I would like to write an article, based on the list of common Peercoin myths ( http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=2976.0). The purpose with the article, is foremost to alleviate some of the concerns that people might have over Proof-of-Stake. I think the most common myth, is that there is nothing-at-stake. The article will focus on this myth and then, in a hopefully pedagogical way, put for an argument that will highlight why there is a need for synchronized checkpointing.
I would appreciate help with the following:
[ol][li]Proof reading the article before submission.[/li]
[li]Selecting the most suitable context for publishing.[/li]
[li]Submitting the article (if reddit is selected, I think I can manage :), but if its coindesk or similar I will probably need some help because all of this is new to me).[/li][/ol]
I think it would be very valuable to have such an article written in accessible language for media consumption. Will add at least 10 cents to the PPC/USD rate
Happy to help submitting the article to media outlets depending on the timing. The length might be an issue though. Either you or the journalist might need to make a summary. What is your expected length and how much time do you think you need? A week, a month? It is just that I’m overseas soon and I can’t do that much by then.
I’ve been thinking about the proper way to frame the discussion. It could be counter-productive to come out all defensive, desperate and eager to persuade.
I been playing with the idea of an article titled: “Peercoin - A Nuanced Discussion”. The article would then present some of the existing critique against Proof-of-Stake and discuss what measures have been taken to protect the network.
The problem I’m facing here, is that no-body actually knows if Peercoin will work or not. While some attack vectors have technical safe-guards, one would have to apply game theory and what not, to get to the bottom of it. Actually this is true for Bitcoin too. We can’t not know for sure if it will work or not.
A lot of things I’m not sure of here… why bother getting technical about it, if it doesn’t really prove anything? Why talk about “incentive structures” if the arguments lacks scientific rigor?
Not sure what the proper way is to frame this discussion.
I like the title you propose, framing it as a discussion doesn’t pretend scientific rigor. In a discussion you can still do a SWOT (strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analyses for a number of attack vectors. Which ones are clearly dealt with in the code and which ones requires significant efforts to achieve and which ones are also feasible with NXT or Bitcoin. By exploring the options and discussing pros and cons everyone can draw their own conclusions.
Ideally you would like to see some manual simulations on the test network (or Monte Carlo simulations) to show its strength and vulnerabilities with the aim to strengthen the network. I think there is value to document this so the community can decide to run a few of them.
When we have a few suspects we might try to raise some funds and e.g. invite a graduate to do some research and eventually publish this (after we have patched for any substantial vulnerabilities found). Just dreaming a bit here, but one has to start somewhere to improve the trust and remove the uncertainties we are currently facing someday. I prefer pro-active instead of reactive, but there is a cost and effort attached to it.