Since making that post I’ve learned that history and reputation of a network play a large part of the process and isn’t as easily replicated by just cloning Peercoin. PeerAssets will help tie our network to real world businesses over time. DACs on top of Peercoin, their dev teams and any financial resources they’ve built up through operation are also not easily replicated. All these things will help give the Peercoin network added scarcity in the future.
I also have to add that it looks like your prediction there was wrong. With all that money and marketing behind it, Neucoin failed so hard that it had to shut down…
I’ve been on the minting with a ban2 node for 12 hours now. Approximately 1 in 5 blocks are rejected. The blockexplorer is down due to other(?) issues so it is not clear what is going on to me, but my gut feel is that is not good.
Hope you can have a look at the network’s health. My current blockheight is 1308568 at Sun Mar 12 12:53:13 2017.
Neucoin died, but I belive some PoS coins(Dash?) have overtaken PPC’s market cap, I remember clearly PPC was 3rd large coins just behind BTC and LTC in 2013., but now PPC is so unpopular…only 22th large!
This fact tells us the PoS coin is relative easy to replace while BTC as PoW still the No 1, even etherium (PoW) can not replace it. Oh, if etherium switches to PoS, PPC will be overtaken by other PoS again.
I would appreciate having @sigmike take a closer look at network health, but it looks OK from what I can see. Apparently due to the problem with the block index that can occur on upgrade we have lower minting participation. It looks like about 45 blocks per hour are being produced. It would be better to have minting participation go back up, but it doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.
Nu/B&C would be dead if Jordan/Phoniex/Sigmike refuse to support it, isn’t it the truth? Centralization in this situation is not bad, at least better than death in the graceful/decentralized way.
@Sentinelrv, @Nagalim, would/could you write source codes for Nu/B&C? You advocated loudly for Nu in 2014, and I joined this project, but soon I found that Nu has revenue problem and will meet crisis sooner or later, so I cashed out and avoided the loss, while quite some forum members insisted in 2014-2015 that partial reserve is good, tier X is enough, bla bla. “let’s sell the NSR when pegging in danger”, but when NSR sale really happened, what’s your response? Market manager left, some of you became against Nu. However, you are deserved because when you accepted “partial reserve” and “NSR buyback”, it was determined. Although Jordan/phoenix also make mistakes, at least he is insisting, whatever the way he goes, decentralized or centralized.
Now some of you begin to advocate the new project, should I follow you just like I followed B&C? I doubt about it. Guess what’s the problem of many PPC(and its variant) community members? idealization
For me, the NU/B&C are companies, I don’t care Jordan/Phoenix is bad or good person, I don’t care whether he controls 80% shares or not. Don’t care the power consumption (PPC’s green concept), or the meaning of scientific computation(primecoin) , I care about how to survive, call me practical.
If you completely lose faith in Nu/B&C, please leave this forum, if you still have hope in it, please contribute.
You know why that is because I explained the entire situation here in your thread here…
Ethereum turned its blockchain into one giant database which has grown astronomically in size, which is bad design. I have a feeling they’re not going to survive.
I advocated for Nu because I thought Jordan knew what he was doing. Obviously he didn’t and no amount of him blaming Augeas is going to make me believe that was the main cause. It was the bad policies that you mentioned that shareholders voted for, introduced by him. I hope you don’t think he’s suddenly going to come to his senses and change policy. He’s been pushing for more NSR buybacks for months now. Nothing is going to change in the way he runs things and you will soon be complaining that that the revenue problem continues to persist under Phoenix’s rule.
[quote=“Sabreiib, post:33, topic:4936”]
I don’t care Jordan/Phoenix is bad or good person, I don’t care whether he controls 80% shares or not.[/quote]
You should care about this. A network controlled 80% by one person is not secure. I would not touch Nu at this point with a 100 foot pole even if it was making money. If security is controlled by one person, then the entire platform is at risk of being attacked, thus no one can be confident in its future. A blockchain needs to have a solid foundation in order to build on it. Without decentralized security, it’s just not worth taking the risk because everything you work for could blow up in your face if the owner of the network decides to take the money and run one day.
Peercoin established decentralized security as its foundation. It was sidetracked for a couple years because of Nu, but now it’s at a point where the companies you speak of can start being built on top of the network. That can happen because it has a solid foundation when it comes to security. People can trust that it will still be around in the next 5-10 years.
Nor do I. For me it’s less that Peercoin is a green technology and more that it’s cost efficient to run, which is why the network has been able to run securely and smoothly even at such low prices. Others have recognized this as well. Being able to declare Peercoin a green technology is only a side benefit. Cost efficient security is the main point.
It appears to get a bit better after another ~6 hours. Approximately 1 in 4 blocks are rejected now. Hope this trend continues for the good.[quote=“Phoenix, post:32, topic:4936, full:true”]
I would appreciate having @sigmike take a closer look at network health, but it looks OK from what I can see. Apparently due to the problem with the block index that can occur on upgrade we have lower minting participation. It looks like about 45 blocks per hour are being produced. It would be better to have minting participation go back up,
[/quote]
No, not significant maybe, but enough to put more people off. Something we don’t really need.
Hope Sigmike can still have a look. Also like to hear what minting/rejection ratios others see, hope I am not the only one besides Phoenix still minting because of the blkindex issue?
In this period, just like 2009 early for Bitcoin, centralized, Satoshi himself controlled 80% hash rate, it doesn’t mean Nu will be always centralized, just like bitcoin’s story.
@Sentinelrv and @Nagalim, we must admit that Jordan is right: we are not shareholders. It would be polite not to verbally attack his network too much and derail the thread, when others are trying to get things done. It’s nice that he lets us post here, when most of our content seems to be antagonistic of Nu.
P.S. Congrats on 33% gain in Peercoin price today!
I’m still waiting to hear about the attack vector that lead to the theft, but if history is an indication I’ll expect to still be waiting this time next week…and the week after that…and…
I have downloaded nu 4.0.0 and, instead of the usual Nu wallet, I get a wallet for US-NBT - I guess this is due to the plan to launch nubits in other currencies
The number of nubits is correct - however, more importantly, the option for shares is greyed out
I was expecting a wallet with both Nubits and Nushares
Please advise how I get the Nushares aspect back
Thanks, Matt
Edit: I have also noticed that the blockchain is still not downloading, it is stuck at 90 days
