Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeuCoin

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 redirect to Peercoin#NeuCoin. Consensus not to keep, merger already done. Sandstein 18:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeuCoin

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cryptocurrency. Take away the coin sites and the best sources are TechCrunch and VentureBeat articles published shortly after NeuCoin's initial funding. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peercoin#NeuCoin, which I have done, in lieu of deletion. NeuCoin was discussed in two paragraphs in a Columbia University Press-book, which contributes to notability. A merge to Peercoin, the cryptocurrency it was forked from, is an acceptable editorial decision. Here is the book source about NeuCoin:
- Orrell, David; Chlupatý, Roman (2016). The Evolution of Money. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 208–209. ISBN 978-0-231-17372-8. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
  The book notes:
  
  While Bitcoin is by far the leading cybercurrency, it may not represent the last word on cybercurrency design. Competitors include so-called proof-of-stake altcoins such as the Paris-based NeuCoin, launched in July 2015, which rewards minors based on holdings rather than proof-of-work. As NeuCoin's founders point out in a white paper, Bitcoin miners currently earn in aggregate about $1 million a day, which works out to about $10 per transaction. Users don't notice this, because transaction fees average only 5 cents. The remaining $9.95 comes from the new coins awarded to miners, and most of this is swapped out of Bitcoin to pay for expenses such as electricity. Mining rewards are set to decline as fewer net coins become available in the future, so total transaction fees will have to go up to compensate. The idea is that the sum value of transactions should increase enough to keep fees low.
  NeuCoin, which is focusing initially on microtransactions such as tipping for online services, gets around this potential problem in another way, by simplifying the mining process and rewarding miners with new coins based on the number they hold (effectively an interest payment). Miners are motivated to secure the system because they will be substantial holders of the currency. Some coins are also granted to new or existing users or companies that adopt the currency. The process is overseen by three nonprofit foundations located in the Isle of Man, which are ultimately controlled by NeuCoin users on the basis of one vote per coin. The idea is to distribute coins strategically to encourage widespread adoption—while the Greeks and Romans used the army, NeuCoin is going for gaming, music, and video sites, with ads such as "Go ad-free today for 10 NeuCoins. Click here to get 20 free." The money supply will therefore expand, rapidly at first and then more slowly, with a long-term target of 3 percent per year. Whether NeuCoin will succeed remains to be seen, but it and other competitors may well give the champ a run for its money.
Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are book sources about proposed merge target Peercoin that establish that Peercoin passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:

Book sources about Peercoin

DeMartino, Ian (2016). The Bitcoin Guidebook: How to Obtain, Invest, and Spend the World's First Decentralized Cryptocurrency. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-63450-524-6. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
The book notes:

Peercoin

Algorithm: N/A
Mining Type: Proof-of-Stake
Block Time: 10 minutes
Reward (current): 1% annual

Peercoin was the first legitimate proof-of-stake coin. There was an earlier coin that Peercoin was forked from but it contained a massive hidden pre-mine. Pre-mines are unacceptable in all cryptocurrencies but are especially troubling in proof-of-stake coins. ...
As the first viable proof-of-stake coin, Peercoin used the same method later used by Nxt, Blackcoin and various others. Instead of mining, as with proof-of-work coins, Peercoin users "mint" new Peercoins at a one percent annual interest rate. Like miners, these minters secure the network. But unlike miners, they aren't in competition with each other and don't waste massive computational power, as proof-of-work coins arguably do. In fact, a full node and wallet can be run and stored on a lightweight system such as the Raspberry Pi microcomputer.
The Peercoin community is an innovative one that pioneered many advances. It has its own "2.0" projects, including Peershares, a system built on top of Peercoin that allows for token/asset distribution.
However, the coin has been stagnant for a while. Months elapse between each git commit and there has been no news for quite a while. It is easy to wonder what the future holds for the world's first proof-of-stake coin, especially given that later proof-of-stake coins have far more active developer communities.
Miller, Michael (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Bitcoin. Indianapolis, Indiana: Que Publishing. p. 165. ISBN 978-0-7897-5324-3. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
The book notes:

Peercoin

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.
[paragraph about the proof-of-stake 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.
Antonopoulos, Andreas M. (2014). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. ISBN 978-1-4919-2198-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
The book notes:
Peercoin

Peercoin was introduced in August 2012 and is the first alt coin to use a hybrid proof-of-work and proof-of-stake algorithm to issue new currency.
- Block generation: 10 minutes
- Total currency: No limit
- Consensus algorithm: (Hybrid) proof-of-stake with initial proof-of-work
- Market capitalization: $14 million in mid-2014
Narayanan, Arvind; Bonneau, Joseph; Felten, Edward; Miller, Andrew; Goldfeder, Steven (2016). Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 208–210. ISBN 978-0-691-17169-2. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
The book notes:

Implementing Virtual Mining: Peercoin

...
To start with, consider the approach taken by Peercoin, which was launched in 2012 as the first altcoin using proof of stake. Peercoin is a hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake algorithm in which stake is denominated by "coin-age." The coin-age of a specific unspent transaction output is the product of the amount held by that output and the number of blocks that output has remained unspent. To mine a block in Peercoin, miners must solve a SHA-256-based computational puzzle just like in Bitcoin. However, the difficulty of this puzzle is adjusted down based on how much coin-age the miners are willing to consume. To do this, the block includes a special "coinstake" transaction, in which some transactions are spent simply to reset their coin-age to zero. The sum of the coin-ages consumed in the coinstake transaction determines how difficult the proof-of-work puzzle is to make a given block valid.
It is possible for miners to mine with very little stake and a large amount of computational power, but the difficulty formula is chosen to make it dramatically easier to find a block if some coin-age is consumed. The effect of the computational puzzle is mainly to ensure that the process is randomized if two miners attempt to consume a similar quantity of coin-age.
Prypto (2016). Bitcoin for Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 169–170. ISBN 978-1-119-07613-1. Retrieved 2018-11-13.
The book notes:

Peercoin: Introducing Proof-of-Stake

Bitcoin and Litecoin have one thing in common: New coins can only be generated through the mining process. Peercoin (https://peercoin.net) was one of the first "bitcoin clones" to offer a new system to generate coins, called proof-of-stake. The way proof-of-stake works is by having an amount of coins sitting in your wallet for a certain period without spending them.
Once these coins reach a certain age — a period during which they have not been moved — they generate a small interest percentage. The whole principle works in the same way as a bank's savings account, but in a completely decentralized manner, with the user being in full control of their funds at all times.
Allowing the generation of Peercoins through proof-of-stake also provides an additional layer of network stability, as the number of miners may decline over time, but there will always be users staking their PPC. Additionally, Peercoin developers have implemented a steady inflation rate of 1 percent per year, with no hard coin supply cap put in place.

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a redirect. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - a refbombing of bad sources - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I don't think this is a straight delete what so ever, this currency well very well covered by the tech magazines, redirect maybe, I might be inclined to keep if the article was cleaned up. Govvy (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the promotional material sourced from the company blog in this edit. I hope this improved the tone of the article. Of course, the sourcing is still an issue. All of the sources are cryptocurrency websites which might be unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Balkywrest (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete defunct never-was. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. The sources are there, as established by Cunard's forensics above, showing independent notability in the subject's time, and we know that notability is not temporary. -The Gnome (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.