![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
Currently:
Examples of other articles:
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”.
— AnonymousWiking ( talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
The section "Steady inflation" contains the following parenthetical remark:
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)
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:
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)
Questionable: I considered these sources on Peercoin not reliable, but some would disagree:
Reliable:
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)
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'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)
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)
Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuCoin.
Book sources about
Peercoin
|
---|
|
Cunard ( talk) 06:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
Currently:
Examples of other articles:
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”.
— AnonymousWiking ( talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
The section "Steady inflation" contains the following parenthetical remark:
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)
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:
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)
Questionable: I considered these sources on Peercoin not reliable, but some would disagree:
Reliable:
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)
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'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)
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)
Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuCoin.
Book sources about
Peercoin
|
---|
|
Cunard ( talk) 06:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
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)