Bitcoin Forum

So there has been a lot of uproar about the new Scrypt "Bitcoin". I have discussed it with the other Staff members, and we feel it is in the forum user's best interest to not allow topics about the Scrypt Bitcoin on Bitcointalk.

Now before people get all upset about the censorship, let me explain our position,

First off, it is incredibly confusing to the Bitcointalk members, and even more so to new members. Those that stay out of the Altcoin scene in general are at a high risk of being caught in some level of fraud facilitated by the Scrypt Bitcoin, due to its name.

Second, users stand the risk of financial loss. Improper downloading of the Scrypt Bitcoin can cause damage to your real Bitcoin wallet. This is a similar stance that the forums holds to Malware. Even if the Scrypt Bitcoin did not intend to do damage, the possibility for damage is great, especially to those who don't understand the risks.

This is not a crackdown on all things Scrypt Bitcoin, we are not going to ban members for mentioning it in passing or anything insane like that, however we do request that you do not create new threads about it, or any download links or service discussion threads about it. I will be talking to the people who have existing threads regarding the Scrypt Bitcoin and figuring out what to do about those. New threads will be moved to the trashcan.

There are no hard feelings toward the coin, or Dev, however like mentioned before, its just too confusing and risky to actively allow a coin which could harm the forum users as a whole. Should the Developer of the Scrypt Bitcoin decide to change the name of it, it is welcomed back here.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask,

SaltySpitoon

GOOD

As long as it's labelled properly as an Altcoin I don't really see why it needs to be 'removed' from the forum, while I personally take issue with any devs that laughably call their coin 'Gold', 'Real', 'Stable' ( I could go on but just glance at the alt currency forum and you'll see what I mean ) censorship of any kind no matter how people try to justify it is wrong. You guys have hardly ever outright banned well known scammers and frauds even I have heard of, I actually applauded you for that because it showed you weren't doing favouritism to certain people etc. and allowing people to intelligently make up their own minds about others but I think the only reason that you've taken out this particular coin is because it happens to have the same name as the forum. I think I'll be double checking my chat room now and see about re-uploading it so it all works properly because I'm getting pretty concerned about the way some of the forum staff are acting sometimes.

If you don't want it to damage other users do what you did with the scammers, inform people that the alt. currency has nothing to do with the original development of Bitcoin and it shouldn't be mistaken for it, job done, anything beyond that is peoples own stupidity and personal choice.

Actually that coin is really useful as a honeypot. I'm running both Scrypt and real bitcoin on the same machine. The fake bitcoin sitting in the default directory and the real one working with a -datadir switch :).

It's kinda sad, because if they had just actually named it Bitcoin2, all these issues, would have been avoided.

Agreed, I was trying to get ahold of the Scrypt Bitcoin Dev, however they are pretty elusive. The first plan was to just have people put Disclaimers in their threads so everyone would know for certain which Bitcoin they were dealing with. The risk of having your Bitcoin wallet overwritten is why we aren't allowing Scrypt Bitcoin threads.

Is this "Scrypt Bitcoin" malevolent or just a silly idea ?

I think one name is not a problem. Most people do not use wallet and coins transferred from the pool to the exchange immediately. And those who use the wallet - are smart enough to rename the folder. Especially those who have a significant amount of BTC there.

But for convenience, we can rename it to bitcoin2 for myself. I think it does not have to be a developer. Since crypto belongs to no one in its essence.

Not intentionally so I don't believe, however since it has the same name and directories and such, if people don't go out of their way to get around it, the Scrypt Bitcoin will overwrite your SHA Bitcoin's files, losing your coin.

Please try it. I did an experiment with a wallet with 0,001 BTC. In the end, nothing has gone nowhere!
The second network (Bitcoin-2) has created the same address (I send to this address 50 BTC2 and I receive them). All coins from "alien network" are located in UNCONFIRMED. Then, when I copy this wallet to original BTC and start client - I still have 0.001 BTC in my wallet and 50 BTC2 in UNCONFIRMED.
Now I have the same multi-address for BTC and BTC-2.

I think this coin will rise given it`s name and the fact that it`s scrypt/asic resistant . Competition anyone !?  :D ... I like competition  ;)  Do you?

The idea of using the same name as an existing coin is idiotic. Continue to ban all talk about this bullshit coin released by an imbecile.

Thanks for your efforts.

No, the idea of using the same name (Bitcoin) is GREAT!


USB
USB 2.0

PCI Express
PCI Express 2.0

And so on.....................

But I think it is not necessary to repeat this idea on another coins:)
*****************************************************
Useful site -
"Wikipedia" of cryptocoins: http://scrypt.com-http.us/

I am a bit confused.  Are you saying no topics about any Scrypt coin (vs SHA256) or not topics about "Scrypt Bitcoin?" (not sure what that is.)

No topics about the Scrypt alt-coin named 'Bitcoin'. All the other alt-coins (Scrypt or otherwise) are fine.

Well, damn.  And here I got all excited after mining 125,000 of these things

 Yea sure...like you have 600.000k hashing power in scrypt  ::) ..but if you do..keep it up, it`s gonna worth something

Soon will be renamed version (Bitcoin2) for convenience. Of course you do not lose your coins.

Great descision with a lot of thought, keep up the good work!

