Talk:Peercoin

Redirects

Created a encyclopedic entry for PPC, but still require it to be linked to its alternative names, i.e. ppc, peercoin, p2pcoin and peer to peer coin. Thanks- Rayoncadet12

Notability

I am concerned that this subject is not notable. Please add links to news articles, or independent reviews covering PPCoin. (I don't think that a passing mention in an article about Bitcoin is enough.) Thanks. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

PPCoin's market cap is 4 million USD as of April 2013, and its one of the most innovative Bitcoin forks. It is definitely noteworthy.

And who is dustcoin.com and why should I believe them? And where did they get their information from? They don't even have real information on their domain registration! A whois gives "Oneandone Private Registration", the domain was only created this year (24 January 2013). I.e. I'm not sure that what they are saying means anything at all. Moreover, since when is that market cap mean that the system is notable? Can I actually buy anything with ppcoin? Like, can I go to the Silkroad and order up some rock and roll, or a subversive magazine? Can I get some webhosting or similar? Or is it just a currency that is actually worthless, because I can't actually buy anything with it. And that "value" is actually all from speculators? Show me the money! Or, you know, the evidence. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask that you give the community some time to establish notability and not just delete it as quickly as possible? We are mobilizing to answer the questions you ask, but just give us a bit of time, please. Ripper234 (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

===Who is dustcoin?=== Dustcoin is a website created by user Dusk of the forums of bitcointalk.org . It is used as a mining calculator by a large chunk of crypto-currency miners, and is one of the most referenced calculators on appropriate subreddits(r\ ppcoin cryptocurrency bitcoin bitcoinmining litecoinmining(which are home to thousands of users)) in reddit.com as well as on bitcointalk.org . ===Why should I believe them?=== Bitcointalk.org is home to most of the english bitcoin discussion as well as a large portion of people with any experience in cryptocurrencies, and is where several crypto currencies have premiered. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146675.0 is the thread where dustcoin was announced. Herein we can see why the site is reliable as the mining community which uses dustcoin points out any issues with the calculator and contributes to it. Seeing as there is a lack of anyone denouncing dustcoin, and given that a large portion of the supporters are "hero level" members One Must conclude the site trustworthy. ===the domain was only created this year (24 January 2013).=== The oldest of the currencies it provides data on(aside from usd) is only 4 years old(but last week had a market cap of 2 billion dollars)(less than a month if it adds support for bytecoins), and the youngest is only several months old, Its young age is unavoidable. ===They don't even have real information on their domain registration! A whois gives "Oneandone Private Registration"=== It is a new service provided for free, supported by a community based on a new almost entirely anonymous currency, where a sizeable portion of the initial members were interested due to the anonymous nature of the currency. This is understandable. Additionally given that it is not provided professionally but by an individual, and is kept trustworthy by community support this is understandable. ===Moreover, since when is that market cap mean that the system is notable? === Its market cap shows that it is currently the third alternative for bitcoins, which were a two billion dollar market less than a week ago(1 billion and growing currently), and given that they have had over the last few weeks growth in value of over 100 percent, they are a viable competitor, and hence definitely notable. Further details below. Details 1.One ppcoin is currently valued at a fraction of a percent of the bitcoins which have the higheest cap, and between half and a third of namecoin, which have fourth position. Hence the market cap shows that a ppcoins have a tremendous rate of circulation. 2. PPcoin are only 8 months old, and have only gained significant attention in the last two months. They were valued below .0010 btc(approx usd .1 at the time) each in the beginning of april, and are currently valued at .0025 btc(approx usd .25) each(value is fluctuating, reached .05 btc(approx usd 7 at the time) for a small period of time when first introduced to the btc-e currency exchange, crashed to .0015 btc, and has since risen to .0025 btc ). Given that issues such as a major exchange(vircurex)going down, and another closing its doors due to risk(bitparking)the initial crash is understandable. 3. Since the crash ppc has shown steady growth in value, with far lower downward fluctuations compared to other crypto currencies, indicating it is a strong contender. ===Can I actually buy anything with ppcoin? Like, can I go to the Silkroad and order up some rock and roll, or a subversive magazine? Can I get some webhosting or similar? Or is it just a currency that is actually worthless, because I can't actually buy anything with it. And that "value" is actually all from speculators?=== This question is severely flawed. Gold is only given value as there exist people willing to trade goods and services for gold, but few if any shops will accept gold directly for goods, but a gold owner will instead first have to trade good for a currency and trade that for said goods and services. One does not however declare gold valueless. Similarly PPcoin currently needs to be first traded for litecoin or Bitcoin first before being used, however this is understandable given its young age, and given that a silkroad type shop for litecoin just opened recently and litecoin itself is two years old. Given the rapid development of PPC resources however PPC shops shouldn`t be as far off as that. Speculators do play a role in PPC`s valuation, but it is the same role that they played in bitcoins valuation, which is currently in the billions of dollar. Summary; PPCoin is currently regarded as the top alternative for bitcoin design wise, while litecoin is regarded at the alternative in case of scrypt sha-256 issues. In Conclusion as crypto currencies appear to be gaining momentum and ppcoin is in the top 2 design wise and top 3 market cap wise, hence it is definitely important. Read the whole thing.Rayoncadet12 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't take Dustcoin's word for it, the $4 million market cap figure was just noted in an article on MIT Technology Review (which I added to the article). PostScarcity (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ripper234 I'm not going to ask for it to be deleted. I simply want better references added. And preferably a comment about where it's actually used. E.g. with Bitcoin, I can buy all sorts of things, from hosting, to pizza. Also, the Technology Review article doesn't give a source for the value of the different coins either. I want to know where this number came from. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

