However, I don’t think we should use the new logo until we’re ready to launch something significant.
(Like discourse) or v0.6 or some other major change.[/quote]
I was going to ask about this. Once voting is over, I was going to have a set made up like our existing set. But I wasn’t sure when we should start using it. Social media avatars and banners on Twitter and Facebook are easy, but changing it on the main website, Reddit and the clients will take a lot more time.
Sunny has given no indication when v0.6 will be ready, so that is an unknown. I personally think use of the logo should be centered around a revamp of the main website, as it shouldn’t be used anywhere unless the change is reflected there first.
Ok, so voting has slowed to a crawl, so unless somebody wants us to extend voting, I say we should give about 24 more hours and then shut it down. So this is your final notice. Please vote if you haven’t already done so.
Logo’s change over time, that’s the way it is.
Most logos change subtly over time with fast iterations, but our current one is way too complex, so I am fully supporting this major redesign!
I feel the leaf may become overused. I like the leaf a lot as an accent and I agree with having a logo that either scales better or a standard alternative for smaller formats. Still, I think the current logo looks better overall than these. It’s in the top 3 of all cryptocurrencies in my mind.
I vote neither or #4. I’m not sure about the color in any of these, but #4 is least plain. I haven’t seen any such flat cryptocurrency logo that looks good.
Making the leaf our main logo further pushes the environmental aspect that I think people ultimately don’t care about. It matches the other logos more, but is that an improvement? Changing our brand font and going lowercase are two additional changes. I don’t know the extent of its use beyond Peercoin, Peercointalk, and Peer4commit, but I want a consistently branded ecosystem.
I think it’s a mistake to rebrand, but I would support modernising the current logo.
I do not like the leaf as key figure either. Eco friendliness is a pleasant side effect of PPC but it is not the a main aspect like long term security.
Furthermore, the leaf logo almost looks like the one from Bitfinex exchange which just faced like the second biggest hack in crypto history. We should avoid any connection with Bitfinex.
Please others who support the change, please chime in with your opinions as well. Here are mine…
I talked about this in chat recently, but I think we’ve been focusing on the wrong thing. All along we’ve been pushing the theme of eco friendliness and energy efficiency, however as Jooize mentioned above lots of people don’t really care about this because the impact of energy usage on the environment isn’t something that immediately impacts them or their wallet.
This is why I recommend we immediately reframe our theme and messaging on peercoin.net from eco friendliness and energy efficiency to “cost efficiency.” I agree that long-term decentralized security and sustainability are the most important aspects to Peercoin, however you CANNOT have this security/sustainability without the cost efficiency that comes from proof-of-stake consensus. One cannot exist without the other. The term “cost efficient blockchain” sounds like it has more of a direct impact on people and their wallets. If something is cost efficient, you are saving money and I believe that term can still be represented by a leaf.
It’s the same concept as a cost efficient air conditioner that can help you save money by reducing your monthly energy expenditure. It’s energy efficient, and because of that it’s also cost efficient, and in the case of Peercoin that cost efficiency means the network faces a reduced security threat compared with Bitcoin, since it can be secured much more cheaply. Since long-term security of the network can only exist with a cost efficient consensus mechanism, both concepts are inherently linked to one another. Because cost efficiency is such a vital component to Peercoin’s security model, I still believe it makes sense for the leaf to represent the network.
This is current news that will be replaced by something else within the next couple months. The logo won’t be used immediately anyway, so this will be out of the news cycle before we even use it. Furthermore, lots of companies use leaf imagery in their logos. It’s not something that’s unique to Bitfinex, so I don’t really see how it will impact perception of us too much, if at all.
I can’t really comment on this as it’s a personal preference. Currently it seems that more people voting prefer flat colors for the logo as opposed to using a gradient, but that could always change before voting ends.
I really want consistency across our websites as well. It’s very important for our brand. And I know you don’t care for the flat color in the logo, but it does have an advantage in that it will help with color consistency, since we’ll be using a specific shade of green for the logo and it can be reused on other websites. A gradient provides no specific color that everyone can hone in on.
[quote=“Sentinelrv, post:42, topic:4044”]I talked about this in chat recently, but I think we’ve been focusing on the wrong thing. All along we’ve been pushing the theme of eco friendliness and energy efficiency, however as Jooize mentioned above lots of people don’t really care about this because the impact of energy usage on the environment isn’t something that immediately impacts them or their wallet.
This is why I recommend we immediately reframe our theme and messaging on peercoin.net from eco friendliness and energy efficiency to “cost efficiency.” I agree that long-term decentralized security and sustainability are the most important aspects to Peercoin, however you CANNOT have this security/sustainability without the cost efficiency that comes from proof-of-stake consensus. One cannot exist without the other. The term “cost efficient blockchain” sounds like it has more of a direct impact on people and their wallets. If something is cost efficient, you are saving money and I believe that term can still be represented by a leaf.
