Why not bitcoin or lit coin? can anyone explain?? what is the key reasons behind this? Thanks
Proof-of-stake.
The answers depend on whom you ask and what these answers focus on.
There are for sure reasons that have to do with peercoin’s architecture and role in the crypto coin universe.
Peercoin is designed to endure. Being secured by PoS Peercoin allows for energy efficient sustainment.
The attack vectors for PoS render the costs relatively high, making Peercoin more secure than PoW secured coins (measured as attack cost in relation to the coins market cap; I did such a calculation once but don’t wanna search for it with Tapatalk… I can hand it in later if someone is interested).
The quite fair distribution model is a good base to create acceptance.
But a persecution complex based answer might read “because the people behind Peershares are big holders of PPC and want to raise the price by having chosen to let Peershares rely on Peercoin”.
Even if the latter were the case I didn’t mind. And that is just because I think it’s ok to rise the price of something by raising its value (here I’m speaking of the “real world value”).
This is so completely different from the regular pump&dump actions at other places. I only mention that here to be able to differentiate from it.
As Peershares will be an open source template, it will have successors utilizing other coins for distributing dividends.
So even if it would turn out to be a bad choice using Peercoin for distributing dividends (which I don’t expect to happen), Peershares would still be an advance to the crypto coin idea, being able to free the world a bit more!
sent by Tapatalk
thanks for the answer.
[quote=“masterOfDisaster, post:3, topic:2285”]The answers depend on whom you ask and what these answers focus on.
There are for sure reasons that have to do with peercoin’s architecture and role in the crypto coin universe.
Peercoin is designed to endure. Being secured by PoS Peercoin allows for energy efficient sustainment.
The attack vectors for PoS render the costs relatively high, making Peercoin more secure than PoW secured coins (measured as attack cost in relation to the coins market cap; I did such a calculation once but don’t wanna search for it with Tapatalk… I can hand it in later if someone is interested).
The quite fair distribution model is a good base to create acceptance.
But a persecution complex based answer might read “because the people behind Peershares are big holders of PPC and want to raise the price by having chosen to let Peershares rely on Peercoin”.
Even if the latter were the case I didn’t mind. And that is just because I think it’s ok to rise the price of something by raising its value (here I’m speaking of the “real world value”).
This is so completely different from the regular pump&dump actions at other places. I only mention that here to be able to differentiate from it.
As Peershares will be an open source template, it will have successors utilizing other coins for distributing dividends.
So even if it would turn out to be a bad choice using Peercoin for distributing dividends (which I don’t expect to happen), Peershares would still be an advance to the crypto coin idea, being able to free the world a bit more!
sent by Tapatalk[/quote]
Proof-of-stake primarily