I really like the idea of Peercoin and I think it's going somewhere, I want to contribute to the economy of PPC however I can't seem to mine anything (very little). I spoke to a. SHA256 has lower start up costs and running costs as the technology has just advanced faster on the SHA256 coins compared to the scrypt coins. While some people may use a standard PC case, many use unusual casings, such as beer crates, which allow for increased air flow around the components. You can input parameters such as equipment cost, hash rate, power consumption, and the current bitcoin price, to see how long it will take to pay back your. Peercoin (PPC) - Mining calculator. Hoping that they can generate a profit when the cost of producing the digital currency is less than the amount spent on power.

Hi guys, first of all congratulations to all the community for the notable steps forward being made in all fields. I am asking to myself how much sustainabile could be bitcoin when at today we have: 'Electricity Consumption * 51,508.07 megawatt hours Electricity Cost $7,726,210.02 All statistics are for the previous 24 hour period unless otherwise stated • Electricity consumption is estimated based on power consumption of 650 Watts per gigahash and electricity price of 15 cent per kilowatt hour. In reality some miners will be more or less efficient. ' And a btc market capitalization of about 4 millions $. Do I understad well or this means that in theory, mantaining the same level of today, we are consuming every year around th 1/2 of the total capitalization of the btc market in enery costs to mantain the blockchain? This could be sustainable only with a costant exponencial rate price growth. If this is true, when do you think Peercoin wil be at the point that POW and POS electricity consume will really be an 'adoption plus' compared to btc, with the same level of security?

I mean, maybe we could say it already now or we need some more criteria to correctly affirm this? If I understood well we could already say that, in theory we could consider PPC more secure of btc even now thanks to checkpoint (that is supposed to be superated in the future) and, thanks to the mix of POW and POS, in the future this should be true even with a lower hashrate than btc.

I could imagine that at this ipothetical breakeven point there will be less increasing hashrate in BTC (just Moore's law) and a massive adoption of a 'POS based' coin. Just wanted to share these thoughts with you all and maybe disclose some more points of view about this. Einsteinium EMC2 Miner Robot Review. Saludos a todos!

I think a simple way to compare would be how many bitcoins worth of currency is secured by 1 GH. For bitcoin thats easy you take the current supply and you divide it by how many GH the network is doing Market Value: Bitcoin 11,963,300 BTC Peercoin 335,288 BTC (coinmarketcap) Hash Rate: Bitcoin: 4.15Q () PPcoin: 9.13T Value secured by a Giga Hash Bitcoin: 11,963,300 / 4150000 = 2.7 bitcoins secured per GH Peercoin: 335,288 / 9130 = 985 bitcoins worth of Peercoins secured per GH Assuming that it costs the same per GH for both you can say Peercoin is already an order of magnitude more energy efficient. But you still need to weight this by how secure PoS is compared to PoW.

You could make a reasonable assumption about how much Peercoin's price would go down if it failed and claim that a PoS attacker would lose that percentage of the value of their stake if they used their stake to attack. I believe this makes Peercoin more secure but I don't have the data or a simple model to back that up. Redlee: Since BTC asic miners are workable on PPC and BTC, PPC is vulnerable to 51% attack with around 2% of total hashrate(9T/(9T+4150T).

Is that true though if the attacker doesn't have any stake to create PoS blocks? Wouldn't they stilll have to allow PoS blocks through in order to be the longest chain? Wouldn't it cost an order of magnitude more for them to attack than for us to defend considering the much lower difficulty of PoS vs PoW. If the attacker had a lot of stake then wouldn't they be attacking their selves? Redlee: Since BTC asic miners are workable on PPC and BTC, PPC is vulnerable to 51% attack with around 2% of total hashrate(9T/(9T+4150T).

Is that true though if the attacker doesn't have any stake to create PoS blocks? Wouldn't they stilll have to allow PoS blocks through in order to be the longest chain? Wouldn't it cost an order of magnitude more for them to attack than for us to defend considering the much lower difficulty of PoS vs PoW. If the attacker had a lot of stake then wouldn't they be attacking their selves? The rate of POS blocks is 3 times more than POW. But the nuclear deterrence PPC (and XPM) has is the check point.

