The most 'interesting' part of a cryptocurrency design is its defense against double-spend attacks (since ownership is trivially implemented via public key crypto). In Bitcoin it is done using proof-of-work approach.
In PPCoin it is done using proof-of-stake/proof-of-work hybrid.
The problem is that proof-of-stake used in PPCoin does not really defend against double spend attacks. At all.
If you have a large enough stash of coins you can do a history rewrite of arbitrary size. Particularly, you can rewrite last few blocks to do a practical double-spend.
If it fails, you lose nothing. So only irrational person would not do double spends.
If we assume that miners are rational, they will try to do these attacks, it is a legitimate business with PPCoin. It costs you nothing, but brings money (e.g. kickbacks), so why not?
So, well,. this scheme of proof-of-stake does not work. Actually, authors note it in PPCoin paper, so they use a centralized checkpointing approach.
So, let's summarize:
- proof-of-stake is useless
- currency is secured through centralized checkpointing
Thus it is definitely not a decentralized cryptocurrency.
(It's worth noting that there are better ways to implement proof-of-stake, it's just that method used in PPCoin is flawed. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake )
+1
PPCoin is NOT DECENTRALIZED!