+1

My views on censorship aside, I think this was by far the best approach. I applaud the staff for making the right decision. ;)

  Got BTC !?  ;D Censorship always comes with A PRICE  ;)

Thank God!

I was going to say that that was a bad idea from the start.

Way too much confusion.

Keep up the good work BitcoinTalk!

So does that mean if they rename the directory to bitcoin2 then everything will be fine?  That's still going to make a lot of people unhappy.

The name "bitcoin" is a community asset, there's a fine line between censorship and preventing confusion.

Note: I'm neither for nor against the decision, just saying.

this is bitcointalk.org, not scryptbitcointalk.org

+1

I fully support this. Why is there even the need to name it Bitcoin ? Any other name would have been as good. This is only creating a mess and will make people losing money or interest in Bitcoin.
It feels like counterfeit cash. And this is illegal , too.

Like yourself?  :D

How should I lose money or interested on this if I do not participate in this scrypt bitcoin nor am I a uninformed newbie scammed out of 100$ by buying scrypt bitcoin. This explanation will be interesting.

I repeat:

1. I did an experiment with a wallet with 0,001 BTC. In the end, nothing has gone nowhere!
The second network (Bitcoin-2) has created the same address (I send to this address 50 BTC2 and I receive them). All coins from "alien network" are located in UNCONFIRMED. Then, when I copy this wallet to original BTC and start client - I still have 0.001 BTC in my wallet and 50 BTC2 in UNCONFIRMED.
Now I have the same multi-address for BTC and BTC-2.
*************
2. There is an instruction how to install wallet:
"IMPORTANT NOTE
Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file."
*************
3. Soon will be renamed version (Bitcoin2) for convenience. Of course you do not lose your coins.


Everyone has the right to decide for itself - mine or not to mine this altcoin.[/b]

 Once I have tried this with RUCoin, another dead copy of Bitcoin. Same result. But what will happen if enough people will make same thing? Will network confirm their transactions? Do you understand, if this will happen, Bitcoin will be destroyed.

I don't belive it possible :).
If it were possible, it would have already done by using original Bitcoin QT and wallet with tons of coins from a testnet!

And what's next? BTC 3.0, BTC 4.0, ..., BTC ∞?

Not entirely true. The Alt Currencies board was made to completely seperate all of the alt coins from the rest of the Bitcoin forums, as the majority of the users here aren't interested or care to know anything about alt coins. When Bitcoin users who have no other knowledge of alt currencies find "Bitcoin" threads, how are they supposed to know anything about it, including that it can erase your wallet. What do you think the chances are of someone going into the market section, offering "Bitcoins" for something, and then scamming them with Scrypt Bitcoins saying they never specified. That or getting out of gambling debts using Scrypt Bitcoins. Its just going to be a major pain until they are renamed, hence the decision.

Renaming it is all fine and good like you said, I'll check it out when it happens. And I will again, discuss it with the rest of the staff.

And you said you tried it with a very small test amount, however on nearly every other Scrypt Bitcoin thread, including the original announcement thread, there is a warning saying it can overwrite your Bitcoin files. So unless you are willing to stake your name, and have thousands of Bitcoins on standby ready to pay anyone back who loses them by accident, its still best to be cautious about the situation.

This isn't about censorship. Its about protecting people's already established assets, and to do so we have to keep a coin with just a few users on the hush hush. I don't agree with censorship for the most part, and you will see many of the staff members here have the same general viewpoints as the community. However, like I said there is a line between censorship and protecting people. If the forums had a no censorship policy, we would also allow Malware and Advertisments, however we don't, and there is no one complaining about that.

Also, keep in mind, as this came up a lot when we were trying to get subboards here in the Alt section. This is a Bitcoin forum. The fact that Alt Coins are even allowed here is a pleasantry contingent that we try and issolate it here, so it doesn't spill over to the rest of the forums. The Admins of the site could just as easily say, alright no more Alt coins allowed here, because its getting confusing. If you feel very strongly on keeping Scrypt Bitcoins named Scrypt Bitcoins, talk to the Alt Currency forums about it, however for the reasons I mentioned before and now, these forums are very cautious of them as there is a huge potential for abuse.

 Where did we heard this before !?.."Trust us..we`re the FED"..."Trust us..we`re you`re beloved goubernment".. ;D we want only what`s best for us..aargh ..you :)) . But then again this forum belongs to you so you do as you please

And from your side what`s next !? Pool no. 3?..4? You still owe me and other people money !

I think even the most vehement opponents certainly mined yourself a couple of hundred Bitcoins2 just in case. ;)

Most of the people don`t seem to grasp the idea that was behind this whole damn charade ...

"Bitcoin was supposed to be decentralised and run by the people, the general public. However due to ASIC, this now means that the network can really only be controlled by the rich and powerful, the governments and corporations and of course the ASIC manufactures.

Bitcoin Scrypt changes that and brings Bitcoin back into the hands of the people, if fact, pretty much anyone with a GPU can mine Bitcoin Scrypt and mine a nice wedge."

100%. Because ASICs make Bitcoin mining only for the rich. I can already imagine a farms with the hundreds of these cards:
http://www.sigma.berdyansk.net/600.png

If the Bitcoin will return into the hands of people, it will becomes much cheaper than now. So, what did you prefer: a heap of useless cheap coins, where Bitcoin just one of them, or expensive Bitcoin rising in price in time?

