Who knows this? Can you talk about it?
I live and breath Bitcoin (SV). I’m in this space since 2011 and I can honestly say that amongst all the flavors of Bitcoin, SV is the original one. I develop https://cryptograffiti.info and it is operating on the BSV block chain. There are widespread misconceptions about Bitcoin. The most significant one is that block chains cannot scale. Bitcoin SV is about to prove to the world once and for all that block chains can scale (and do it very well, as Satoshi expected). It also aims to restore the original OP codes of Bitcoin and bring the protocol back to what it was in the beginning (minus the bugs).
“Satoshi’s Vision” was that all nodes were miners and didn’t consider ASICs.
So i guess that means Peercoin is more “satoshi vision”? 
4 Likes
Looks like it’s not going too good recently.
Shady exchanges delisting? meh. Those same exchanges will themselves be delisted from the Internet in a year 
Meanwhile, BSV announces raising the block size limit to 2 GB in July 2019
Okay, some quick maths:
AFAIK Bitcoin generates a block every 10 minutes, so if you need to up-/download a block within 10 minutes you’d need a bandwidth of 8 * (2 * 1024) / 600 = 27.30Mbps.
I have the download speed for that (100Mbps theoretically, but in reality only 50Mbps or so) but there is no way I can upload a block that fast (20Mbps at most). And you probably use that same connection for a bunch of other stuff, so there is no way that will work out.
Then watch we do it it’s not a long wait, just a couple of months. But to do your homework I suggest you use data center grade network speed in your calculations, oh and of course, don’t forget other optimizations.
That defeats the purpose of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is intended to empower the common user (which is why it should be decentralized in the first place). The common user cannot afford data center grade connections.
If you are targeting only those mining farms (which promote centralization), then you are far from the original vision of Satoshi.
1 Like
Please read the whitepaper, it’s all explained there. Satoshi has made it pretty clear how Bitcoin is intended to be used. The common user has no business to running a full node in the first place. In fact, by definition given in the whitepaper, a full node is a miner and a miner only. And as we all know, miners already have dedicated data centers for the mining operations. TX validation is just another integral part of being a miner.
So PoW based supernodes/masternodes is the true Satoshis vision now. Ok.
I adore how flexible is the narrative and how good at mental gymnastics are you Bitcoin-* people. You should start some kind of Olympic games so you can benchmark your skills. I’ll buy a ticket for the show.
2 Likes
More people providing security is always better than less in my opinion. Whether what you say is Satoshi’s vision or not is irrelevant.
Sunny chose a different path with Peercoin. We’re trying to create a network that maximizes decentralization by having as many minters as possible. And that means keeping the hardware requirements affordable for the network’s security providers. The requirement of affording a data center to participate favors the elite, and I won’t be part of that.
The model which promotes Peercoin as a base layer blockchain with layer 2 networks providing for scaling works much better in preserving blockchain security, keeping it decentralized and trustless.
1 Like
Ok we’re done here.
A non-mining node does not provide more security. It quite literally does nothing for the network because it is powerless, unless of course you insist on taking a leap of faith in the user-activated-soft-fork concept 
If you want to understand the Bitcoin’s security model then read the whitepaper as it is clearly explained there that only miners secure the system by the process of mining. In addition to mining, orphaning is the most ingenious part of Satoshi’s design, considering how this enables an extra layer of security. It is often ignored and even discarded as a flaw by some shortsighted people in this space, but if you think about the scenario where another miner attempts a double-spend on a TX that either has 0 or 1 confirmations, then orphaning is the only defense mechanism for the honest miners to set things right. The malignant miner would lose the block reward and not even attempt such fraud.
If you want to discuss the relative security flaws of Proof-of-Stake model in comparison to Proof-of-Work then I welcome you to create another topic for that. PoS vs PoW seems a bit offtopic here.
I am talking about PoS minters. These are the security providers in Peercoin. PoS consensus allows for more minters than there are miners in PoW. More people with the ability to create blocks means a higher level of decentralization.
If you insist on turning this thread into a PoW/PoS faceoff … 
Main beef I have with PoS — it is much easier for a hacker to gain ownership over the majority of the coins in circulation (by a single exchange hack, for starters), than it is for a thief to steal the majority of physical hardware responsible for producing PoW blocks.
Decentralization is an empty buzz word that can be used to bring an argument for or against anything. If we’re speaking of distribution, then the Apple stock is more decentralized than Peercoin. Let that sink in for a while and then see if you really want to play that card ever again.
But perhaps most importantly, in a PoS model the rich get richer forever whereas the PoW model provides an incentive for healthy competition. If you accumulate 51% of the coins then in PoS you will forever hold at least 51% of the coins (guaranteed!), given that you are staking of course. However, in a PoW model, one may achieve 51% of hashing power, but they have no such mathematical guarantee that the next day another more powerful miner would not show up, dwarfing their mining power.
The only place where I could see a use-case for Proof-of-Stake is a network emergency where a large portion of hashing power disappears overnight. In such a scenario, PoS could turn useful as a surrogate for PoW to keep the system online until the PoW difficulty adjusts or the emergency is dealt with by some other means.
with these pos vs pow discussions, it seems easy to forget that Peercoin is hybrid pow+pos