Someone should clone PPC and call it Ecocoin

killerstorm

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 05:23:09 PM

Let's do this again:

"The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? Roll Eyes

That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning."

You cannot attack "a market cap" with double-spend, you have to attack a concrete business, an exchange, for example.

Guess what, people aren't really eager to rob an exchange... Also, it isn't as lucrative as it seems. (You're limited to whatever liquidity is currently in orderbook, basically.)

Also it might be easier once Sunny removes centralized timestamping.

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 05:23:09 PM

I'm guessing since you ignored this entirely, you've realised how foolish the entire premise of your argument sounds.

In that topic you linked to, the guy is using 0.2 not 0.3 and in the 0.3 release Sunny said it contains bug fixes. I don't see any reports of this happening with 0.3, please link me to them if you do.

Idiot, I've just read source code, and I understand how it works. You don't.

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 05:23:09 PM

Checkpointing is necessary for security.

Which, again, shows that you have no fucking idea about what is proof-of-stake and how cryptocurrencies work.

Please stop trolling.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: killerstorm on April 30, 2013, 04:54:19 PM

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?

Same thing which was broken in 0.2: it is secure only if there is a large number of active stake coins.

I already mentioned a message where doublec described how he can generate a shitload of PoS blocks in a row just by bringing his offline wallet online. Nothing have changed in new version to prevent this...

OK, well, aside from change in weighting of stake, which isn't that significant.

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

Why do you trust Sunny?

Let's do this again:

"The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? Roll Eyes

That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning."

I'm guessing since you ignored this entirely, you've realised how foolish the entire premise of your argument sounds.

In that topic you linked to, the guy is using 0.2 not 0.3 and in the 0.3 release Sunny said it contains bug fixes. I don't see any reports of this happening with 0.3, please link me to them if you do.

Checkpointing is necessary for security. It's also a temporary measure being phased out. If another new cryptocurrency emerged based on original ideas that needed to be tested out in the wild it too would likely use a checkpointing system (doing otherwise would be suicide).

killerstorm

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?

Same thing which was broken in 0.2: it is secure only if there is a large number of active stake coins.

I already mentioned a message where doublec described how he can generate a shitload of PoS blocks in a row just by bringing his offline wallet online. Nothing have changed in new version to prevent this...

OK, well, aside from change in weighting of stake, which isn't that significant.

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

Why do you trust Sunny?

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Quote from: matt608 on April 30, 2013, 12:51:36 PM

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him.

Quote from: killerstorm on April 30, 2013, 10:28:48 AM

Quote from: romerun on April 30, 2013, 09:04:33 AM

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares...

Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken...

The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? Roll Eyes

That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?

Quote from: efx on April 30, 2013, 12:31:44 PM

^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.

My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins.

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

Thanks for that I'd be interested in hearing replies to this. If PPC isn't 'broken' but merely untested, then I would vote simply for a name change + homepage revamp seeing as it's still very early days rather than launching a new coin with a different name.

What's this I've read about the PPC code being uncommented? Does this mean it's very hard for other programmers to work on?

Well, this is my opinion. 2 months ago PPCoins were selling for 2 cents a coin. Last weekend they hit 40 cents a coin. Does it seem like the name of the coin is holding it back?

I would also like to see a homepage revamp. Something cleaner and more informative.

I am used to the name myself. The Nintendo Wii sounds like Nintendo Piss, and sold 100 million units lol.

The PPC code is apparently not easy to follow. I suspect this is partly intentional to minimise people cloning it before it becomes popular. That is pure conjecture on my part though. Perhaps it is because Sunny is operating largely alone and hasn't had time. When the price hits $1+, more developers will be attracted to working with it.

LaggedOnUser

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: markm on April 30, 2013, 10:33:17 AM

Programmers are waiting for Ripple source code so they can clone Ripple to make Ecopal.

(Or Ecopay, or whatever. Heck why not both? Wink

)

-MarkM-

I'll think I'll make my own Ripple clone and call it RippOff, in the finest pump and dump tradition. Grin

TsuyokuNaritai

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: markm on April 30, 2013, 12:55:48 PM

changing the name would be to strike at the very immortality a creator seeks to derive from his creation? Tongue

It's his horcrux! It all makes sense now Grin

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

Maybe Sunny's real name is Peter Parker, and PPCoin is to him as Ford was to Henry Ford, and changing the name would be to strike at the very immortality a creator seeks to derive from his creation? Tongue

-MarkM-

matt608

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: mr_random on April 30, 2013, 12:45:50 PM

Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him.

Quote from: killerstorm on April 30, 2013, 10:28:48 AM

Quote from: romerun on April 30, 2013, 09:04:33 AM

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares...

Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken...

The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? Roll Eyes

That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?

Quote from: efx on April 30, 2013, 12:31:44 PM

^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.

My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins.

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

Thanks for that I'd be interested in hearing replies to this. If PPC isn't 'broken' but merely untested, then I would vote simply for a name change + homepage revamp seeing as it's still very early days rather than launching a new coin with a different name.

What's this I've read about the PPC code being uncommented? Does this mean it's very hard for other programmers to work on?