  You should ask yourself (or study a bit of economics) who is the driving force behind the value of "money".

So is this for the alternative currency 'Scrypt Bitcoin' or for any currency that uses scrypt?

Yep and hanging around the backstreet of this forum and you can easily see the level of fraud associated with Bitcoin, high risk of fraud with btc so can we ban talk on it too?

there is an exchange of btc2 to btc?
I hope short ;D

This coin needs to be renamed, pure and simple. Calling it Scrypt Bitcoin (or Bitcoin 2) is just lazy and confusing. Until it is renamed I think the staff here are right to bury it.

Clearly the *only* way this alt thinks it can make a name for itself is by using the Bitcoin name (by any other name no-one would have given a shit about it - we already have LTC so it adds absolutely *zero*).

It's funny that the further these alts go to try and muddy the waters the further they just drive themselves all into oblivion.

I had stated many months back that I hoped we'd see a new alt-coin every day (as I knew that would make them all worthless which has now pretty much transpired) - so now with this new crap I hope we will see a Bitcoin3, Bitcoin4,  etc. being released every day as well (and you guys shouldn't be unhappy about that at all as that is *fair* after all).

If you want to be taken seriously then stop with the "it's not fair that I didn't know about Bitcoins when they were cheap to buy/mine". If you want to *make a difference* then copy & paste plus minor alteration is not the way (it would be a bit like every band just copying the same #1 hit and changing the lyrics slightly and expecting they should all get the same fame).

Bitcoin is Open Source and that is a good thing - but lazy people copying and pasting and not even bothering to change the name in order to try and profit out of confusion are just "wannabes" and nothing more.

I agree with this. The name "Bitcoin" is misleading when naming a clone of Bitcoin that.

I can't wait for the next Drama here.

IF IT'S THAT THREATENING WHAT SO WE CALL IT?LOL 8)

+1

It's a bad idea for four reasons:

1) It's going to be much less secure. To attack Bitcoin, you have to invest in ASICs, which you make worthless if your attack is successful. To attack an scrypt-based coin, you can use botnets, rented supercomputer clusters, and so on, which retain their value after their attack.

2) You can't divide up value until you create it. The change in the mining algorithm is an attempt to more fairly divide the value created by the coin. But you have to create the value first. What value does this coin add that it divides?

3) If it's profitable to mine, more people will mine until it's just barely profitable, no more so than other things people could do. This will eventually mean that only whoever has the most efficient setup (best hardware, lowest power cost, and so on) will actually make a profit. This will inevitably result in centralization.

4) Putting "Bitcoin" in its name seems like a deliberate attempt to convey an official connection to Bitcoin that doesn't exist and is likely to create confusion. If its developers truly believed in it, they wouldn't do something so cynical and malicious as this.

Lol :D,
While the coin is not appreciated - no attack will be, because it is pointless. When it is appreciated - the network hashrate increases and attack will be very, very difficult. And there is no powerful botnets on the gpu, but there are a lot of powerful CPU botnets. Because of that worst of all are protected CPU coins. (and with the arrival of ASIC  - sha256 coins also become unprotected. Please read below)

To attack a script currency with high hashrate need huge resources and electricity. But to attack sha256 you need a few of super-ASIC, which quite possibly are already being developed someone (the government of a country, or someone else - does not matter). For now the most powerful Asic is 1 terrahesh/s. And will be ASIC's with PetaHash/s, ExaHash/s and all the present-day powerful Bitcoin network can be attacked by a few of Super-ASIC. But to attack the script-coin with great hashrate is very difficult. No attack will be the huge ongoing energy costs and equipment, facilities maintenance, etc. Sha256 will be killed by the atackers or simply they will take themself almost all of the new coins. Depends on who will have the Super-ASIC's (the government of a country, or someone else).
It's no decentralized with the arrival of ASIC at all.
Remove inhibitions and censorship. Let things go their way. Time will judge all.

A "few" super-ASICs won't do it. In less than a year, hundreds of thousands of super-ASICs will be in the hands of Bitcoin miners around the world. These will all be mining Bitcoins, making the currency secure, as they have no other purpose.

As I argued, decentralization is economically infeasible. If mining is particularly profitable, more and more people will do it until it's just barely profitable. Then primarily those with some advantage (cheap power, optimized hardware, whatever) will increase mining and those with sub-optimal equipment or conditions will stop mining, leading to centralization.

Bitcoin, whether by luck or genius, got this right.

  Then wtf is with this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo .. remeber it !? Min 0.03 - " Fist Decentralized ...bla bla bla " ... So, back to the drawing board. The markets will decide in the end, no worries.

LOL

Sorry, If I was unclear. I was responding to this:
And I was just using the same term he was using. In the sense that ASICs centralize Bitcoin, that particular kind of centralization is economically infeasible to prevent. Bitcoin is, of course, decentralized in many other important ways.

Show me at least a few bitcoin clones, which were made with clear idea and had a few differences, except changed name, number of coins in block and total amount of coins. I know three: Litecoin, because it was first crypto currency, that uses scrypt, Ripple, because it is not bitcoin clone at all, and Primecoin (XPM), which uses unique algorithm and have scientific value. All other alternative crypto currencies are scam and useless trash.