USA Dollar and Euro have their $ and €, but as I see it PPCoin does not have a consensus in a symbol. Thus I see it more fit to use “PPC” in line with “CAD$” and “kr” as in the Canadian dollar and Swedish krona articles. “PPC” is used like this, “200 PPC”. I have not seen anyone type “200 P” or “P200”, which would likely cause confusion at this time. I agree it would be neat with a one character symbol, but should there be one in the article yet?

Good candidates are U+A750 (which seems to lack in font support) and Ᵽ (U+2C63).

There is also ISO 4217 code, but since PPCoin (or any cryptocurrency) is not included there, we can't use that. Nickname doesn't seem like the right place for “PPC”.

— AnonymousWiking (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've swapped the P for Ᵽ, as this seems to be a slightly better choice. I've put PPC and Ᵽ in the symbol section, as this is in line with the Bitcoin article. In my opinion, the PPC is more like BTC, USD or GBP, the Ᵽ is the equivalent of ฿, $, £. Cliff12345 (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Yes, I agree with that. There is Subunit, but no Unit? Unit would make more sense than Symbol. I would name it Units, add “1 PPC”, and merge with Subunit. According to Template:Infobox unit and other articles it seems Symbol is the way for now. — AnonymousWiking (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, what's your opinion on ₱? Cliff12345 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

₱ looks very cluttered in the few fonts I've tried. I liked U+A750 when I saw it because it looks similar to the double-P coin design which is popular, but with more thought I don't like it. Since U+A750 doesn't even show in any fonts I've tried, I think it's not a good option. I wrote them on paper by hand to find out ease of use and how they look. Ᵽ has my full support. ₱ as second choice. U+A750, no. — AnonymousWiking (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Turns out ₱ is (was?) used for Peso/Dollar. — AnonymousWiking (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, hopefully when the logo for PPCoin is finalised we can also add that to the currency infobox. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

Currently:

PPCoin (abbrv: PPC)

Examples of other articles:

Bitcoin (BTC)

Litecoin (sign: Ł; abbrv: LTC)

The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$)

I don't see an obvious answer to how it should be written, so I'd like some thoughts. We have sign (aka symbol) and code in the infobox right now, where at least the currency sign should stay. I think Litecoin's way looks good, but simply writing PPCoin (PPC) may look better. I'm leaning towards removing “abbrv”.

PPCoin (PPC) also known as [...]

— AnonymousWiking (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the abbrv for now, maybe when the symbol for PPCoin is formalised we can change it to the (sign: Ł; abbrv: LTC) format. Cliff12345 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I've added code: . Cliff12345 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good decision! — AnonymousWiking (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Inflation vs hard cap

OK, I don't know anything about the technical details of this coin. But in one place it says there is inflation, and in another, a hard cap. Bitcoin also has a hard cap, and is a deflationary currency. Even though there are more coins coming in on a continual basis until this hard cap is hit.