If there is a successful attack, the community will choose to roll back the bad transactions. Redlee: Since BTC asic miners are workable on PPC and BTC, PPC is vulnerable to 51% attack with around 2% of total hashrate(9T/(9T+4150T). Is that true though if the attacker doesn't have any stake to create PoS blocks? Wouldn't they stilll have to allow PoS blocks through in order to be the longest chain?

Wouldn't it cost an order of magnitude more for them to attack than for us to defend considering the much lower difficulty of PoS vs PoW. If the attacker had a lot of stake then wouldn't they be attacking their selves? You need coins as well as hash-rate. PPCoin is not as susceptible to this attack. Gaining over 51% of the hashrate has happened in the past and is no problem. Peercoin can not really be affected by this because of its POS. In order to make this happen we would need to ensure that we control PoW & PoS.

On the PoW side we need to control 51% of the hashing rate (easy to do now) but on the PoS side we would have to ensure that we can continue to submit stakes that have coin age higher that anyone else on the network. In PPCoin, the block chain with the greatest total coin-age is chosen by the network, preventing the possibility of a 51% attack. That is the whole point and is also what makes it energy efficient.

Cost to secure the network is minimal. Proof-of-work is basically only good for bringing in new coins into the system initially. And like Sunny has said, 'Controlling 51% of hashing power in ppcoin network does not get you direct control of block chain, as I explain in the recent weekly update. You need to control proof-of-stake in order to control block chain. Of course if you have that kind of hashing power you probably can accumulate quite a sum of coins but it still require some patience.

Currently block chain is further protected via checkpointing on top of proof-of-stake.' 'As to the mining market of PPC, D7 now controls the majority of the network hash rate.

However unlike pure proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, security is not threatened with 51% attack when a single pool controls a majority of mining power in the PPC network. Also, when the pool runs into technical issues, the network still mainly relies on proof-of-stake blocks so the impact to transaction processing is minimized.'

JonnyLatte: Value secured by a Giga Hash Bitcoin: 11,963,300 / 4150000 = 2.7 bitcoins secured per GH Peercoin: 335,288 / 9130 = 985 bitcoins worth of Peercoins secured per GH Assuming that it costs the same per GH for both you can say Peercoin is already an order of magnitude more energy efficient. Nice work, but I believe your math is off. As of November 12, 2013 Market Cap: (Bitinfocharts) Bitcoin 11,984,125 BTC Peercoin 37,439 BTC Hash Rate: Bitcoin 5.1Q Peercoin 12.25T Value secured by a Giga Hash Bitcoin: 11,984,125 / 5,100,000 = 2.35 bitcoins secured per GH Peercoin: 37,439 / 12,250 = 3.06 bitcoins worth of Peercoins secured per GH Calculation: (3.06 - 2.35) / 2.35 =.302 (or 30.2%) Conclusion: Peercoin is currently 30.2% more energy efficient than Bitcoin.

LINKS: - - - - - Welcome to! Pure security using only for fair distribution of wealth. Once the world realizes what Peercoin has to offer, it will have the exact same maniac buying that Bitcoin has now, probably more.

Whatever you are holding now, I think you can consider 1 PPC equal to or greater than 1 BTC in the next year or two. By spring of 2014, Peercoin will be well above $50/coin without needing to pump it in my opinion.

Sunny King did the right thing. He designed the network to be solid first and foremost, and then decided to work on newer, prettier versions of the wallet client second.

Unfortunately I've seen other 'lesser coins' be nothing but pump and dump schemes. Peercoin was designed, purposely, for the long term. Certainly, it's possible to see that PPC could be, ultimately, worth more than BTC, even if there are more (full) PPC in existence.