BTE/bytecoin is the closest i kno of  8)

Bytecoin is a straight up Bitcoin clone worth the attention of no one.

This topic, being pinned and all, will give the BTC2 more publicity than 50 random posts about it ever could.

I think that by the time we get to BTC3 or BTC4 most will have already learned to ignore BTCn (where n is anything at all) - I might even consider offering a small bounty for the creation of BTC3 just to kill off this BTC2 and any such future silly rubbish.

Development of the BTC3 is not needed as long as the  script-ASIC's be developed.  ;)

And so..to keep it decentralized Bitcoin Scrypt will do the job as there is no ASIC for it  ;)

It just won't work. It's economically infeasible. If it's profitable to mine under perfect conditions (best power costs, optimal choice of hardware, etcetera) then people will build large mining setups under optimal conditionals to make the unusual profits. This will keep happening until it's barely profitable to mine even under optimal conditions. When that happens, under less than optimal conditions, it will be unprofitable to mine. There is no known way to keep mining decentralized in this sense.

All the switch to scrypt does is make it easier to attack the currency because the currency can be attacked with commodity hardware that retains its value rather than specialized hardware that becomes worthless.

The point is how far from optimal the average user is, the distance gets larger and larger the more specialised the setup can be. That distance is smaller with scypt and will be even smaller with future proof-of-work schemes should they still be feasible.

It's possible, but very very unlikely, that future schemes may make the difference small enough to not matter. But with scrypt, the distance is already large enough that it might as well be infinite and there's no reason to think it will get any smaller. It's hard to imagine a process that can best be done with random commodity hardware that people happen to tend to have lying around, especially since the capabilities of commodity hardware are changing constantly. Almost anything can be optimized.

In any event, it's academic -- since there's no value created to distribute, the question of the best distribution mechanism is irrelevant. Bitcoin, by offering capabilities not previously available, created new value that its mining scheme distributes. Any future coin that wants to distribute value some particular way must first find a way to create that value.

I can't.

KnC, HashFast, Cointerra, Alydian, Bitfury, yeah. BFL? By the time they deliver, based on past performance, ASICS will be at 14nm and the best process available will be at 5nm. Quantum tunneling will be solved with 1nm gates.

Not saying your concern is wrong, I'm just sayin' that particular dog ain't gonna hunt.

In theory that's fairly easy, the process should utilize as much of the instruction set as possible and reward other things like memory bandwidth and capacity. The scheme should also include rewards for hard-storage capacity and internet bandwidth. At this point the specialized hardware is commodity hardware.

Value still comes from the USD invested into the cryptocurrency, you of all people should realize this. Do you really think ripples would have a theoretical market cap of 1 billion USD right now if they weren't made to be a good deflationary "investment"?

It's always hard to know what factors go into price. Obviously, supply is a key factor. But I think, and hope, that the major driver of value for both Ripple and Bitcoin is the expected long-term utility of those systems. Speculative value -- I want it because it's going up in price because people want it because it's going up in price -- tends to be volatile and unpredictable, reducing the utility of the currency as a means of exchange.

+1
Bitcoin Scrypt is a shitty idea, what comes next. Ripple Scrypt ?

All those coins are shitty ideas ...in the end they will go to their endless value => 0

Bitcoins

We allready have a coin that does this, it's called Litecoin.  :-\

If the creator has such noble intentions, he would have supported Litecoin. This scrypt bitcoin only has one purpose, make the creator money. Nothing more, nothing less.

I hope you get banned,

No one is getting banned for mentioning Scrypt Bitcoin, I'm just giving everyone fair warning that I will be removing threads. This isnt about whether its a good coin or not, its about how making bitcoin2 threads reaches into the rest of the community, increasing the likelyhood that someone gets upset, and has the Alt Currencies section removed all together. There are a hundred alt coins that are out there that I don't support, however I don't really feel its my right to do anything about them, because they don't effect me or anyone else that doesn't support them in any way. Not allowing Scrypt Bitcoin was a decision made by more than a few members of the staff. Not a single person was on board with it, because its somewhat fradulent. I don't know who the dev is, so I can't have any biasses there. I know of two people who have made Scrypt Bitcoin threads, and I can honestly say I had not known them before I asked them to lock their threads. If I'm not disallowing it because I dislike the coin, or because I dislike its users, or because I dislike its dev, wouldn't the next logical step be that I don't dislike anything about Scrypt Bitcoin in general, besides what the staff and I have discussed, ie how its similar name would most certainly be used for fraud, deceit, and because it would just be annoying in general because of its name?

The point of the alt currencies section is that we remain our own secluded section, in the BITCOIN forums. If we start spilling out into the rest of the forums, the section is no longer secluded from the rest of the Bitcoin forums, and annoying the rest of the people who tolerate alt coins because they don't have to have anything to do with them.

@SaltySpitoon


The Alt Coin section won't be removed.

This section was created as an alternative trashcan to keep this crap out of the main Bitcoin Forum. Bitcointalk simply does not have enough mods to delete the flow of garbage that would flow into the main forums without it.

As far as Bitcoin Scrypt I couldn't care less as I have zero interest in it but I do know this, by leaving a "Stickied Thread" at the the top of the forum banning all discussion of it, you are creating a hundred times more interest in it than you would if you simply allowed it to die on its own.  

