Peercoin (PPC) vs Vertcoin (VTC) - Was ist die beste ...

Isn't it time to get real

I have been an investor in Bitcoin for since 2012. I owned a lot. The operative word is "owned". I have since sold all of my Bitcoin in favor of Ether.
Many years ago (before the internet was where it is today) I had a group of seniors come to me to help them collect on some money from a foreign entity. It turns out they were all scammed in the old version of "you have inherited... emails"
These poor people could not let go of the fact that their belief/dreams of being rich were based upon a scam, and in fact when I told them that they fired me. Many years later I met one of them and he told me that in 2015 they gave up trying to collect and gave up trying to get their money back.
I tell you that because I see many similarities in the Bitcoin community. I am not at all saying that Bitcoin is a scam, its not. I am however saying that people can't let go of their dream that Bitcoin will become the world currency and consumers will start using it.
Bitcoin has not succeeded. Ask yourself who is actually using Bitcoin? Are you using it to purchase anything? Now ask if your friends or relatives are using Bitcoin? I think most of us will answer no. You see Bitcoin does not offer anything of value to consumers. Its difficult to buy, and its useful in very few places. When it is useful, its no more useful than using a credit card which carries consumer protections that Bitcoin does not.
One of the reasons that Bitcoin is even sustaining its price right now is because it is the main way in which people are buying Ether. Once more exchanges add Ether to fiat pairing, Bitcoins days are numbered. It gives me no satisfaction to write that, but nevertheless I believe its the truth. The only use Bitcoin has right now and in the future is as a store of wealth. Its utility is virtually nonexistent. Currency needs to be valuable for reasons other than its a currency. That is why Ether will take over for Bitcoin. Ether will have a purpose other than a store of value. It will be used for gas, and staking.
My bet is that within 90 days of larger exchanges adding ethefiat pairs directly, Bitcoin will drop below $250 and from there will decline in a slow death spiral. All the attacks on my post, and ether in general, won't stop that from occurring.
Also, I read somewhere that there has been a tremendous movement of Bitcoin to Poloniex and Kraken. If that is true mand I am trying to verify it, why those two exchanges? Answer: they both offer Ether Bitcoin pairing.
submitted by JKB1001 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Trending Subreddits for 2017-12-24: /r/CryptoCurrency, /r/YouShouldKnow, /r/ExpectationVsReality, /r/wholesomememes, /r/badwomensanatomy

What's this? We've started displaying a small selection of trending subreddits on the front page. Trending subreddits are determined based on a variety of activity indicators (which are also limited to safe for work communities for now). Subreddits can choose to opt-out from consideration in their subreddit settings.
We hope that you discover some interesting subreddits through this. Feel free to discuss other interesting or notable subreddits in the comment thread below -- but please try to keep the discussion on the topic of subreddits to check out.

Trending Subreddits for 2017-12-24


A community for 4 years, 311,391 subscribers.
Cryptocurrency news and discussion.
Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, Dash, NEO, IOTA Lightning Network, SegWit, Augur, Steemit, privacy, ICO, block time, Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, NEM, Peercoin, Vertcoin, Iconomi, Dogecoin, Zcash, BitShares, Walton, mining, hashrate, mining difficulty, blockchain, coinbase, merkle, transaction rate, decentralized exchange, annual inflation rate, total market cap, bitcoin cash, BTC


A community for 8 years, 706,645 subscribers.


A community for 6 years, 310,717 subscribers.
Comparison pictures and memes.


A community for 1 year, 1,073,475 subscribers.
Welcome to the wholesome side of the internet! This community is for those searching for a way to capture virtue on the internet.


A community for 3 years, 76,518 subscribers.
Women are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. Except their vaginas which are sqwicky and attract bears.
submitted by reddit to trendingsubreddits [link] [comments]

The intelligent investors guide to Particl (PART): Part 8 - What are the current major criticisms of the Particl Project?