While this seems counter-intuitive, if all things are considered equal, you only have to look so far as how fungible the currency is. For BTC, with the ability to move to the 8th decimal point, you have a nearly limitless number of units in circulation. With PPC, the static transaction fee is a significant hedge against anyone using the currency to conduct business past 2 decimal places. Now, for things like Proof-of-Stake rewards, being divisible down to the 8th decimal point is very important. You don't want to lose any of those micro payments, because over time they will accumulate to be full PPC, but for all intents and purposes, Peercoin's 2,000,000,000 ('uncapped') potential units in circulation is vastly smaller than BTC's 21,000,000 units, when you consider that BTC is really going to be separated into 2,099,999,999,999,999 satoshi.

That's a HUGE number, and one that most people either don't realize exists, or gloss over because it doesn't fit the narrative. With PPC, there's realistically going to be ~30,000,000 units in circulation, and if you take it down to the 'one cent', it's 3,000,000,000 units -- which, if my math is correct tonight, will only amount to 0.1% of the total BTC supply. Peercoin purposely set its transaction fee at a fixed 0.01. When I first heard that, I thought, OMG why did Sunny King do that? That's the genius of it all, it was done on purpose, keep reading. Which means that the transaction fee can be expensive once PPC is more than $1/coin, because no longer is it 0.01 PPC = 0.01 USD a transaction fee, right?

Right now 1 PPC is $7.00/coin. To transfer 1 PPC, it will cost you 0.07 USD = 0.01 PPC So consider the fact that as of today (Nov 30, 2013) to transfer $7.00 USD (1 PPC) around the world, will cost you 7 cents (0.01) PPC - that is a fair price for such a transfer. Now let's look toward the future of Peercoin / PPC: BUT! THE TRANSACTION FEE STILL STAYS AT 0.01 PPC. While I agree that Peercoin is a significant improvement on Bitcoin, many of your arguments are quite frankly just silly. Comparing the 'number of coins' to how many of the smallest units are available serves little purpose when comparing values.

Imagine for a moment that the smallest unit of measure was changed from a 1 cent coin to a 5 cent coin. Would that make the currency worth 1/5 as much?

Of course not. It may make it less useful for micro transactions, but has little to do with the value. Additionally, the higher transaction fee does not make sense to me. If you think PPC as a gold equivalent, you are limiting the potential value, as gold makes up a tiny fraction of the world's money supply. How much gold do you own vs. How much money you have? For most people it won't even make up 0.1% (excluding jewellery).

If you want PPC to have maximum value, it needs to be something that makes sense to transact with, not just something to hold. Imagine a PPC value of $100,000. That would translate to a minimum transaction fee of $1,000, which then makes it worse than current banking systems in terms of the fee structure. While I love many of the concepts in PPC, there are some fundamental economic value issues that a lot of the community seems ignorant of, and that is a concern to me. PPC is designed to be a stable 'backbone currency' and intended to be used as a secure, long term storage of wealth similar to gold or a 1 year maturity treasury bond. In your example, your $1000 would receive 1% interest (inflation) via POS mining in 1 year giving you $1010. If you spent the money then the fixed 0.01PPC transaction fee would be a $10 reduction in your money leaving you with the original $1000.

That's how the fees are destroyed. Conversely, if you kept your $1000 in BTC then you'd incur a reduction in purchasing power by the amount of the miner's fee. But that's actually not a great example because it uses dollars rather than PPC.

A real example would be: Say you have 1PPC and hold it for 5 years then it'd be worth 1.05101005 PPC. If you made a transaction, it would cost 0.01PPC leaving you with 1.04101005 PPC.

That's a far better option than holding 1BTC for five years and then incurring a transaction fee with no interest. So PPC has a different purpose than BTC/LTC/etc. It's intended for savings rather than microtransactions; however, microtransactions could still be done effectively using third-party financial services or other currencies such as BTC/LTC/XPM. If you want PPC to have maximum value, it needs to be something that makes sense to transact with, not just something to hold. Imagine a PPC value of $100,000.

That would translate to a minimum transaction fee of $1,000, which then makes it worse than current banking systems in terms of the fee structure. Aren't you overlooking the fact that PPC has a 1% inflation? That means that if you hold the $100,000 for the maximum maturity in coin days (90 days I believe) then it would accumulate a $1000 in interest giving you a total of $101000.