Surely any hard cap will mean that eventually the currency will be deflationary. And it is misleading (I was certainly mislead...). While the Wired article does say "Another radical difference is that, unlike with Bitcoin, there is no final cap set on the number of PPCoins that will be generated.", I wouldn't trust them for real details. In the actual paper, I can't just see either.

So which is it? Hard cap or inflation? **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PPCoin will fairly quickly hit a few million coins from mining (there is also a bit of inflation at this time), after this there will be about 1% inflation due to proof-of-stake. There is technically a cap of 2 billion, but at current rates of inflation this isn't expected to actually ever be reached (by the time it does, PPCoin may not be around), and it could easily be increased, so for all effective purposes there's no cap. (I should point out that I'm not 100% sure on this, this is just what I've gathered from reading general articles/papers about PPCoin). Cliff12345 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

“There is a 2-billion coin max value in the source code, however that is only used for consistency checking and is not meant to be part of the minting design.” — https://github.com/ppcoin/ppcoin/wiki/FAQ

I agree it's misleading and threw me off when I first read the article. Didn't know what to do at the time, but I'll remove it now. — AnonymousWiking (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention in the article that though there is technically a cap of 2 billion, it's only for consistency checking, is unlikely to ever be reached, and could easily be increased if the need arose?

(If we do mention the 2 billion cap, we need to explain that it's only a technical matter and so PPCoin has inflation for all practical purposes). Cliff12345 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. Can you write it? I don't feel like I can formulate it well. — AnonymousWiking (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added an explanation of the 2 billion cap (though feel free to improve on it if you want). Cliff12345 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks excellent! — AnonymousWiking (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

PPCoin does not reduce its block reward by 50% every 4 years. So I'm removing the reference to Geometric sequence. — JorisVR (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This article repeatedly uses a confused definition of inflation. Inflation is NOT equal to change in monetary base as this article (and talk page) implies. This is a common misunderstanding in crypto-currency discussions and this page helps propagate that confusion. Inflation depends on monetary base, but also on velocity of that money to determine relative changes in prices. Meaning, even a capped monetary base can still experience inflation or deflation when velocity changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.218.130 (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Sourcing

There are parts of this article that are not backed up with reliable secondary sources, such as news articles. These sections may be correct, but in order to establish verifiability there needs to be better sourcing. That means replacing citations on material referenced by forum posts (not at all reliable or verifiable in most cases), links to youtube videos (find the textual sources the video is using, and base content on that) or links to bare repositories of information such as block explorers and exchanges (drawing conclusions from these is often original research). I started by tagging the article and removing the youtube citation, next I am going to start removing the forum posts if acceptable alternatives cannot be found. Breadblade (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've written on your talk page - peercoin is very new and citations are thin on the ground. My suggestion in the interim is to keep existing citations and request further citation. In my opinion some citation is better than no citation, especially with something as new as peercoin. VinceSamios (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that information on here has to be verifiable. Here are some more specific examples:

• The citations that point to official announcements from the developer are less problematic since (although it's a primary source) it can be considered a press release of some kind, but this link: http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=679.msg6354#msg6354 points only to a chinese-language interview conducted by a forums user. I guess the english version is attached to the original post but it's not viewable without a forums account, and either way this information hinges on the reporting of the interview by some unknown forums user.
• Drawing conclusions from a block explorer by citing http://ppc.cryptocoinexplorer.com/ is original research in most cases. Same goes for throwing up a link to https://btc-e.com/exchange/btc_usd when making a claim.
• Citing https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_Stake can be compared to citing Wikipedia, which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. Editors need to figure out where that article gets its information, and use that.