What are the current major criticisms of the Particl project?
This is the final part of the intelligent investors guide to Particl!
The following is not an exhaustive list of criticisms or further areas for exploration when discussing the Particl project but merely an introduction to show that potential problems have been considered at length. I welcome feedback in the comments section and I'll respond to any queries with my own thoughts if requested.
The proposed escrow design feels broken: The particl team with their Buyer risks [100% price of good + 100% escrow deposit] = Seller risks [100% price of goods + actual good] assumes that all sellers and all buyers are honest (200% risk on both sides). In reality though where a scammer is concerned the escrow works out as Buyer risks [100% price of good + 100% escrow deposit] = Seller risks [100% listed price of goods]. The scammer has no goods to sell so the buyer risks losing 200% the value of goods if they do not settle the escrow vs 100% value of goods if they do.
The distribution is heavily skewered towards a minority of stakeholders: Granted the Particl network is still small and relatively unheard of but as of writing the top 10 accounts hold 42.5% of token supply (!rich). Granted 15% of this was specifically earmarked for distribution in a second crowd fund stage post marketplace beta minimum viable product launch in Q1 2018 but that still means 27.5% of supply is held by the top 10 wallets. I've attributed this in part to the circle-jerk mentality of PoS coins (which I believe encourage concentration of poweownership over time as accumulation is incentivised) rather than PoW (where constant sell pressure of mining leads to diversification of ownership and hoarding and accumulation of mined coins is not incentivised as strongly as PoS).
The legal aspects have yet to be defined/clarfied: Although TOR integration and end-to-end encryption into the client software offers some protection against track down and although the intention of Particl is not to be a DNM, I feel it would be naive to assume the private listings will not be abused for that purpose. Where node hosters/stakers stand in terms of legal liability has yet to be defined. It would seem unfair though to penalize the node hosts for verifying transactions and listings that are invisible to them, much like it would be unfair to penalize banks for unknowingly facilitating money laundering; it would make more sense to trace the actual sellers instead.
The current distribution creates potential issues in early governance: Although 15% of total supply is currently off limits (i.e. locked from circulation), 27.5% to 42.5% of token distribution being in the top 10 comprises a potential oligarchy of interests in voting. The top 100 wallets currently hold 77% of the supply so don't assume your vote (in the on-chain governance) in the early stages accounts for much if you fall outside this bracket. You will effectively be needing to appeal to a minority at this stage for decisions to go through which doesn't feel like the fairest democracy (although it certainly resembles most current one's). To be fair these holders are the earliest adopters, took significant risks accumulating at the stages they did and so their stake in any vote is justified by their holdings in the network. The problem is though that if one of them decided to never sell any minted stakes whilst the rest of the group did then with perpetual supply inflation set at 2% (after year 4 onwards), there is an ongoing risk that a single holder could after many, many years acquire 51% of the network, thus compromising it. Although I suspect this would take decades under the current distribution, it is still a risk. The falling inflation rate (from 5% -> 2% PA) was designed specifically to mitigate this risk by the way.
There is competition: If I think about current solutions such as Syscoin, District0x, Openbazaar; firstly the user interface is weak, secondly as the native token isn't essential to use these platform they cannot piggyback off the network effects of rising speculative value in their token's spot price as PART could (as the value of the token is disconnected from the proportional use in the network), thus any rise in the spot price of the token for these networks is less likely to create and retain investors and promoters in those platforms. In the case of openbazaar it has no native token, no anonymity and to me serves no purpose other than being decentralized for the sake of being so.
There is currently a potential future competitor in the form of Bitbay: This project recently came to my attention. Although the privacy/anonymity aspects of transactions on the network haven't been fully explained, merely asserted and I could find no white paper explaining the proposed implementation in detail thus I'm uncertain if their anonymity of transactions and private listings is merely pseudo-anonymity inherent to blockchains. In contrast Particl implements a working version of RingCT on it's testnet which will be deployed on main-net once it is third party audited. That said the feature-set and road-map of Bitbay is very similar to Particl so this project is worth keeping an eye on since it may turn out to be better than my initial impressions (lack of community, disorganized, lacking in finer detail) suggest.
Price stability of the token isn't guaranteed: Transactions are not occurring via use of a stable coin; there is no pegging as far as can be understood and we know how volatile cryptocurrencies currently are. While I do anticipate the value of the PART token to increase with non-speculative use meaning that early adopters (especially sellers) can likely sell goods at a significant discount to usual price (accounting for potential tax benefits available via selling goods in PART), that overall the value of PART increasing will lead to much larger profit margins for early adopters e.g. I might sell you $150 of goods via PART at a rate of $10/PART but say in a months time the value of PART doubles to $20/PART (feasible if there is exponential uptake and use of Particl as a marketplace as opposed to just a non-speculative platform) then my true earnings would be $300.
Thus whilst I feel the design of the Particl project isn't perfect, I think it is much more elegant and adaptable than many other systems and present s stronger case overall. I've not gone into detail over potential scalability questions which I feel will be better answered when the marketplace module beta is deployed in Q1 2018. Most of the problems I've outlined here have reasonable solutions in sight (or one's which will likely evolve in the near future anyway) so I'm really not worried. We are entering potentially paradigm shifting territory with regards to international commerce as far as the implications of the Particl project are concerned and this alone is reason enough for me to watch, hold and stake my PART tokens closely.
This also very much brings the series on the Intelligent investors guide to Particl to a close for now (it does not conclude the Intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency which is still very much ongoing). I haven't discussed cold staking, recent exchange implementations or any of the number of significant UI, hardware, partnership, adoption or extended technology aspects of the Particl project at length; I feel these are better covered elsewhere. I've tried to make the economic case for Particl and in my mind I feel there is a strong one. It's been a pleasure creating this series and I hope you've learnt how I evaluate projects and something about what I believe brings economic, speculative and financial value to a project.
Even if you don't look at Particl further, I hope if you've taken the time to read this guide, that you will look at other projects in a similar way; i.e. What do they provide beyond speculation?, Will they help the entire cryptoeconomy grow as a whole?, Would people actually use these services casually in real life?, Does this product create a new efficiency? and Does this project retain value or keep it within it's system someway?
With that in mind I encourage you to research the Particl project and other decentralised projects like it much further. This is a fascinating area to be involved in and a genuinely paradigm shifting area of research. The next few years are promising so trade well!
Further articles in this series:
Foreword -
Part 1 -
Part 2 -
Part 3 -
Part 4 -
Part 5 -
Part 6 -
Part 7 -
Part 8 -
Full disclosure/Disclaimer: As of posting I am long Particl (PART), Ethereum (ETH), Wetrust (TRST), Augur (REP), OmiseGo (OMG) Factom (FCT) and Iconomi (ICN). All the opinions expressed are my own. I cannot guarantee gains; losses are sustainable; do your own financial research and make your decisions responsibly. All prices and values given are as of time of writing (November 2017).
submitted by joskye to Particl [link] [comments]