It’s the same concept as a cost efficient air conditioner that can help you save money by reducing your monthly energy expenditure. It’s energy efficient, and because of that it’s also cost efficient, and in the case of Peercoin that cost efficiency means the network faces a reduced security threat compared with Bitcoin, since it can be secured much more cheaply. Since long-term security of the network can only exist with a cost efficient consensus mechanism, both concepts are inherently linked to one another. Because cost efficiency is such a vital component to Peercoin’s security model, I still believe it makes sense for the leaf to represent the network.[/quote]
A quick addition to my above point. Every blockchain project claims security nowadays. Claiming cost efficiency I think is more unique messaging and something that we should be taking advantage of in our marketing.
[member=890]Sentinelrv[/member] regarding cost efficiency i think it’s not strong, as anyway the cost is borne by others [miners] so it doesn’t affect the user. the message should be “decentralized” because mining and pools made bitcoin centralized. peercoin solves that as everyone can mint with their wallet
So you’re saying that in Bitcoin the cost is borne by miners and because of this, the majority of users aren’t affected and there is no direct impact on them and their wallet, so they most likely still wouldn’t care about the cost efficient messaging, since it’s not really directly helping them in an immediate way.
It is however helping them in the long-term. The high cost of securing Bitcoin will be its downfall in the end, because the list of people who can afford to keep up with the growing costs shrinks smaller and smaller each day, leading to further centralization.
Meanwhile the low cost of securing Peercoin means it could spread to many more people and further decentralize the network. You’re right that cost efficiency doesn’t provide any immediate impact to people and their wallets, but over a long period of time it will effect the level of decentralization of the network. As the level of decentralization in Bitcoin decreases, so will the security level of the network, which can eventually threaten the security of your funds in Bitcoin. It’s a long-term threat, rather than an immediate one.
So a cost efficient consensus mechanism like proof-of-stake leads to higher numbers of people minting and providing security for the network. A higher number of minters means you have increased decentralization. With increased decentralization you have increased security. They’re basically the same thing. In order to achieve high network security you need to decentralize the power to secure your network to as many people as possible, and the only way to achieve that is to make the process inexpensive and cost efficient. You also need to make it easy to do, which is something hrobeers is trying to work on with PeerKeeper. You also need to make it safe to do, which is why cold minting is under consideration.
So as you can see these concepts are all interconnected. One cannot work without the other. You cannot have high security unless your network is decentralized and you cannot be truly decentralized if your network costs too much to secure. So you can call it “cost efficient decentralization” or “cost efficient security.” They both end up meaning the same thing.
I think the leaf doesn’t immediately represent the strengths of peercoin i.e. decentralisation and low cost to secure the network. Also, how the leaf is leading to the left gives impression of being behind, if you look at bitcoin or litecoin their central graphic is leading forward or moving. The old logo at least gives an impression of stability with the gold and double P, so I’ve quite liked it up to this point.
If we were to redesign our logo, it would be great to have an image that would display our decentralised nodes and peer to peer links.
As an example, what ubuntu has with their circle of friends linked together to present collaboration.
Edit: I forgot to add - when the internet was invented and completely changed publishing they weren’t promoting all the trees that would be saved. Energy efficiency is only one part of what peercoin offers.
the issue is that in btc there are economies of scale, if there were not wheter the process is efficient or not would not make it more/less centralized. that was the case with cpu/gpu mining [ineficcient but decentralized]. in peercoin u can’t have economies of scale so it is truly a peer to peer coin, and not a chinese miner coin
So you’re saying that in Bitcoin the cost is borne by miners and because of this, the majority of users aren’t affected and there is no direct impact on them and their wallet, so they most likely still wouldn’t care about the cost efficient messaging, since it’s not really directly helping them in an immediate way.
It is however helping them in the long-term. The high cost of securing Bitcoin will be its downfall in the end, because the list of people who can afford to keep up with the growing costs shrinks smaller and smaller each day, leading to further centralization.
Meanwhile the low cost of securing Peercoin means it could spread to many more people and further decentralize the network. You’re right that cost efficiency doesn’t provide any immediate impact to people and their wallets, but over a long period of time it will effect the level of decentralization of the network. As the level of decentralization in Bitcoin decreases, so will the security level of the network, which can eventually threaten the security of your funds in Bitcoin. It’s a long-term threat, rather than an immediate one.
So a cost efficient consensus mechanism like proof-of-stake leads to higher numbers of people minting and providing security for the network. A higher number of minters means you have increased decentralization. With increased decentralization you have increased security. They’re basically the same thing. In order to achieve high network security you need to decentralize the power to secure your network to as many people as possible, and the only way to achieve that is to make the process inexpensive and cost efficient. You also need to make it easy to do, which is something hrobeers is trying to work on with PeerKeeper. You also need to make it safe to do, which is why cold minting is under consideration.
So as you can see these concepts are all interconnected. One cannot work without the other. You cannot have high security unless your network is decentralized and you cannot be truly decentralized if your network costs too much to secure. So you can call it “cost efficient decentralization” or “cost efficient security.” They both end up meaning the same thing.[/quote]