Anyway, a quick Google tally shows that there have been hundreds of articles about Peercoin, many of which probably can verify the information laid out by these questionable sources. I'm not doubting the veracity of this information, but if there are parts of this article that are not verifiable they may be challenged and deleted, regardless of whether it is true or not. Breadblade (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree in general with everything you've said. There is an absolute plethora of bad information on peercoin out there, mostly in the media, and sifting through to find correct articles requires a bunch of time. It might be worth going through the article and adding citation needed to a bunch of points in the interim, but in my view if we delete everything which isn't correctly cited yet, there won't be much of the article left.VinceSamios (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Steady inflation parenthetical remark

The section "Steady inflation" contains the following parenthetical remark:

(inflation for each user is proportional to the number of coins they have)

That simply does not make sense. Probably whoever put that remark in wanted to say that the absolute value loss is proportional to the number of coins the user has, but that's a common trait of inflation and not worth mentioning. But as written, the claim is completely nonsensical (it would mean that if you sell or spend your coins, the party accepting your coins would first check how many coins you hold, and give you the less for your coins the more of them you have). --93.135.205.101 (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is quite non-sensical because the inflation rate is a percentage... I think I'll remove it. VinceSamios (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Note on Voice of Russia source

I was trying to confirm information (e.g. the alternative name "Peer-to-peer coin") in this article from reliable sources, and came across this:

• Teplinskaya, Oksana (22 January 2014). "Peercoin: stable and more energy-efficient than bitcoin".

It confirms quite a bit of non-reliably-sourced info from the Wikipedia article, but it became clear that it was verifying it too exactly, and in fact seems largely based on the December 2013 version of the Wikipedia article just prior to Voice of Russia article's publication. It credits Wikipedia as the source for the Peercoin logo. Just wanted to give a heads up in case someone cites the VoR article as a reliable source in the future; personally I would not consider it reliable.

Agyle (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources

Questionable: I considered these sources on Peercoin not reliable, but some would disagree:

• DC Magnates (Same publisher as Forex Magnates)
• Imaginary Markets (Written by a CNBC reporter)
• The Edge (Suggests Peercoin predates Bitcoin)
• Voice of Russia (All or most all info seems taken from Wikipedia article)
• Heavy.com
• Pando
• City AM ("Liveblog")
• letstalkpayments.com/7-popular-virtual-currencies-apart-bitcoin/2/ (Protection filter prevents linking site from Wikipedia)
• Coin Jockey
• Sprout Money
• Pop Tech Jam
• Bitcoin Maven
• VMFX (Bitcoin exchange)
• Atriark (Bitcoin exchange)

Reliable:

• CNBC Mostly industry commentary by King, but it does mention that the design began in October 2011, which could be integrated into a summary of its creation, as well as provide an independent source for December, 2013 of market cap/price/standing.
• The New York Times Already cited for some info. Includes a little more info, and some quotes on Peercoin from King.
• Wired Currently cited just for a statement in Wikipedia article's infobox. Reasonably detailed explanation of differentiating characteristics, and its treatment of being "centralized" might be useful to provide some context for what currently relies just on King's original spec.
• The Washington Post Good layperson explanation of proof-of-work/proof-of-stake and its relation to Peercoin. Also provides a secondary source on energy efficiency and other characteristics that are currently only primary-sourced with King's original paper.

Who ever called it P2P coin?

It brings clutter, and Peercoin will not be called P2P coin in the future. I see very little reason to keep it on the page. The CoinDesk news page mentions “P2P coin”, but I'd bet they got it from Wikipedia or some other confused source. Give one argument for why it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousWiking (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of Incorrect and Misleading information in this Article

This article cites, in many places, a self-published paper by Sunny King. His paper demonstrates that he lacks a deep understanding of the Bitcoin protocol. In this Wiki article, it is noted that

" The paper notes arguments that “Bitcoin has not completely solved the distributed consensus problem as the mechanism for checkpointing is not distributed,” and attempted to design a distributed alternative, but ultimately concluded that a centralized solution was acceptable until a distributed solution became available"

This is incorrect. Checkpoints have never been used for consensus. They are used for dos protection according to gmaxwell: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=194078.msg2014204#msg2014204

The bitcoin mainchains has never been effected by the checkpoints, while peercoins blockchain uses automatic centralized checkpoints as consensus: http://www.coindesk.com/peercoin-vault-of-satoshi-deal/

“Developers can operate a master node that broadcasts ‘checkpoints’, which tell other nodes to reach consensus on certain blocks,” he says, adding that it’s essentially a “consistency alert message”.