I rewrote the sidebar text

Markdown (source): First, Rev 1, Rev 2, Rev 3, Rev 4, Rev 5, Rev 6. Use RES or orangered me to get latest.
Changes (First->Latest): (excl. minor edits)
“third” to “fourth” “annum” to “year” Remove “to” Restore paragraph split Restore since it's back online Numbered list to bullet points Edit descriptions of exchanges Update link Add marketplace Clean up Link to Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Namecoin Wikipedia pages (last Rev 6 edit) Link to Proof-of-{Stake,Work} explanations Edit cointip text Change FAQ/wiki links Add example screenshots Remove until they come out of testing Add link to service list BTC-e now supports two-factor authentication Add Mt.Gox Add important facts link 
Screenshots: current sidebar vs suggested sidebar.
Comment with any suggestions or ideas you have.
PPCoin or Peercoin is the cryptocurrency with the fourth highest market cap after Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Namecoin. It is the first known iteration of a combined proof-of-stake/proof-of-work coin.
It is designed to be energy efficient in the long run, have a steady inflation rate of one percent per year, and (through proof-of-stake) be free of dependence on miners.
/PPCoin FAQ, wiki
Official website, FAQ, wiki
Wikipedia article
Important facts
Getting started
Walkthrough for Peercoin wallet setup faucet (free Peercoins)
PPCoinTalk marketplace
List of exchanges and other services
All support two-factor authentication.
USD converter (
Cryptocurrency value tracker (
Ticker for Chrome (Creator's announcement thread)
Ticker for Firefox (Creator on reddit)
Forums (alternative currencies section)
Related subreddits
BitcoinTip (Quick Start Guide)
BitcoinTip and ALTcoinTip enabled on /PPCoin.
submitted by AnonymousEntity to ppcoin [link] [comments]

Part 3. What is Blockchain doing Tomorrow?

