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 mineâŚ
I talked about this in chat recently, but I think weâve been focusing on the wrong thing. All along weâve been pushing the theme of eco friendliness and energy efficiency, however as Jooize mentioned above lots of people donât really care about this because the impact of energy usage on the environment isnât 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 âcost efficiency.â 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 âcost efficient blockchainâ 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.
Itâs the same concept as a cost efficient air conditioner that can help you save money by reducing your monthly energy expenditure. Itâs energy efficient, and because of that itâs 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 Peercoinâs 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 wonât 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. Itâs not something thatâs unique to Bitfinex, so I donât really see how it will impact perception of us too much, if at all.
I canât really comment on this as itâs 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. Itâs very important for our brand. And I know you donât care for the flat color in the logo, but it does have an advantage in that it will help with color consistency, since weâll 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.
The leaf is a little unusually buy I have gotten used to it.
I think two hands (close-up), interlocked, of two people side by side would be a cool attempt. A peer concept.
https://goo.gl/images/hzxTJc
https://goo.gl/images/vP6I6b
[quote=âSentinelrv, post:42, topic:4044â]I talked about this in chat recently, but I think weâve been focusing on the wrong thing. All along weâve been pushing the theme of eco friendliness and energy efficiency, however as Jooize mentioned above lots of people donât really care about this because the impact of energy usage on the environment isnât 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 âcost efficiency.â 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 âcost efficient blockchainâ 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.
Itâs the same concept as a cost efficient air conditioner that can help you save money by reducing your monthly energy expenditure. Itâs energy efficient, and because of that itâs 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 Peercoinâs 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.
Iâve decided to let this run one more day before counting votes.
[member=890]Sentinelrv[/member] regarding cost efficiency i think itâs not strong, as anyway the cost is borne by others [miners] so it doesnât affect the user. the message should be âdecentralizedâ because mining and pools made bitcoin centralized. peercoin solves that as everyone can mint with their wallet
maybe could be âefficient decentralizationâ, decentralization is needed in all cryptocurrencies, but in bitcoin itâs very ineficcient
I suggest to wait readiness PARS and to record the image Peercoin logo
i think that current logo looks not only dated, but too much like rouble sign which it definitely is not )
i vote for change of logo now, no need to wait for checkpointless release.
So youâre saying that in Bitcoin the cost is borne by miners and because of this, the majority of users arenât affected and there is no direct impact on them and their wallet, so they most likely still wouldnât care about the cost efficient messaging, since itâs 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. Youâre right that cost efficiency doesnât 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. Itâs 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. Theyâre 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 âcost efficient decentralizationâ or âcost efficient security.â They both end up meaning the same thing.
I think the leaf doesnât 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 Iâve 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 werenât 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 canât have economies of scale so it is truly a peer to peer coin, and not a chinese miner coin
So youâre saying that in Bitcoin the cost is borne by miners and because of this, the majority of users arenât affected and there is no direct impact on them and their wallet, so they most likely still wouldnât care about the cost efficient messaging, since itâs 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. Youâre right that cost efficiency doesnât 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. Itâs 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. Theyâre 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 âcost efficient decentralizationâ or âcost efficient security.â They both end up meaning the same thing.[/quote]
Ok, voting is now closed. Itâs late here, so Iâll count the votes in the morning and then post the results.
Ok, sorry for taking so long with the results. Iâve been busy at work the last couple days, the .org issue popped up and Iâm also getting ready for my vacation next week. Anyhow, here are the resultsâŚ
#1 Received - 0 Votes
#2 Received - 14 Votes
#3 Received - 1 Vote
#4 Received - 4 Votes
#2 wins by 10 votes over the competition.
I will now take the next steps, which is to have my designer develop a full set for #2, just as he did for the previous logo. This will end up costing me a couple hundred dollars, so Peercoin donations are appreciated to help me pay for it. My PPC address is in my signature. Thanks to anyone that helps out!
Revisiting this from my criticising comment, I think the results are beautiful. Thanks to @Sentinelrv for improving Peercoinâs image!