Miners don't have a play in double-spending attack, unless they wait and become stake owner. Security comes from proof-of-stake, proof-of-work only provides minting. Please don't confuse ppcoin's design with other proof-of-stake proposals. Our design is the only one that gives full respect to the concept of proof-of-stake and is the only one that actually has an implementation rather than just talks.
So, basically, this entire ppcoin thing is a bit like Solidcoin sans massive egotism and with less retarded pignode implementation?
Why not discard the PoW component altogether, if it has no "say" in choosing which chain is "goodchain" ?
P.S.:
Disclosure - passerby is affectionately fond of hybrid PoW/PoS things, and hybrid things in general
From FAQ:
Quote
How is it energy-efficient when there is still mining?
The energy efficiency we refer to is long-term energy efficiency, as in long term we do not require the use of energy to sustain the network.
Currently proof-of-work remains the most practical way of providing initial minting of a crypto-currency. So we decided to keep it as part of our hybrid design.
The energy efficiency we refer to is long-term energy efficiency, as in long term we do not require the use of energy to sustain the network.
Currently proof-of-work remains the most practical way of providing initial minting of a crypto-currency. So we decided to keep it as part of our hybrid design.
Ripple founders chose to do just that, eliminating proof-of-work and using a centralized model of initial minting and distribution, which I found against the spirit of bitcoin. I am not against people making profit, but in a larger picture, cryptocurrency is way more important than the success of one company or a small group of people. Putting the distribution in a central administration makes the currency highly vulnerable to confiscation as there is no plausible deniability.