Back for more? Great! Today's article is going to cover What Blockchain is doing in the future.
1. Proof of Stake vs. Proof of Work
2. Pooled Computing
   2a. Grid Computing
   2b. Blockchain Security
3. Financial Sector Disruption
   3b. ERC-20 Tokens
   3a. ICO's
A short disclaimer: The following Blockchains are discussed purely at my discretion. I did my best to remain unbiased, but I do own most of the coins that are brought up here. I hold the coins because I believe in them, this belief is not just that they will increase in value, but also that they will accomplish the goals they've set for themselves. I could be wrong.
1. Proof of Stake (POS) vs. Proof of Work (POW). For a Blockchain to be secure it must have measures in place to keep bad folks from changing the digital ledger. When Bitcoin was first created it implemented a solution to this problem called Proof of Work, or POW, which made altering the Bitcoin Blockchain very difficult.
Essentially what happens in a POW Blockchain is that all of the Nodes (computers running the Bitcoin client) race each other to solve a cryptographic puzzle. The first Node to solve the puzzle wins the right to chain a new Block onto the Blockchain. Solving this puzzle uses a lot of each Nodes computing power (Time x Electricity), but there is no way to chain a new Block onto the Blockchain without first solving this puzzle. This secures the Blockchain from alterations to its past Blocks, because a malicious Node would have to solve the puzzle for every single past Block AND be the first Node to solve the current Blocks puzzle. Since it obviously takes much more Time x Electricity to solve multiple puzzles instead of just one, the malicious Node will never be able to catch up to the current Block without a massive advantage.
So what is this Massive Advantage? For a malicious Node to alter a POW Blockchain, it would need direct control over a 51% majority of the entire Hashing Power being used by the Blockchain. Hashing Power is the amount of Time x Electricity a computer uses on behalf of the Blockchain (resources spent Validating Requests, solving puzzles, etc). In the case of Bitcoin (and Ethereum), there are literally millions of computer Nodes dedicating their Hashing Power to solving the puzzles. It would take a 51% majority of all Nodes to agree that they wanted to alter the Blockchain before anything could be changed.
Proof of Stake, or POS is an alternative to Proof of Work. Despite the terrible acronym, POS is a much more energy efficient method of securing a Blockchain. Rather than winning the right to chain a Block by quickly solving puzzles, in the POS system the Node who wins the right to chain a new Block is chosen at random, with a few caveats. Essentially the process proceeds like this:
  1. Each Node that wants to participate in chaining a new Block onto the Blockchain selects an amount of that Blockchains CryptoCurrency to Stake. When a CryptoCurrency is Staked it is basically locked in a vault that is untouchable until a certain amount of time passes.
  2. A Node with a Stake is chosen by the Blockchain to chain the newest Block onto the Blockchain.
  3. The other Nodes with Stakes verify that the winning Node is following the rules. If the winning Node is following the rules, the new Block is chained onto the Blockchain and the process repeats for the next new Block.
  4. However, if the winning Node is NOT following the rules, the other Nodes with Stakes tattle on the winning Node. When enough Nodes with Stakes tattle on the winning Node for not following the rules, the winning Nodes entire Stake is burned (deleted) and a new winning Node is chosen to chain the Block.
To date, only a few CryptoCurrencies are using a purely Proof of Stake system (Peercoin & NXT). The majority of CryptoCurrencies use Proof of Work (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum), and a few use a hybrid system of both POS & POW (Decred).
Ethereum is trying to make the transition from POW to POS, and their lead developer has cited the enormous amount of energy used for Proof of Work as the reason why. The solving of puzzles for POW is the culprit of this energy use, but Proof of Stake has not been tested on a live Blockchain at the same scale as Proof of Work. Time will tell if Ethereum and the other Proof of Stakers are correct, and I hope they are for the sake of the planet! It is estimated that both Bitcoin and Ethereum burn over $1 Million worth of USD in Electricity and Hardware PER DAY to secure their Blockchains.
In my opinion, following the progress of the Casper algorithm for Ethereum is the best way to stay up to speed on the current state of Proof of Stake research, and to better understand the benefits that POS may bring if it goes live on the Ethereum Blockchain. Link to Casper FAQ
2. Pooled Computing. Do you know what the fastest computer in the world is today? It is the Sunway TaihuLight, a Chinese supercomputer that can do 93 Quadrillion floating-point operations per second, also know as FLOPS. This is incredibly impressive, especially because this is the only way we have to perform Molecular Dynamics Simulation, or to simulate what Molecules do under changing situations. All of this computer power being in one place creates an issue though. The issue is that the amount of heat the supercomputer generates while running is enormous, and it is the main factor limiting humanity from building even faster, centralized supercomputers.
    2a. Enter Grid Computing! The decentralized solution to a supercomputer has already been achieved with Grid Computing. Grid Computing is the networking of many different devices (Personal computers, smartphones, servers, etc) for the purpose of carrying out computations each device could not accomplish by itself. This idea sounds great, but the issue Grid Computing runs into is that a single malicious computer can ruin the entire Grid of computers that are connected to form the supercomputer, so opening a Grid Computer to allow the public to participate is currently not feasible.
    2b. Enter Blockchain! With its cryptographically secured trustless system, any computer can be linked into the grid. And since there is no trust required, anyone who wants to interfere with the Grid Computers harmony should not be able to do so. Currently there are no successful Blockchain based supercomputers that I know of, but Golem and SONM are supposedly getting close. Neither of these CryptoCurrencies has released a working version that you can perform computations on as of yet, but if they do Grid Computing will greatly increase access to powerful computers for everyone the world over.
3. Financial Sector Disruption. In the first Quarter of 2017, crowdfunded Blockchain tokens raised more money for new ideas than the entire amount of capital invested by traditional Venture Capital firms. Sound impressive? This is only the beginning of the disruption that Blockchain is aiming to bring to the traditional Financial Sector of the global economy. From super cheap borderless payments to home mortgages, Blockchain based CryptoCurrencies have already made progress on vastly improving the way these services work.
In parts of the under-developed world, services like those mentioned above barely exist or are not even feasible. It is estimated that 2 Billion adults do not have a bank account today. However, with a simple CryptoCurrency wallet installed onto a Smarthphone, an unbanked adult can go from having no way to interact with the global economy to being at the technological cutting edge of global economic participation.
The furthest progress being made with the goal of turning unbanked people into banked is probably HumanIQ. Their goal is to allow users to create their own economies locally, and then to tie those economies into the global reach of the Ethereum Blockchain. HumanIQ (and other CryptoCurrencies with a similar goal) has a decent shot at leveling the playing field for folks in under-developed regions. What sets HumanIQ apart from prior attempts to accomplish this same goal though, is that the HumanIQ Coin is an ERC-20 Token. This means they are exclusive to the Ethereum Blockchain. A more thorough explanation of an ERC-20 Token will be given in the next section.
    3a. ERC-20 Tokens. In the last article, Part 2. What is Blockchain tech doing Today? it was mentioned that Ethereum supports a Programmable Element in addition to the typical Blockchain function of recording transfer of value transactions. One of the ways this Programmable Element has been used is in the creation of ERC-20 Tokens. These Tokens act like an entirely separate CryptoCurrency, but are able to be secured by the massive amount of users on the Ethereum Blockchain. This allows developers of new CryptoCurrencies to save time and money to get their idea off the ground, as the amount of work to create an entirely new and secure Blockchain is quite intense.
This option to use an existing Blockchain as the security for your CryptoCurrency has led to an explosion of new ideas that are all aiming to take advantage of Blockchain Tech. A few of the more notable use cases for ERC-20 Tokens are:
The Golem project: With the aim of creating a decentralized supercomputer, Golem uses an ERC-20 Token as a means of rewarding participants for linking their computer into the Golem supercomputer.
GigaWatt: Created an ERC-20 Token that will be used to rent Hardware space at their Hydro-powered CryptoCurrency mining farm in Washington state.
It is important to note that an ERC-20 Token does not directly gain any monetary value from the price of Ethereum. The advantages that the ERC-20 Token creator receives are:
  - Anywhere Ethereum is accepted, their ERC-20 Token can also be used.
  - Their ERC-20 Token is secured by the Hashing Power participating in the Ethereum Blockchain.
      3b. ICO's.The ease and advantages of creating an ERC-20 Token have also had the effect of promoting a new type of crowdfunding. The ICO, or Initial Coin Offering is when a CryptoCurrency Team allows a "Pre-sale" of the Coin they are creating for a project. Anyone who likes the goal of the Team can send Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any accepted CryptoCurrency to the Team in exchange for some amount of the Team's new Coin. After the Pre-sale is over the Team opens their Coin to the Public and the people who bought at the Pre-sale can either hold the Coin or sell it.
Currently, even though it is not required, a large amount of ICO's are happening with ERC-20 Tokens. This is mostly due to the easier method of creating an ERC-20 Token vs. building a Blockchain from the ground up.
As is the case with anything, tons of money being thrown at ICO's without any regulation creates some problems. The biggest issue that many people have with ICO's is accountability. An alarmingly high percentage of ICO's raise millions of dollars and have little to show for it, other than some proof they hired a team of developers and a Whitepaper (paper outlining their goal and how they will accomplish it).
Obviously not every great idea succeeds, but when the idea is backed by millions of dollars of other people's money, fiduciary responsibility becomes a central issue. The United States SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) recently stated that:
"U.S. Securities Laws May Apply to Offers, Sales, and Trading of Interests in Virtual Organizations."
While this is not outright regulation, in my opinion it hints at some type of future restriction for ICO's. I am not a fan of the Guv'ment telling me what to do, but I have to admit if the Crypto-sphere doesn't regulate itself to a higher standard the long, fat, uninformed hand of bureaucracy is going to do it for us.
Thats all for today, hope you enjoyed the article! Thanks again for reading, and please comment below. Parts 1-4 can be found here.
submitted by artlimber to denvercryptogroup [link] [comments]