User:Breadblade , I believe the Peercoin author, along with coindesk, along with the Peercoin Github FAQ, along with the Peercoin source code itself stating that it has centralized checkpointing is beyond sufficient evidence that peercoin has consensus controlled by Sunny King. It even says so later on in the wiki "but ultimately concluded that a centralized solution was acceptable until a distributed solution became available."

This is why I have changed the "Central Bank" section to:

The Peercoin peer-to-peer network is regulated by Sunny King.

I agree with the change to:

"(a 51% attack is when a single entity possesses over half the mining share, which would allow this entity to theoretically gain control of a large quantity of coins)."

This is more correct, but not the whole scope of a 51% attack.

I am removing

" The paper notes arguments that “Bitcoin has not completely solved the distributed consensus problem as the mechanism for checkpointing is not distributed,” and attempted to design a distributed alternative, but ultimately concluded that a centralized solution was acceptable until a distributed solution became available."

because this is OR and it is incorrect as I have stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.87.238 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2014 ‎

I took a look at the Peercoin whitepaper being cited. It turns out that the wording of that section was confusing: King was talking about his own attempts to design a checkpointing system, not Bitcoin's. I'm going to try and fix that instead of blanking the section, as it is an otherwise accurate description of what's said in the whitepaper. On the other hand I think it's misleading to equate the developers of this project to a central bank: they don't issue Peercoins, the currency is distributed by proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithms. Breadblade (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Original Research, especially regarding what the author thinks of a protocol not designed by him, shouldn't be there. Please don't add incorrect information as a placeholder for your fix. Regarding central banks, the network is regulated by Sunny King, but the coins are issued by stakeholders, so I have made the statement reflect both of those points. -50.129.87.238 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.87.238 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not original research to present material that is directly supported by citations. The Peercoin whitepaper, which is cited in the section that was blanked, states "Laurie (2011) has argued that Bitcoin has not completely solved the distributed concensus problem as the mechanism for checkpointing is not distributed. We attempted to design a practical distributed checkpointing protocol but found it difficult to secure against network split attack. Although the broadcasted checkpointing mechanism is a form of centralization, we consider it acceptable before a distributed solution is available." This is pretty much what was said in the part that was blanked, with attribution given to King and Ben Laurie as appropriate. Breadblade (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have not explained why you changed the pages central bank section. The paper Sunny cited was self published and is probably one of the roots of the checkpointing misconception. I have linked answers from actual Bitcoin developers on why checkpointing is there. I think it is better to have it not there since it is incorrect regardless of the fact that the method the core developers used a forum to communicate their point rather than telling it directly to a reporter.

Infinite Coins Possible

I've read that Peercoin has an infinite possible cap, making it worthless. I can't find any information anywhere on the "Maximum possible" and so I am thinking this is true. Does anyone have any information on this we can add to the article? 50.34.175.237 (talk) 20:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Flawed definition of inflation

This article uses a flawed definition of inflation. Peercoin may be designed to increase the supply of coins by 1% per annum, but inflation usually refers depreciation to in value, which is determined by both supply and demand. If the demand rises faster than the supply (as has been the case for Bitcoin for the majority of its history until at least 2018), Peercoin will be a deflationary currency. I think this should be clarified in the article. Any objections? Catskineater (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Book sources about Peercoin

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuCoin.