Additionally I can also tell you this for a fact, that *this* "Stickied Thread" (locked or not) is causing Bitcoin SHA-256 to attract some unwanted attention. A friend of mine that freelances and gets published quite regarly for Wired and TechCrunch was asking me about it. Honestly I hadn't looked into it till she asked me about it. She was mentioning something about an "internal strife to get Bitcoin back to its decentralized roots and away from ASIC control" which is not exactly true..... however I don't think that's the desired media attention BTC needs especially with sites of that reach. I have no idea if an article will appear, but people are noticing this thread.

There are two pssible options that would work to minimize BTC2.

1) Delete this thread and every thread that pops up about BTC2. There is nothing wrong with aggressive censorship of fraudulent activity.

or

2) Allow it to run, post a huge red fraud warning at the top of every thread and wait for it to die like every other Alt Piece of Shit.


By publicly banning it, you amplify its popularity 100x.

Again all of this, just opinion.


~BCX~

The point of the announcement isn't to deprive the coin of attention, its so that people will know why they are having threads/posts removed. It wouldn't be fair to enforce a rule that no one knows about.

However, you are correct, the announcement will be taken down somewhat shortly after it becomes common knowledge.

The why is not real clear. If it was due to possibly being fraudulent, a fraud warning would solve that.

What is thoroughly projected is that Bitcoin SHA256 leadership is threatened by this alt coin, (I seriously doubt is the case) which in its own rite gives a massive amount of validation to it more so than any other shitcoin clone released to date.


~BCX~

One of the biggest issues right now, is with new members. The staff is sort of undecided as to what to do about Alt Currencies and New Members. Right now, many of the alt currency devs are marketing toward new members, which is an issue. People that are totally new to the Bitcoin/Crypto currency scene, that see an article about Bitcoin and come here to find out more about it, don't need to be bombarded by hundreds of other opportunities to get into new coins. We know that most people are smart enough to know the difference between Bitcoin and other Crypto Currencies, however for someone who is totally new to the idea, nothing says, welcome, we will help answer your questions, like introducing thousands of other questions about each and every different coin. The ideal situation would be that they join here, understand the basics, and then adventure into the Alt Currency section on their own.

Now for the most part, people can figure out, Bitcoin is one coin, Xcoin is another coin, etc. However, when there are two Bitcoins, new members could see a thread selling Bitcoins (scrypt) for $100 each and immediately jump at the opportunity to get some cheap coin. The same could happen to anyone who doesn't know that much about alt currencies, and has no idea that there is another Bitcoin.

Another senario, is in the marketplace or in the auctions section. Someone agree to pay a certain price, and then someone trys to scam them by paying in Bitcoins (Scrypt). And with Bets and Bounties, if I say "I agree to pay 100 Bitcoins if I'm wrong" Whats to stop someone from saying, you win, here are your 100 (Scrypt) Bitcoins.

Its just a huge mess of confusion for people who are expecting to come to the Bitcoin forums, and find threads about (Scrypt) Bitcoins.

The first thing I did, was made sure that each (Scrypt) Bitcoin thread had a disclaimer making sure to clarify that it explicitly said it was the Scrypt Version. I then opened the topic up to the rest of the staff as to what they thought, and every single person was against allowing Scrypt Bitcoins here because the mess of confusion would leak out to all of the sections here, believing it was boarder line fraudulent to use Bitcoin's name in such a way.

* The point at which we decided to disallow (Scrypt) Bitcoin threads in general, was after learning that without special precaution, it could overwrite your existing Bitcoin files. At that point, (Scrypt) Bitcoin was incredibly close to what we would consider Malware, whether it intended to cause damage or not.

If the point to ban it was that BTC-Scrypt overwrites your current Bitcoin-SHA256 wallet, that's not entirely true.

What happens is that when you use BTC-SHA256 it "unconfirms" (<-- Sorry English isn't my first language) all the BTC-scrypt coins and viceversa. Both work well if on the same system. To test it yourself simply back up a current BTC-SHA256 wallet, install on another machine, add BTC-S and test it.

I 100% agree with your scamming scenarios, but that's inherent in any coin really.

The newbies thing is an issue. Maybe Theymos should consider making this a private forum requiring 50 post for people to gain access. That would stop all of that dead in its tracks as well cut down on the number of scam sock puppets.

Once again, all I was saying is that by *banning* it, you increase its exposure factorial.

Must be something if they banned it.


~BCX~

LOL @ calling Bitcoin Bitcoin SHA256

Mission accomplished I'd say.  :D (No I'm not behind Bitcoin scrypt)

Of course there is "something" . When you`re interested only in making profits, not preserving the idea behind the creation of BTC, yet searching for ways to maintain the status quo -  you`re becoming like the 1% of the 1% .

When did this come out  :o

Ever since some people realized that Bitcoin turned the wrong way :))

lol this coming from an Opencoin employee with "20 billion XRP Jed" originally constantly promoting ripple as bitcoin 2 to the uniformed and even stealing the name opencoin from a non profit credible bitcoin group just to gain some credibility for ripple.....bit rich hey? just too funny.

If you think I have 20 billion XRP, you're off by a factor of about 10,000.

