below, as follows. If these look good to you, hit “like” on this post, and we’ll move to recording. Thanks!

---

Simplify some wordiness:

@Sentinelrv

Now, 30 days is actually the minimum time you need to hold your peercoins in your wallet before they can become they’re eligible to start minting, so keep that in mind.

Fix a verb tense:

@Sentinelrv

Every time a block is minted, you will earn new peercoins as a reward, and the age of the participating coins will reset resets to zero.

Smooth out the phrasing:

@Sentinelrv

Compare this to the different versions of Bitcoin, like Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin, or Bitcoin Cash, where anyone with bitcoin mining equipment can easily jump from one network to another, without showing any loyalty.

Soften the claim and fix a verb tense:

@Sentinelrv

Miners are third party organizations which exist separately from the blockchains they are securing secure. Their primary motivation is not necessarily the benefit of the network – but it’s earning a profit.

Strengthen the wording:

@Sentinelrv

This means any attacker is forced to buy the network from current stakeholders, a task which is implausible at best, and impossible if the stakeholders do not refuse to sell.

Smooth a phrase:

@Sentinelrv

In the meantime, let’s jump over to the next video, the Benefits of Proof of Stake.

[Sentinelrv]

Looks good.

[RobertLloyd]

@Sentinelrv

… This means any attacker is forced to buy the network from current stakeholders, a task which is implausible at best, and impossible if the stakeholders do not sell.

Sorry to raise a new point but, reading the script afresh, do we need the above sentence? If we acknowledge this means of attack, I think we need a stronger sentence to rebut it.

EDIT: to put this in context, if someone was explaining bitcoin’s security protocol, would they add that an attacker could successfully attack by owning most bitcoins? Probably not - can we not restrict ourselves to explaining PPC’s security within the system itself?

[Sentinelrv]

I would like to keep the sentence since this is a major point with Peercoin’s security. It’s meant to be seen as more difficult to achieve than a PoW attack. Other PoS descriptions mention it as well. I have slightly edited the quote below to mention the overwhelming cost to make it seem more impossible.

@Sentinelrv

Ultimately, Peercoin is able to resist attack because it is secure by design - designed to prevent any one party from gaining a monopoly over its consensus protocol. This means any potential attacker is will be forced to buy the network from current stakeholders, a task which is implausible at best due to the overwhelming cost involved in such a task, and impossible if stakeholders refuse to sell.

[Sentinelrv]

I’ve talked to Peerchemist about this. He’s reviewed the criticism and thinks it’s ok for @Chronos to move forward with recording using my revised paragraph above.

[RobertLloyd]

I like the amended para, adds the necessary teeth.

[Nagalim]

@RobertLloyd

an attacker could successfully attack by owning most bitcoins

The correct comparison would be that a bitcoin miner could attack the network by either producing asics or buying them from others (owning bitcoins is not the way to subvert PoW, as it is with PoS). I definitely think someone discussing PoW security would address the methods by which someone could gain a large hash power.

[Chronos]

Good discussion. Do you like these additional minor changes? Moving the verb into the hypothetical, and removing a redundant phrase.

@Sentinelrv

Ultimately, Peercoin is able to resist attack because it is secure by design - designed to prevent any one party from gaining a monopoly over its consensus protocol. This means any potential attacker is would have to buy the network from current stakeholders, a task which is implausible at best, due to the overwhelming cost involved in such a task, and impossible if stakeholders refuse to sell.

[Sentinelrv]

Yes, that sounds fine.

[Chronos]

This video is launched!

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChronosCrypto/status/1160915721565528064
• Steemit: https://steemit.com/peercoin/@chronos/peercoin-primer-2-security

---