Debunking exaggerations of the security of Cosmos peg zones. Copy of #cosmos debate between rilly and ashgreen
rilly 4:14 AM (I'm trying to migrate a conversation from the ourchain.slack) @ebuchman I wanted to ask about how Cosmos peg zones compare with BTC Relay. Here is what tendermint said on reddit. "Cosmos keeps the Bitcoin bridge as a separate zone because we want to keep the Cosmos Hub a simple blockchain agnostic to PoW verification logic. If you have Ethereum act as a hub ala BTC Relay, how do you deal with future forks where e.g. Dogecoin change the PoW/consensus algorithm? Also, AFAIK there are functional limitations to BTCRelay as compare to Cosmos Bitcoin pegs." (edited)
rilly 4:21 AM I'm not sure how you would deal with a hard fork. Maybe this would mean you would have to "hard fork" (reissue and recreate) every token and contract that depends on BTC Rely? That is the price you pay for making things "read-only". For these sorts of things you need an alert system to let everyone know to upgrade. Bonded messaging is a decentralized alert system where bonds are used to ensure the receiver appreciates the message (if enough of them disapprove the bond is taken). 4:23 Who does a Cosmos zone trust to decide which forks to follow? ebuchman 4:31 AM i dont think btc relay provides a peg, its just a light client for bitcoin (edited) 4:31 the cosmos bitcoin pegzone will actually be a peg to bitcoin 4:32 handling forks is somewhat unresolved/unspecified. it will depend on the conditions 4:32 eg if bitcoin hard forks, the peg zone will need to upgrade the mechanics of the peg to keep up - its effectively a bitcoin client like anyone else (edited) rilly 4:42 AM Will Cosmos Hub validators all be signatories of a Bitcoin multisig wallet to hold the Bitcoins to back the pegs? (edited) 4:46 Or are these the sorts of pegs that aren't actually backed by Bitcoins, ie they use ATOM or something and hope the price stays in a certain range? (edited) krzysiekj 10:05 AM joined #cosmos. Also, @gxinterest joined, @dthn joined. ashgreen 12:30 PM @rilly Bitcoins on Cosmos Hub will be backed by actual Bitcoins on the main chain 12:31 it is really important to make the software in a way that people even can not tell which one is which 12:32 Once btc on both of the chains feels the same, the whole blockchain industry is ready to integrate into the Cosmos ecosystem starting from any services using btc. (edited) rilly 1:55 PM @ashgreen I'm such an idiot I believed that the "bitcoins" were so pricey at Mt Gox because they were the most trusted exchange. Now I understand what I was seeing. The BTC-IOUs became more valuable than the USD-IOUs because Gox was redeeming more of the BTC-IOUs than the USD-IOUs but eventually they stopped redeeming both. Therefore I think it really important to make a very clear distinction between IOUs and the actual bitcoin in your own wallet. Thus my solution is bonded messaging alerting people to upgrade. ashgreen 1:58 PM @rilly Cosmos btc peg is more than just an IOU. It is technical guarantee that btc on Cosmos represents the ownership of btc on the main chain 1:59 but yes your concern is very important and that is why Cosmos also wants to build a hybrid style distributed exchange 1:59 so that MT.Gox won’t happen again rilly 2:17 PM @ashgreen If you tell us how it works will it undermine the sacred trust? Maybe we need to write "In God We Trust" on these tokens LOL AFAIK bitcoin scripts cannot hold bitcoin in contracts to be released when an IOU is redeemed on a "sidechain" so I believe this "technical guarantee" you speak of is not as strong as BTC Relay. Here you can find a list of less secure "technical guarantees" for redeeming IOU tokens on "sidechains" (edited) ashgreen 2:22 PM I think we are considering a bunch of ways and you can join the discussion on Reddit. Not a certain solution Cosmos team can tell at this moment. 2:22 How are they different? Pegging by sidechain and btc relay? don’t they both use multi sig? rilly 2:30 PM The problem is that you can't put a light client for a "sidechain" on Bitcoin. You can't make scripts/contracts on bitcoin that execute when your BTC IOUs are redeemed on the sidechain. But with BTC Relay you can have a decentralized exchange with half an order book. The ETH seller can put ETH on the order book, go offline, and people can buy the ETH with BTC, only trusting the contracts. You can't put BTC-IOU on the order book and go offline without trusting the signatories of a multisig. If you have a multisig that is as large as your validator set you have similar security. Thus I asked whether Cosmos Hub validators would all be a part of a BTC multisig wallet. I believe the answer is, "no". ebuchman i dont think btc relay provides a peg, its just a light client for bitcoin Posted in #cosmosApril 25th at 4:31 AM rilly 2:45 PM @ashgreen "Pegging by sidechain and btc relay? don’t they both use multi sig?" BTC Relay might be used by someone claiming to peg an IOU to actual BTC but the closest thing to a "technical guarantee" for a BTC IOU is a token backed by far more ETH/ATOM than the value of the BTC that is to be redeemed. That is probably more expensive that it is worth and it only guarantees the IOU until the price of ETH vs BTC hits a certain value. You cannot guarantee that (during a TheDAO hack, for example) the ETH can be automatically traded for BTC on a decentralized exchange, to force redemption of the IOU before the orders can be taken off the exchange. (edited) krzysiekj 2:58 PM left #cosmos ashgreen 3:26 PM @rilly 1) you only need to go through the signatories when you pull out btc onto the mainnet, the transfer between blockchains, not when you trade and the signatories are supposed to run the nodes 24hours. If the ecosystem including the PG companies move over to Cosmos, the IOU wouldn’t be IOU anymore, which I don’t think is IOU in the first place. It will have its own value. 2) maybe you are mentioning about Atomic swap but Cosmos Dex is hybrid. The trade can get settlement finality in realtime using the hybrid feature (see the github note for the detail). (edited) rilly 4:12 PM @ashgreen PG = peg? Mainnet = Bitcoin blockchain? "If the ecosystem including the PG companies move over to Cosmos" Are you assuming major exchanges will choose to run on Cosmos zones (like Open Transactions was/is hoping for with voting pools) (if you offer them enough ATOM)? How many are interested thus far? "the IOU wouldn’t be IOU anymore, which I don’t think is IOU in the first place. It will have its own value" Yes these "non-mainnet bitcoins" could have a radically different price from actual bitcoins so I suggest we not call them "bitcoins" nor create any illusions or exaggerations of a "technical guarantee" to maintain a peg without a way to enforce this via blockchain contract. Of the two blockchain pegging mechanisms I am aware they both have been broken already and this is with a stable asset unlike BTC. BitUSD on Bitshares and NuBits which I think is on the Peercoin blochain. rilly 4:21 PM "2) maybe you are mentioning about Atomic swap but Cosmos Dex is hybrid. The trade can get settlement finality in realtime using the hybrid feature (see the github note for the detail)." I barely understand atomic swaps or state channels. I'm reading up on that. subtillion 4:43 PM joined #cosmos. Also, @akibabu left. ashgreen 6:48 PM @rilly PG = Payment Gateways such as Bitpay or Circle, the major Bitcoin users or service makers. Mainnet = Yes, Bitcooin main blockchain. 