I never heard Jed do that. If you have a credible source, I'll believe you. But I never heard him do that, nor anyone else claim he did that. I have seen articles that ask rhetorically if Ripple is "Bitcoin 2.0", presumably to suggest that Ripple might replace Bitcoin. But, so far as I know, nobody is making any attempt to intentionally confuse Bitcoin and Ripple so that people think Ripple has some connection to Bitcoin that it doesn't have.

As for opencoin.org being a "bitcoin group", I'm pretty sure they're not. The OpenCoin.org folks have no connection to Bitcoin that I know of and the group became more or less inactive in 2009. And, frankly, the possibility of confusion with that group was one of the downsides to choosing 'OpenCoin' as a company name. Not because there's anything wrong with them, just because you want a name to be as unique as possible so you can choose what people associated it with. That's why names like "Amazon", "eBay", and "Microsoft" are so good.

It really looks like you're trying to start an argument for no reason here.

Where would u being, just watch any Jed or Chris early interview promotion of ripple, seen a few where its directly labelled by founders, inner circle as bitcoin 2, here's a 2 sec google and Chris dribbling about it being the second iteration of bitcoin  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH4IqGaYpCU

(and math based currency wtf lol)


anyway I don't have the time to start an argument for no reason, just found it rich you knocking another coin for riding on bitoins coat tail when no matter how you paint it ripple itself did....hell look at the forum you gave the biggest giveaway on...go figure.

Not for a second am I saying such marketing is wrong or a bad idea....hell dumb not to promote any crypto/alt currency along the lines of bitcoin, one of the most widely recognised cryptos.


"If you think I have 20 billion XRP, you're off by a factor of about 10,000." oh I didn't mean it like that, added "" to make what i meant more clear.

First, that's Chris, not Jed. Second, "second iteration of bitcoin" is a description. "Bitcoin 2.0" is a name. There's a huge difference. Coke can say it's "an improvement on Pepsi" but if it says it's "Pepsi 2", that's a problem.

And really that is a fair description. We started out with Bitcoin's design and source code. We looked at what we thought worked well and what we thought could be improved. That's how we built Ripple.

I'm not knocking on a coin for riding bitcoin's coat tail. I'm knocking a coin for deliberately attempting to create actual confusion in a way that's damaging to Bitcoin.

Right, but deliberately creating confusion that hurts Bitcoin and could cause people to lose money is a problem.

no shit sherlock I just gave a 2 sec example of similar cause I cbf finding the various vids of Jed saying ripple is Bitcoin 2, and Chris has also stated the same....you always lose me how your brain works interpreting things however you see fit without thinking about what the person was infering.

(you've even privately infered I'm an idiot based on the penny not dropping for you on a number of things.....you suffer the smartest guy in the room syndrom when you are far from it on most accounts)

all of the above are opensource  :o..... get over it  ::)

I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't possibly know that Jed never said what you say he said. However, I never heard him say it, nor have I heard anyone else mention that he said it. I have seen reporters describe Ripple that way, and it would be easy to connect it to Jed, especially when articles intersperse that description with quotes from him.

You made a very specific claim. I suspect that claim is false.

I can't find a single case where you and I discussed anything except for the "What if the government" thread, where you replied to me and I never replied to you -- mostly because I agreed with you. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=136348.msg2405639#msg2405639

^^^^^^^^^^^

Massively off topic.

The topic is Bitcoin Scrypt threads being disallowed.

I know you two are "Bitcoin Forum" regulars where there are no rules, but here in the Alt Forum...we're civilized LOL



~BCX~

Unstickied, because the thread has been up long enough for people to see it. The rule still applies, however it doesn't need to be staring you in the face every time you come into the Alt Currencies section.

Bitcoin scrypt has faster transaction times though. Not been mentioned here yet :0) Some Alts will stick around. Keep mining this coin though, you won't regret it ;0)

oh u mean forum btc bagholders. not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.

You oppose the use of judgment?

when its poor judgment yes

So are you saying that only topicality should be enforced and anything that's actually about an alternative cryptocurrency should be allowed? If so, I think I agree with you.

If you haven't noticed, theres at least 100 Alt coins I don't actively support, but I don't feel the need to disallow them. What we feel the need to disallow is a coin that can essentially be considered malware. The BITCOIN forums don't want immitators confusing/harming their BITCOIN users. That is the main priority. Its really not up for negotiation, the threads will be removed for the reasons that I have gone to lengths to explain already. Yep, censorship is bad, but necessary from time to time. I don't see anyone complaining when someone posts fake wallet stealer clients and I remove those.

If there is something you don't understand in my explanation, feel free to pm me with your questions, and I'll clarify.

Why is this thread still getting posts? Are there really people dumb enough to not understand a concept as simple as "releasing a client that overwrites Bitcoin wallets will get you banned for spreading malware"?

ok from now on no talk of formatting your HDD ;) seriously any user that installs scrypt btc and loses their btc wallet has bigger problems to worry about.

I really don't know.

edit* And no it wont get you banned, I said in the OP, that the threads would be removed. I'm not heartless, I just dont want to see people lose their money on something that is incredibly preventable and completely unnecessary.


