Thnx, it makes some sense. Don't really see why they don't split the wallets back up. They now run a hybrid system for coin2. Seems like somewhat of a pain..
In anyway, in that case the top 100 ritchest list doesn't say very much... have of people on it hold less than 300K where the to 2 hold 35 million of an unspecified number of people.
Anyone who wants to hide having a massive amount of coins can easily do so.. Or is that not the purpose of the list?

mintpal has all their users coins in ONE wallet. its not mintpal dumping coins. Its stupid people..
When they switched think of it happening like this.

all old addresses were in seperate accounts right. when the attack hit their killed their daemon.
Their database holds the amount that each user on mintpal had in their holdings.

Mintpal got their lost amount sent back to them in their exchange wallet

All users then got their amounts back in c2.1(Only on the website) the coins never moved.(Make sense?)
So all of the users on mintpal(initially) still had their coins in the main wallet.

New users got new generated addresses so those dont apply. (If that makes sense)

You are right the same centralization risks apply to Bitcoin or any software project.  The key difference is the level of control and the value of seizing that control.  Developers could be forced to make malicious changes to the client but those changes, have the potential to be detected by other developers.  As much as possible client development is an open transparent process (deterministic build process and multiple developer signatures).  A single wary developer could alert the entire community.  Users can choose to delay upgrading their clients, and the network doesn't consist of a single version of a single client.  No major client support auto updating to make malicious code injection more difficult.  The window for detection is longer.  

If the Peercoin checkpoint keys were compromised an attack would occur instantly, without any window for detection.  You would have a transaction with a lot of confirmations and then the network would receive a checkpoint update and your node (along with every other node) would jump to another chain.  If you were double spent on that chain, your coins would simply disappear.  It doesn't matter if you are online or offline, how closely you monitor the code, or if you prudently wait to upgrade.  It would be very similar to a 51% attack except the attacker could perform this attack without a majority of the hashrate and/or stake.  The checkpoint authority (in the hands of a single person) has "veto" power over the network.   

You need to trust more than just that the developer won't be directly malicious.  For the record I don't think he will be, but he may not have a choice.  If a criminal organization (or three letter agency) held a gun to the head of the developer (or maybe to the head of a loved one would be more effective) do you still trust him to not checkpoint a chain containing double spends?  If someone tortured him how long could he hold out before he gave up control of the keys which sign the checkpoints?   If you think these types of scenarios are James Bondish now, well what about when the coin supply is valued in the billions of dollars? Tens of billions? Hundreds of billion?   The only confirmed transaction is one that is behind the last checkpoint.  Centralized security is easy.  It is decentralized security that is hard.  A decentralized network which relies on centralized security is an oxymoron.

While Bitcoin and Peercoin both use checkpoints they don't serve the same purpose.   Bitcoin doesn't use checkpoints to prevent reorgs and thus the security model doesn't depend on them.  I guess you didn't see the humor in the fact that the OP was so worried that a pool (consisting of thousands of miners) had 51% of the hashrate so the obvious solution was to jump to a coin where a single person has control over 100% of the checkpoints.

UPDATE: I AM GOING TO FINISH UP THE NEW CODE AND WE WILL THEN START EXCHANGING OLD COINS.  


INSTRUCTION.

IF YOUR COINS ARE ON AN EXCHANGE, LEAVE THEM THERE!  THE EXCHANGE WILL SWITCH THEM OVER.

IF YOUR COINS ARE IN YOUR WALLET, READ BELOW.

1. Send a screenshot of your wallet including date and time.  
2. Include a copy/paste of your old wallet address and copy/paste of new wallet address.  ( Obviously as soon as you have the new wallet.)


I will notify everyone when the new wallet is ready.  Thank you.

New coin supply will be 90 mil.  30 mil will be on 2 publicly view able addresses, and will never be spent.  They are the safety coins to prevent this from happening again. 

On BTER or Mintpal.  Bter has raised confirm times to over 100 confirms.  It will show up but I have asked them to freeze the market.  Dont worry.  They are there.

There is no relation because you don't have to mine to get your stake. You just have to sync your computer wallet.

Look I like C2.0 a lot and I am holding it (not selling)

but with multipool saying we mine FLT to get C2.0
it will create lots of hostility
will have lots of people against us
just look at the volume FLT coin has the last few days

so we have these choices (as I see it)
1) make it not-transparent (not showing what is being mined)
1a) so lets all chip in to make it multi coin profit switching pool
1b) use unclaimed C2.0 to help built the pool
2) lets all send message to hashcows to include C2.0 as payment option (already has lots of POS coins included)

here is the [Suspicious link removed] thread to let them know about C2.0 payment option
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=293872.0

Every little helps.

I am using my graphics card to get about 640khs.

Using a processor will be a lot slower but if you do not have a good graphics card then every little bit helps.

The more people on the pool the better it looks to those who might build one.

There were loads of people on here calling out for a multipool so now is the time for them to show they really want one.

You are not mining anything, you are getting interest on the total coins you hold

I received my first POS today, but the stake counter is displaying 0.00 C2.0.