When you make a transaction of.01 PPC, it sounds high because it's $1000; however, there's no change in the money supply or your purchasing power. You're still left with $100,000. So the fixed.01PPC transaction fee works with the 1% inflation to destroy the transaction fee. PPC is designed to be a 'backbone currency' for secure, long term savings akin to gold or a 1 year maturity bond rather than being used for microtransactions.But only if you're making a single transaction per year. And really, it's much more like the fee is destroying the inflation, not the other way around. Thats not entirely accurate. For example, if you have 1PPC and hold it for 5 years then it'd be worth 1.05101005 PPC.

If you made a transaction, it would cost 0.01PPC leaving you with 1.04101005 PPC. The fee would only destroy the inflation if you only held it for a year or less which in that case. Which you'd probably either use a third party financial service (for near-zero fees) or a different currency such as BTC/LTC/XPM for short term or micro transactions. Yes, we need fees to make the transaction processing viable, but it should be a fee determined by the market (just like the price) and not by a single individual based on not much more than gut feel. The fee isn't determined by 'a single individual based on not much more than gut feel'. The fee structure is a part of the coins' philosophical design in order to achieve its goal of being a secure 'backbone currency'. It's intended to be used as a long term store of value like a treasury bond, savings account, or gold rather than being used in short term micro transactions.

Other coins like BTC/LTC/XPM/etc are better for that use. But if you need a savings account then PPC is fantastic. For example, if you have 1PPC and hold it for 5 years then it'd be worth 1.05101005 PPC. If you made a transaction, it would cost 0.01PPC leaving you with 1.04101005 PPC. This is a better option for long term savers than BTC because holding 1BTC over five years would generate no interest and then incur a fee which would further reduce your purchasing power. If you don't agree with that philosophy or don't feel you'd benefit from having a savings account in cryptocurrencies then don't buy PPC.

But I think such a thing is needed in cryptos and a great offering. The fee isn't determined by 'a single individual based on not much more than gut feel'. The fee structure is a part of the coins' philosophical design in order to achieve its goal of being a secure 'backbone currency'. There is no such thing as a 'backbone currency' that isn't also the major currency of trade. If you're thinking of gold as a backbone currency, you are about 80 years out of touch with reality.

A backbone currency sounds like a nice thing, but it's a fantasy. If you want Peercoin to reach its potential, it needs to be the major currency of transaction.

There is no such thing as a 'backbone currency' that isn't also the major currency of trade. If you're thinking of gold as a backbone currency, you are about 80 years out of touch with reality. A backbone currency sounds like a nice thing, but it's a fantasy.

This is all highly inaccurate. The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) so it's actively used in trade today. In addition, IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) are also used for reserves like backbone currency for settlements but it's not a major currency of trade like found on the FOREX.

And bonds like treasuries are use all the time in trade and considered a safe monetary asset. Which PPC most closely resembles. People don't use bonds or savings accounts in day-to-day transactions but are essential for our financial system and account for the majority of the money supply. PPC is looking to achieve a similar role. They are diversified investments, and they make up a tiny fraction of the market capitalisation. How are SDRs a diversified investment? And what market cap are you even talking about?

Just the US dollars being held to trade with on the derivatives markets exceeds the total value of all gold ever mined, and that money is still a small fraction of the money supply. Why are you even discussing the derivative market?

You do realize that the derivative market is currently ~$716 Trillion which is ~6,409% more than the the M2 and ~2,1596% more than the monetary base, right? So there's also more money in derivatives than exists in the M1, M2, and M3 combined by a multiple of many thousands. Again, not sure what your point is. Why would you aim to be something with a lower value when you have the capability of being something with a high value? The bond market is worth several trillions of dollars so I don't know what you're talking about. And if you're criticizing PPC on the idea that it would only take on the role gold currently has then I suspect you're equally as critical of Bitcoin, especially since it's been touted as 'gold 2.0'.