Thanks for actually going through it. Even if we don’t like it though, I think it’s important to post our arguments or else other people will be influenced by misunderstandings or things that aren’t true. This is less work we have to do in the future when educating people on Peercoin.
[quote=“ppcman, post:15, topic:1384”][quote=“Sentinelrv, post:14, topic:1384”]Did you guys actually read the discussion between Nullc and JohnnyLatte on Reddit before posting your answers here? Not accusing, just wondering. The point of this thread is that the discussion on Reddit caused JohnnyLatte to rethink things. I think we should be analyzing that discussion here.
It’s important that we’re not just giving out stock answers to questions without reading and understanding people’s arguments first. We don’t want to glance over anything that could potentially be problematic for Peercoin in the future. We’d only be shooting ourselves in the foot.[/quote]
No I didn’t, because I normally don’t like reddit discussions. They are often biased, argumentative, and don’t carry a lot of truth.
However after your message, yes, I went and read the thread.
nullc posted this:
Not really. Peercoin's security comes from the developer of the system signing every block
Which appears to be a false statement. The only time the developer of the system [Sunny] signs a block, is when he hops on the network, with a client containing a MasterPrivKey, and signs a checkpoint block, and sends it out for the network to sync it against the genesis block.
Reading my debug.log, I’ve not seen one of those happen yet. The mere fact that the code allows this central checkpointing to take place in the event of a massive attack has kept the true attackers with massive hashpower to stay away and attack other coins that are more vunerable.
JonnyLatte then said:
This means the developer responsible for the checkpoint must gain community consensus before using them, developer cannot arbitrarily force a block chain reorganization onto the users
Which appears to be a false statement. The community would have to modify their own client code to reject a signed centralized checkpoint block. Since most people run stock code from the git repository, automatically the central checkpoint block would be verified and be accepted by most clients on the network. But only the holder of the MasterPrivKey could sign those blocks. Saying that the developer could not force a block chain reorganization is false, unless you believe more than 51% of the users would run butchered up / self-modified versions of the client code.
The result?
On reddit, nullc and jonnylatte are arguing in public, and both of them are making false statements to each other about how Peercoin works. It’s just silly.
I’m glad hammyburger came to the right place (peercointalk forums) to get the right answers about how Peercoin works. Perhaps johnnylate and nullc should join the forums here instead.
[b]So Sentinelrv, in answer to your question, this is why I don’t read Reddit. In my opinion, reddit often is nothing more than a slower “trollbox” like btc-e has for their trollbox chat.
I don’t like reading mistruths that continually appear on reddit’s “flame wars” about crypocurrency by biased people on there. I prefer to talk openly on peercointalk instead. That is my option and I’m taking it. 
[/b][/quote]