Book sources about Peercoin

DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-13. The book notes: Peercoin Algorithm: N/A Mining Type: Proof-of-Stake Block Time: 10 minutes Reward (current): 1% annual Peercoin was the first legitimate proof-of-stake coin. There was an earlier coin that Peercoin was forked from but it contained a massive hidden pre-mine. Pre-mines are unacceptable in all cryptocurrencies but are especially troubling in proof-of-stake coins. ... As the first viable proof-of-stake coin, Peercoin used the same method later used by Nxt, Blackcoin and various others. Instead of mining, as with proof-of-work coins, Peercoin users "mint" new Peercoins at a one percent annual interest rate. Like miners, these minters secure the network. But unlike miners, they aren't in competition with each other and don't waste massive computational power, as proof-of-work coins arguably do. In fact, a full node and wallet can be run and stored on a lightweight system such as the Raspberry Pi microcomputer. The Peercoin community is an innovative one that pioneered many advances. It has its own "2.0" projects, including Peershares, a system built on top of Peercoin that allows for token/asset distribution. However, the coin has been stagnant for a while. Months elapse between each git commit and there has been no news for quite a while. It is easy to wonder what the future holds for the world's first proof-of-stake coin, especially given that later proof-of-stake coins have far more active developer communities. Miller, Michael (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Bitcoin. Indianapolis, Indiana: Que Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-7897-5324-3. Retrieved 2018-11-13. The book notes: Peercoin Peercoin (PPC) is a cryptocurrency that uses a different mining system than does Bitcoin. Instead of Bitcoin's proof-of-work approach, Peercoin uses a system called proof-of-stake. The primary benefit of this approach is that it's designed to create more new coins automatically, based on the number of coins that a user already owns. [paragraph about the proof-of-stake system] Peercoin isn't nearly as popular as Bitcoin or Litecoin. Fewer exchanges deal in Peercoin, and it's unlikely you'll find any retailer accepting Litecoin payments. As of August 2013, Peercoin is trading at $1.14/PPC with 21.6 million coins in circulation. That results in a market cap of close to $25 million. Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13. The book notes: Peercoin Peercoin was introduced in August 2012 and is the first alt coin to use a hybrid proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithm to issue new currency. Block generation: 10 minutes Total currency: No limit Consensus algorithm: (Hybrid) proof-of-stake with initial proof-of-work Market capitalization: $14 million in mid-2014 Narayanan, Arvind; Bonneau, Joseph; Felten, Edward; Miller, Andrew; Goldfeder, Steven (2016). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 208–210. ISBN 978-0-691-17169-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13. The book notes: Implementing Virtual Mining: Peercoin ... To start with, consider the approach taken by Peercoin, which was launched in 2012 as the first altcoin using proof of stake. Peercoin is a hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake algorithm in which stake is denominated by "coin-age." The coin-age of a specific unspent transaction output is the product of the amount held by that output and the number of blocks that output has remained unspent. To mine a block in Peercoin, miners must solve a SHA-256-based computational puzzle just like in Bitcoin. However, the difficulty of this puzzle is adjusted down based on how much coin-age the miners are willing to consume. To do this, the block includes a special "coinstake" transaction, in which some transactions are spent simply to reset their coin-age to zero. The sum of the coin-ages consumed in the coinstake transaction determines how difficult the proof-of-work puzzle is to make a given block valid. It is possible for miners to mine with very little stake and a large amount of computational power, but the difficulty formula is chosen to make it dramatically easier to find a block if some coin-age is consumed. The effect of the computational puzzle is mainly to ensure that the process is randomized if two miners attempt to consume a similar quantity of coin-age. Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 169–170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-13. The book notes: Peercoin: Introducing Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin and Litecoin have one thing in common: New coins can only be generated through the mining process. Peercoin (https://peercoin.net) was one of the first "bitcoin clones" to offer a new system to generate coins, called proof-of-stake. The way proof-of-stake works is by having an amount of coins sitting in your wallet for a certain period without spending them. Once these coins reach a certain age — a period during which they have not been moved — they generate a small interest percentage. The whole principle works in the same way as a bank's savings account, but in a completely decentralized manner, with the user being in full control of their funds at all times. Allowing the generation of Peercoins through proof-of-stake also provides an additional layer of network stability, as the number of miners may decline over time, but there will always be users staking their PPC. Additionally, Peercoin developers have implemented a steady inflation rate of 1 percent per year, with no hard coin supply cap put in place.

Cunard (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source check: mostly bad

Just did a reference check. Unsurprisingly, it's crypto blogs and lots of uncited text. Let's give it a week, then I think it'll be time to cut it right down to the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Removed bad sources. Before restoring this material, please cite it to a good source, e.g. one of Cunard's book sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I have restored a brief mention of the fork claim. While I agree with your criticism of this source (and the sources in general), without this detail the entire "NeuCoin" section and its connection to the main topic remains unclear. If Peercoin and NeuCoin had no substantial connection at all, the entire "NeuCoin" section would need to be removed - but based on the related NeuCoin AfD discussion a short mention is still appropriate imo. Maybe other topic experts can clarify this aspect and improve this section with more relevant details. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

sensible - though it needs a mainstream or academic source - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)