Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peercoin (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep albeit possibly weakly. JPxG raises some concerns about one of the sources, but on the whole, Cunard's have not been refuted. Star  Mississippi  14:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Peercoin
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Minor cryptocurrency with little to no reliable sourcing. Any sources found are the usual cryptonews of questionable reliability and connection. Fails WP:GNG Slywriter (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will add that previous nomination was keep but seems to be based on different standards of reviewing cryptocurrencies. Notably, passing mentions were accepted. While notability is not temporary, believe the previous AfD does not show a level of notability that meets current standards. Slywriter (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am not a Wikipedia editor, but a student researching blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. This page was useful in my research as it describes the first cryptocurrency to implement the proof-of-stake system and I think deleting it would do a disservice to others interested in this topic. I also don't understand why you say that the sources are "cryptonews" sites as the sources cited are the New York Times, Ars Technica and The Review of Financial Studies. While the page itself is very short and doesn't contain a lot of information, the external link to the official website was very useful to me. 70.80.218.49 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  According to the conference's website, papers published by the conference are peer-reviewed. The abstract notes: "PeerCoin was the first blockchain system that incorporated PoS in block creation. Unfortunately, there is no known documentation on how PoS works in PeerCoin. In this paper, we fill this gap by presenting a detailed explanation of the PeerCoin PoS algorithm based on PeerCoin source code. We also dispel the misconception that PeerCoin PoS is based on Proof of Work (PoW) and hence would consume a lot of energy just like proof of work (PoW). In fact, it resembles PoW only on surface and differs from PoW substantially in terms of how to meet the difficulty target." Peercoin is discussed in further detail on pages 360–368 of this book written by one of the coauthors:  The book notes: "Peercoin (PPC) is a cryptocurrency that uses a different mining system than does Bitcoin. Instead of Bitcoin's proof-of-work approach, Peercoin uses a system called proof-of-stake. The primary benefit of this approach is that it's designed to create more new coins automatically, based on the number of coins that a user already owns. The proof-of-stake system also addresses a potential vulnerability in Bitcoin's proof-of-work system ... Peercoin isn't nearly as popular as Bitcoin or Litecoin. Fewer exchanges deal in Peercoin, and it's unlikely you'll find any retailer accepting Litecoin payments. As of August 2013, Peercoin is trading at $1.14/PPC with 21.6 million coins in circulation. That results in a market cap of close to $25 million."  The book notes: "Peercoin calls itself "the pioneer of proof of stake" and is based on a paper that was released on August 2012 by Scot Nadal and Sunny King (who is also the creator of Primecoin). As you might have guessed, it is a proof of stake-based network that generates new coins based on the holdings of individuals. ... Peercoin also sees cryptocurrency more as a store of value, as your changes of reward increase over the time you are actually holding the coins in your wallet. The main goal when this network was created, was to reduce the high-energy consuming proof of work algorithm that is in use by the Bitcoin network, but also wanted to provide increased security and energy efficiency. There is also no limit on the number of peercoins that can be generated, as the proof of stake algorithm ensures a 1% yearly inflation of the minted coins."  The book notes: "Scott Nadal and Sunny King created Peercoin (PPC) in 2012. The principal innovation that Peercoin offers is the use of a hybrid consensus mechanism using a proof-of-stake (PoS) and proof-of-work (PoW) system. In this coin, a portion of the new blocks are mined by holders of tokens in proportion to how many coins they control. Because PoS does not involve solving a partial hash inversion problem, it requires minimum electricity consumption; hence Peercoin is often regarded as the green alternative to Bitcoin. In Peercoin there exist two types of blocks generated using PoS and PoW techniques respectively. ... As of December 2018, Peercoin's market capitalisation is just over 0.02% of Bitcoin."</li> <li> The book notes: "In 2012 Peercoin became the first blockchain to use Proof of Stake as a consensus mechanism. In Peercoin's model, owners of Peercoin's token (PPCoin or PPC) pursue a 'minting' process to confirm transactions to be added to the Peercoin blockchain. ... Minting works largely like the Bitcoin mining process, with the following important differences: ..."</li> <li> The article notes: "A secure and sustainable crypto coin which has been in existence among digital currencies since 2012, thus it is one of the oldest ones. Its rate of inflation by annum is below 5%. It is the first proof-of-stake coin (it uses a proof-of-work and proof-of-stake hybrid system), and there is no need for a intensive calculating power to operate the system. An innovation of the system is time stamping, a very important operation in the financial sector. The coins are equipped with a time stamp, therefore they are aging. There is a performance reward issued after the currency if it is retained for 30 days, at a level of 1% per annum. The coins do not „age” any further. Based on the age of the coins, the user may generate a new block for him/herself, increasing the quantity of coins. ... In the case of Peercoin, 51% of issued currency (coins) is required to intervene, but in this case the intervention/attack becomes counterproductive, as the user would be weakening the value of his/her own money. This is how it becomes apparent that Peercoin is attempting to remedy the „growing pains” of BTC."</li> <li> Peercoin is also known as PPCoin. The article notes: "Peer-to-Peer Coin, or PPCoin for short, presents itself as an improvement upon Bitcoin by changing one of the latter's fundamental ideas: proof-of-work. ... Beyond improving security—it's a lot harder to steal PPCoin than Bitcoin this way—it reduces the chance of a 51 percent attack by making the counterfeiting of coins extremely difficult. You have to gain 51 percent of all proofs-of-stake instead of mining power. ... Currently, PPCoin has a centralized checking system in place to verify transactions, so it doesn't qualify as decentralized in the same way that Bitcoin does."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Peercoin to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC) </li></ul>

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Cunard. Here's a Google Scholar search with a list of academic articles that discuss PeerCoin (assuming its the same currency discussed as the one in the article). Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment: This paper from the article, which I managed to get a copy of, did not mention "peercoin" anywhere (it's just an introduction of proof-of-stake). The sources in the article also mention it in conjunction with other similar coins. However, per Cunard's sources above, it does seem like there is a fairly decent amount of literature; I still have some reservations, since it seems that most of the mentions in available literature are talking about it as part of a longer list of coins, rather than WP:SIGCOV. There's also the issue that the currently existing article is extremely bad, and would be much better off as a subsection of something else. That said, "the article is crap" is not a good AfD rationale, so I won't move to delete based on that alone. I will have to see how this whole discussion shakes out (and if the article improves) before I commit to a position. jp×g 23:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.