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

Creating another coin because of the name is dumb. It's also a huge discredit to the countless hours of work Sunny has put into his own project. I feel sorry for the guy because he receives such little acknowledgement for his contributions towards cryptocurrency. PPCoin is continuing to prosper though, so perhaps that is reward enough for him.

Quote from: killerstorm on April 30, 2013, 10:28:48 AM

Quote from: romerun on April 30, 2013, 09:04:33 AM

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares...

Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken...

The market cap of PPCoin is worth millions of dollars. If it was easy or trivial to attack and do double spends or whatever, why isn't it happening? Roll Eyes

That's not a rhetorical question, I am genuinely interested in your reasoning.

I also haven't seen anything that is worrying in version 0.3. Would you show me precisely what is so broken in version 0.3?

Quote from: efx on April 30, 2013, 12:31:44 PM

^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.

My understanding is PPCoin is only proof of work for the initial minting process. In the long run it will consume much less energy as it will use proof of stake for transactions and later minting of coins.

To the person who mentioned checkpointing, it is for security purposes and Sunny has said it will become advisory only by the end of the year at the latest.

efx

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

^ Interesting, I've been looking for a clear answer on some of these issues (and finding the 'energy-efficient' claim very...imaginative) and it seems I have found it...Thanks.

killerstorm

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: markm on April 30, 2013, 12:23:15 PM

Hey, it apparently worked for Litecoin! Copy Fairbrix, changing the name and using newer bitcoin code to base it on and presto, who remembers Fairbrix now?

IIRC Tenebrix mined 50 coins per block forever, likely same was true for Fairbrix (it was tenebrix minus premine), but Litecoin has finite monetary base just like Bitcoin, which has a better appeal for early adopters.

(Which isn't quite rational... continuous issuance makes more sense for later adopters, and early adopts profit of late adopters... So, in theory, if everybody was rational, all being equal early adopters would profit more in continuous issuance mode.)

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

Hey, it apparently worked for Litecoin! Copy Fairbrix, changing the name and using newer bitcoin code to base it on and presto, who remembers Fairbrix now?

-MarkM-

digicoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

Creating another coin because you hate the name?

markm

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 1090

Programmers are waiting for Ripple source code so they can clone Ripple to make Ecopal.

(Or Ecopay, or whatever. Heck why not both? Wink

)

-MarkM-

killerstorm

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: romerun on April 30, 2013, 09:04:33 AM

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

What makes you think that programmers have "hard time"? Nobody really cares...

Versions 0.1 and 0.2 were completely broken, there is very little interest to tear apart new version... But some people did that, and they say it is still broken...

Praxis

legendary

Activity: 1118

Merit: 1004

Quote from: romerun on April 30, 2013, 09:04:33 AM

It was cloned at least once, called NovaCoin something.

--

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

Or it could be that Sunny knows its weaknesses, but believes they are not practical when the network is mature enough. As long as no ones discovers them at the early stage, it's good enough.

But NovaCoin had premine which ruined its reputation.
Perhaps someone could re-launch a NovaCoin-like coin (scrypt+pos) without premining.

virtualmaster

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: Luckybit on April 30, 2013, 07:29:18 AM

A Proof of Stake hybrid coin is needed and if not PPC what else is there?

With PPC we see how much people are interested in energy efficiency and in the environment so that they support even a(still) not working model. But may be they will solve it one day and that will be great. But may be it cannot be solved then people invested their hope without return.
PPC actually is pure Proof of Work and they say they intend to switch to Proof of Stack but if they switch to it without solving the decentralized checkpoint problem it will be a centralized currency.
A hybrid model would be one which use both but in the same time and it can also work only if both parts work.

romerun

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.

It was cloned at least once, called NovaCoin something.

--

If eager programmers have a hard time deriving the implementation, so do eager attackers, thus attacking will not eager to happen.

Or it could be that Sunny knows its weaknesses, but believes they are not practical when the network is mature enough. As long as no ones discovers them at the early stage, it's good enough.

killerstorm

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1033

Quote from: Luckybit on April 30, 2013, 07:29:18 AM

PPC and Proof of Stake work well in theory when combined with Proof of Work in a hybrid model.

PoS+PoW is not energy-efficient. It is just (presumably) more secure than pure PoW.

Quote from: Luckybit on April 30, 2013, 07:29:18 AM

There are other projects in the development phase but those projects will go through a similar process and are even more years away.

Chances are those projects will start with proper planning...

Luckybit

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 510

PPC and Proof of Stake work well in theory when combined with Proof of Work in a hybrid model. Whether or not it works in practice depends on whether or not Sunny King can effectively code it. I think he can, but PPC is at least a year or two away from being truly usable.

There are other projects in the development phase but those projects will go through a similar process and are even more years away. Bitcoin is an obvious success, Litecoin is a clone of Bitcoin with faster transactions and less valuable, Namecoin is entirely different but will be a success. A Proof of Stake hybrid coin is needed and if not PPC what else is there?

Topic: Someone should clone PPC and call it Ecocoin (Read 2582 times)