1) If there are enough and clear incentives for the service providers, it is possible that they immigrate to Cosmos. I think faster transaction speed, smart contract availability for BTC using smart contract zone, way cheaper transaction fee, and unlimited scalability should be the incentives strong enough to convince them to join. They are not individuals. They are business operators. If something proves to maximize the profit and streamline the processes, they will take a proper managerial decisions. 2) Yes. You can say that btc on mainnet and Cosmos Hub are different. If a right tech and safe pegging architecture is implemented, the difference between those two should be only a “location” where btc is getting confirmed. In that case, it is not IOU, it is btc itself. If it is not the case, yes it is something different and will have different names with a proper explanation about risks and how it works which I don’t deem as a good thing to use. If btc on Cosmos Hub is just an IOU, I personally don’t put much value on even creating it. 3) Pegging solutions that use a reserve fund such as BitUSD(bitshares), Steem dollar(Steem), Tether(with HongKong bank reserve), Labor Hour(Chronobank), and other stable currencies, these are NOT IOU nor the pegging subject itself. They merely back a certain token’s value pegged to a subject with a reserve fund. This value pegging system using reserve funds can always break down when facing high degree of fluctuations and steady price trend that goes only one way(mostly trend going downwards). 4) Unlike the value pegging system with reserve funds, Cosmos Hub pegs the token itself on the main blockchain physically and technically. If the peg is not guaranteed technically in a safe way and the way people agree to come onboard, I don’t see any improvements Cosmos brings to this decentralized world, at least in that sector. However, if it does, I think it will be strong enough to reconstruct the whole industry. (edited)
rilly 10:56 PM @ashgreen @faddat @eudu @asmodat "4) Unlike the value pegging system with reserve funds, Cosmos Hub pegs the token itself on the main blockchain physically and technically." That appears to be nonsense. On Ethereum you can write a contract that is a Cosmos client just like BTC Relay is a Bitcoin client. The Cosmos client contract can trigger an IOU contract release actual ETH when the ETH IOUs are sent to the corresponding contract on the Cosmos exchange. Bitcoin scripts can't run a Cosmos client, so you have to hold Bitcoin in multisig wallets. Am I wrong so far? Who are the signatories? I don't fully understand atomic swaps or state/payment channels but I don't think that matters because I think these still require someone to hold bitcoins if they are to be backing for a token on another blockchain. Atomic swaps require both parties to be online at the time of the swap and state/payment channels mitigate this somehow with a third party. I thought I saw a video of Buterin arguing that state channels were insecure from network failure, but maybe I have it confused. (edited) ashgreen 11:05 PM @rilly you are right. Bitcoin has to have signatories since it doesn't support smart contracts. Think in this way. Smart contracts on Ethereum rely on Ethereum miners, the signatories. So basically every blockchain model has to put a trust in the native validator set. Of course they will act exactly on the protocols written in advance but they still can influence the system. Having signatory doesn't mean it is any bad but rather means the operation of signatories has to be put in an agreed and safe way. Cosmos is working on how to empower the signatories in a way that secures trust and safe. I believe that Jae will write something about it and then we can discuss further about the methodologies. rilly 11:33 PM "Having signatory doesn't mean it is any bad but rather means the operation of signatories has to be put in an agreed and safe way." It is not bad unless you are pretending it is more secure and trustless than it is. 11:33 If the DEX is deployed according to the projected timeline, Tendermint will only have been tested for 4 months on a public blockchain, and DEX will be completely untested in this reality. So you have all the possible vulnerabilities of Bitcoin plus the unknown vulnerabilities of Cosmos. You decided to put a cap on the fundraiser presumably because you didn't want to take on too much responsibility but here you are hyping this thing like it can't fail. Bitcoins are more secure than a peg/IOU token but these tokens can be put on order books and traded faster and cheaper. It can distribute trust for making instant exchanges in comparison with Shapeshift or Changelly (at the cost of privacy?). (edited) 11:33 "Cosmos is working on how to empower the signatories in a way that secures trust and safe. I believe that Jae will write something about it and then we can discuss further about the methodologies." Maybe you haven't decided who the signatories would be. If it is just exchanges that may be less secure than if it is all the Hub validators. But either way exchanges may not trust anyone else to hold their bitcoins. It doesn't necessarily give you better security if your security is better than the others in the multisig. Having many independent exchanges means that many can get hacked without jeopardizing the most secure ones. The more Bitcoins you put in a single multisig the higher the bounty for hacking it. Some of what I was reading sounded like anyone could make a peg zone so couldn't they have one signatory or pick whoever they want? (edited) ashgreen 11:43 PM @rilly nobody is pretending anything. It is just an obvious and simple thing that we need to make it secure and trustless to the level that we can actually commercialize and open up to public with all risks clarified. (edited) balibalo 11:46 PM joined #cosmos rilly 11:51 PM "In that case, it is not IOU, it is btc itself." They should be called pegs, IOUs, or something other than bitcoins. (edited) ashgreen 11:52 PM @rilly right 11:54 pegs sound good rilly 3:36 AM Someone should make a proposal to the on-chain gov to use the validator's atom bonds to back the multisig wallets.
submitted by ioniza to cryptonomics [link] [comments]

Which coins compete against each other? Is it ultimately a battle that will result in 1, 2 or 3 coins?

So, the way I look at it, there is not room for 20, 30, or 40 cryptocurrencies. It doesn't make sense that people would have that many wallets any more than it would make sense to have that many fiat currencies in your wallet. You'd have to go to a currency exchange every time unless you knew a specific place that accepted your preferred currency, whether it's /dogecoin or /worldcoin or /BBQcoin (i picked these at random from the sidebar, btw).
There seem to be several different groups that exist (while some of these are overlapping): improvements on bitcoin, improvements on litecoin, clones of either one, proof of stake vs proof of work, pre-mined, easily mined, etc. (by the way, it would be great if there were a chart denoting the differences). Some of these have real benefits, some are quirky, some have been successful, some haven't. There are debates going on and people involved with each one anxiously promote it in its respective subreddit, suggesting ideas to help with its public relations and adoption.
So, while it's great to have these coins with innovative features, each one arguably valuable in its own right for those features, some of them have to come out on top, right? It seems that lately, there is this idea that every coin should be nice to one another, but it's really passive aggressive. Some people hate on /dogecoin in their own subs, labeling it just a /litcoin with more coins available while /bitcoin is describe as elitist and not respecting /altcoins. Maybe all of this is justified if only a couple coins can remain.
And which will those be? It /bitcoin just serving as the stepping stone for everything else, OR will it be the imperfect coin that lasts because it was there first (IMO - it would severely hurt other cryptos, especially those not tradeable for fiat currency if it died, so I think we are stuck with it)? Likewise with /litecoin and /dogecoin. Will these 3 rule because they became media favorites so quickly? Or will a coin with something different like /peercoin win out with its proof of stake? Or a coin designed with a specific activity in mind, like /Devcoin the ethical cryptocurrency?
As my opinion here implies, I think it is a competition. I think /bitcoin needs to be around and rejecting it is a mistake for the community. I think /litecoin passed the tipping point in terms of price and /dogecoin hit the tipping point in terms of wide adoption. While I don't have any in-depth quantitative analysis, I think that will keep those 3 alive for the time being. I think there is only room for many 1 or possibly 2 other coins to make a name for themselves. Most other coins will fail. Pump and dump obviously hurts the community. /coinye was particularly bad and attempts to make joke coins like that make me sad because I read so many promotional posts. I feel bad saying it, but /franko and /worldcoin seem too similar while /primecoin and/megacoin and /feathercoin are just names people read in the sidebar and won't ever deal with, despite the enthusiasm of the people who do trade/mine it.
That brings me to my final point, people who mine each of these coins have a huge stake in advocating for their specific coin. I'm glad people saw potential and uniqueness, but most of you will lose out and your mining rigs are giving you coins that won't be worth anything soon.
Thanks for reading! I hope to hear real opinions!
submitted by State_of_Iowa to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[140731] ~$1!!! What the h3ll is happening?

What the h3ll is happening?
Kind of what I suspected would be happening:
What about peercoins vs other coins?
Peercoins come in at fifth place on coinmarketcap. It's a well known fact that both Ripple and NXT have huge "bag holders", which means that a few people are withholding a whole lot of supply from circulating which skews the metrics somewhat. Looking at the exchange rate of PPCUSD, one would have guessed that peercoins were going down the drain, but compared to other crypto currencies actually that much haven't changed.
Peercoins vs bitcoins?
It's fairly obvious that people prefer to hold bitcoins over all other crypto currencies. This is also true for PPCBTC, which have been trending down since December. Before then peercoins was gaining on bitcoins. This uptick in PPCBTC coincided with bitcoins first exploding on the upside and then crashing. Why? I think it works like this. 1) People buy BTCUSD and make an insane amount of money. 2) Eager to repeat the "smart investment" they sell some of their BTC to buy the next big AltCoin. Checking sites such as coinmarketcap gives a hint of which the next big coin is going to be. 3) They buy XXXcoin. 4) Price of XXXCoin goes up which creates a gold rush, euphoria and pump-n-dumpers of course latch on to this to make a quick buck.
What happens next?
I think its very likely that people will sell whatever they have to buy bitcoins, when price starts to break out on the upside. Then I suspect to see the same thing happens as happened last time; people making truckloads of money will diversify into other crypto currencies. Peercoin being the first PoS coin, high ranked in coinmarketcap and a lot of happening (peer4commit, Peershares, NuBits, etc) I think will get its fair share of the next gold rush. I suspect it will go up because of speculative money rushing into the currency.
Future of Peercoin
Peercoin was created to improve on some of the properties of Bitcoin. While these improvements are great for the long term value of peercoins, I suspect it will only be used as one of the arguments for the next goldrush into peercoins and not the actual reason. I should probably elaborate more on this, but I'll save that for another post. The point here was only to share my view that the fundamentals have probably little to do with the price of peercoins right now. I think it's only price speculation that is driving price up and down.
submitted by peerpillow to PeercoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Brief comparison of Peercoin and Bitcoin Bitcoin vs. Peercoin [Extended Edition] Peercoin vs Bitcoin - A comparison Peercoin vs Bitcoin Peercoin vs Bitcoin

Crypto Credits Buy, Sell, Trade & Exchange on the Blockchain. March 2020. Peercoin vs Litecoin peercoin. comments; other discussions (2) Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. English; limit my search to r/peercoin. use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit find submissions in "subreddit" author:username find submissions by "username" find submissions from "" url:text search for "text" in url selftext:text search ... is not responsible for any losses that may happen by trading on these trading platforms. Trading carries considerable risk of capital loss. Dont invest more money than you can afford to lose! Buy & Sell Hash Power and Exchange Cryptocurrency. Join Nicehash. Peercoin (PPC) vs Vertcoin (VTC) Vergleich Vergleichen Sie Unternehmen. Tokenomy Buda OKCoin C-CEX GDAC VS. Korbit LocalTrade Paribu Cat.Ex Fedlio Vergleichen Sie Unternehmen Löschen. Unternehmen: Peercoin (PPC) Peercoin (PPC), eine der frühesten digitalen Münzen, wurde 2012 veröffentlicht. Es war die erste, die das „Proof ... Peercoin vs Bitcoin — what are the differences? Peercoin’s mission is to improve the proof-of-work protocol system first established by Bitcoin. This protocol requires miners to validate transactions on a blockchain by solving complex math problems, with the winner getting a reward in the form of a few Bitcoins that were created. All that math solving requires loads of hardware power and ...

[index] [39100] [40324] [21156] [46679] [89] [3153] [22202] [36223] [879] [42540]

Brief comparison of Peercoin and Bitcoin

A comparison of peercoin and bitcoin. This video highlights the positives and negatives of each coin. Donations welcome! Bitcoin:16nw52qCMdL1PrnQVZn6iKT5SoZG... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Peercoin vs Bitcoin - A comparison - Duration: 1 ... Peercoin Technical Analysis and why you should buy! - Duration: 9:29. Aaron Ag 47,048 views. 9:29. How to Use a Cryptocurrency Exchange ... Why Peercoin is better than Bitcoin. For the Love of Physics - Walter Lewin - May 16, 2011 - Duration: 1:01:26. Lectures by Walter Lewin. ⚫️Robert Kiyosaki Live: Future of Crypto, Bitcoin BTC Halving 2020 Robert Kiyosaki 10,622 watching Live now Cryptocurrency - Exchange Trading v.s. OTC Trading - Duration: 10:46.