And no, if there is a thread about formating your HDD, if people had absolutely no clue what it did, they probably wouldn't use it. And if they went ahead and tried it, your OS tells you to back everything up as it will be lost/deleted. If there was a thread that said download Bitcoin (Scrypt Bitcoin), thats a fair bit more confusing, especially to people who don't know what alt currencies are. If you went into a thread that said Download Bitcoin, or even Download Scrypt Bitcoin, with a download link I would bet almost everyone would check it for viruses/wallet stealers. However, having it overwrite your Bitcoin wallet isn't something that people know to check for as it hasn't been a worry up until now.

The possibility of having your wallet overwritten isn't something that would trip up one or two people, its something that I'd be willing to place a wager would catch the majority of people. This is the first time anyone has ever made a coin with the exact same name, and even more, being upset when not being allowed to post about it on a forum dedicated to the coin they are copying and potentially harming strikes me a little odd. To the people that are complaining, I highly advise rereading the OP where I specifically say it has to do with the coin's name. I have no prejudice against the creator of the coin, nor its supporters. I challenge anyone to find any coin that I've treated unfairly and give me a logical reason why the forum staff would ban the mention of this coin, if not for the reasons I gave in the first place. If people want to make a stink out of what I believe is a pretty reasonable and concise decision, be my guest, however posting it here is not ideal.

Like I said, if you have any further questions, pm works best. Then we don't need to bump the thread, and you can still get an answer to any question you still have.

well i'm not asking questions in this thread to get ur opinion/answers funnily enough SaltySpitoon, you're opinion is already clearly stated, so pm would just been an endless pointless discussion.


(plus the troll in me likes watching this thread get bumped by you guys, hey can you make it a sticky again I don't think people fully get it?).

I personally don't care either way if Bitcoin Scrypt threads are allowed or not.

BUT

If it is banned for some irrational fear of over writing BitcoinSHA256 wallets, the fear is unfounded and simply not true.

I guess nobody bothered to actually test the theory. All that happens is that if running Bitcoin Scrypt, Bitcoin SHA256 transactions are unconfirmed, when running Bitcoin SHA256 the reverse happens. No coins are lost, everything is reconfirmed when running the desire Bitcoin version.

If you want to try it, setup a virtual machine and see for yourself.

Now if the reason is that the name is confusing, you have a point.


~BCX~

actually I agree with bcx on something, i tested it and also found the fear unfounded.

Strange things can happen at the one, two point!

Yeah Kelsey us agreeing is definitely weird but I got tired of the repeated lame reasoning behind banning it.

Sounds like someone stated this was possibility and everyone ran with it as fact without any shred of proof or testing. From the moment I first read it, it didn't sound like over writing would be the case at all and calling it malware is absurd.

Like I said before I have no interest in BTC-Scrypt and whole lot of interest in protecting Bitcoin-SHA256.

The 100% absolute legit reason to ban Bitcoin-Scrypt on Bitcointalk is due to the exact same name, symbol, specs and brand confusion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting Bitcoin this way, just be straight up about it.



~BCX~

Now that the official reason of BTC-Scrypt being banned for over writing Bitcoin-SHA256 wallets has been debunked can we at least switch the reason to banning based on similar name and brand confusion?

Bitcoin Scrypt will not over write or destroy any Bitcoin SHA256 wallet even without switching directories. I have tested this on Windows XP, Win 7, Win 8 and Linux.


It would definitely lend a lot more credibility for the latter reasons.

 


~BCX~

Think you're forgetting the forum rule; 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

No I didn't forget it, just curious if they would come out an ban it for the proper reason now that overwriting wallets has been debunked.


~BCX~

Going off of the original Bitcoin Scrypt thread, when it was first posted on Cryptocointalk, it had this message which I quoted and had in the staff section for people's opinions.


IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.

Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.


It now says,

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing Bitcoin Scrypt will not delete your SHA Bitcoin folder, it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.


So it seems you are right, it will not erase the wallet. I'll open the staff discussion back up and see how people feel. I'm still guessing BTC2 still won't be allowed for the other reasons. Others felt the name was fraudulent etc etc,  however that risk of wallet damage is the main factor that changed our opinions from allowing it with a disclaimer, to banning it all together, so we shall see.
 

My goal is not get BTC2 "unbanned"

I just wanted a legit reason to the basis.


~BCX~

I myself have no interest in this coin (think I have a grand total of 7 and no desire for more or even to run the client again), and personally I feel btt has full right to ban all alts.

However if you allow alts don't be inconsistant in picking and chosing at a whim. Also seriously I don't think things should be banned purely to protect idiots.

If its for the naming, btc is opensource and p2p, let people use whatever part of it they wish (whether that be code or the name) and let the people/or market decide if its acceptible. If its not acceptible it'll die without btt forums help.

True, if the powers that be ban BTC2 based on name, then are they violating the open source concept of Bitcoin?

I'm willing to bet they will ban ALL alt coins here before just banning BTC2 and becoming the very thing this forum and BTC rails against, censorship and central control.


~BCX~

Yea! If I make a BTC3 that removes all the inflationary limits and transfers everyone's private keys to me and does whatever else I like then this forum has NO RIGHT to prevent me from posting all over it telling people to use it!  DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP.

The legit reasons of the time, were due to the warnings by those initially releasing download links to the coin. As I posted earlier today, the first "official" Scrypt BTC thread had this warning.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.

Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.



If you check on Page two an excerpt from Fablio's post, as a Scrypt Bitcoin supporter.


2. There is an instruction how to install wallet:
"IMPORTANT NOTE
Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file."
*************
3. Soon will be renamed version (Bitcoin2) for convenience. Of course you do not lose your coins.




So as I said, the original reason behind the ban was because the evidence was that the coin could damage your SHA BTC Wallet. As it stands, yes it still does, however it doesn't completely overwrite your keys. That was the reason it was banned. Prior to that info, we just had people put disclaimers in their threads.



My post to be discussed by the staff:

A point that gmaxwell brought up which I find particularly relevant,


There are still the other issues that I posted originally which was the general consensus that lead us to request that everyone used disclaimers to signify they were talking about Scrypt Bitcoin, however like I said we are discussing everything again. At this point, I would personally return to the disclaimer section, however, its not entirely my call as I don't feel that I should impose my personal judgements on anyone. Thats what leads to unnecessary abuse and overall jerkery. For that reason, I've opened up the discussion with the rest of the staff, and I'm waiting for others feedback. I have my own ideas, but I value the opinions of the rest of the forums staff.

There are a lot of staff and adminstrators that have no other reach into the Alt Coin community, so their opinions are solely based on how great the potential for abuse is and how it will effect the BTCTalk members and their BTC. No one is afraid of Scrypt taking over, or that Scrypt BTC will outcompete SHA BTC or the other odd claims that some people are making. If that was the case, we wouldn't allow any Scrypt Coins, which clearly isn't the case. There are no alterior motives, I've listed all of the factors that lead to the decision, with the commonly held knowledge that Scrypt BTC could damage your SHA BTC keys. Now that that has been more or less proven untrue, discussion is back open.

@SaltySpitoon

For the record I 100% believe you in the original reason for the ban. You went on the most up to date information at the time. Even the coin dev thought so before it was thoroughly researched.

My only reason in debating this was to prevent the circulation of ulterior motive rumors once it was disproved. I also do not think for a second that any Bitcoin Staff fears this catching on in any way and competing with Bitcoin SHA even on a 1/100,000 scale.

Now that all being said, I think "The Ban", subsequent stickied thread and the deleting of all post related to it has done factorial more to keep it alive than anything the coin or the coin dev has done to date.

If I were Staff on this forum, I would go with a disclaimer placed by a mod on every thread Bitcoin Scrypt related and let this thing die like the other 150 scrypt clones launched in the past few months. If you ban it, it will become stronger as it will be the small guy verses the giant and in ways become what Bitcoin SHA256 was created to be in the first place, the stand against central control.


~BCX~


Added later:

Proof that this thread has done more to promote Bitcoin Scrypt than the original [ANN] Thread.

-This thread 4734 views with 120 replies

-Original [ANN] Thread 641 views with 7 replies
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291021.0

Ahh yes and the debate continues...are they on any exchange apart from the google doc one? :0)

I don't believe it matters that much as far as publicity. We didn't have any intention in trying to make the coin stronger or weaker with this thread. If people want to support it, I don't really mind, nor do I especially care if it dies. Really, the only thing that decides if it lives or dies is the dev/dev team, how useful the coin is, and how many people think its worthwhile to use it. There is no, "This coin is being censored! Fight back against censorship!" mentality, because its not like its banned from existing, we just didn't want it harming/confusing this specific forum's members. None of the staff really feels one way or the other about Scrypt Bitcoin in itself. What we do care about is people losing their coins, and secondly, not to sound lazy or anything like that, but realistically, how much trouble the coin is going to cause for the Bitcointalk members and by proxy, moderation staff. If people are getting scammed left and right, we are going to hear about it. If the coin is interfering at all with your BTC wallet, the hardware section is going to hear it, and so on and so on.

As I said before and I know you have read it, but just to reiterate, since the known info now is that the coin will most likely not delete your Bitcoin wallet, we are discussing the ban again. If it stays banned, I'll make sure to give you the up to date info as to why its banned. If its no longer banned, we would go back to the disclaimer system.

Just as you believed me about our original intentions, I hope that you believe that this wasn't a publicity stunt. Of all of the coins that are out there, if I was an unfair and quickly fired mod, first, I wouldn't have consulted with the rest of the staff first. I also probably would have propped up another coin, especially one that I was holding. As it sits, the only coins that I'm holding are Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Craftcoins. Bitcoins because thats what I got into first, Litecoin because that was the first alt coin I supported throughly (besides Solidcoins), even before I came a mod here, and Craftcoin because Blindfolded is a buddy of mine, and I played the original Litecoin minecraft server before it was converted to a Craftcoin server. I don't hold any Scrypt Bitcoins, I don't know if any staff members do, and the only people involved that I know about are Fablio and one other person who's name alludes me. I and the staff team have nothing against the Scrypt Bitcoin's users, or dev, and to my knowledge nothing to gain from banning or advertising Scrypt Bitcoin, so there aren't any secret scandalous reasons for the ban just exactly what we had previously discussed is what I posted for reasons for the ban. And as I said, I'll post update reasons for the ban or reasons for a disclaimer once we have come to a new agreement.

And just to give the real stats, I haven't had to delete any Scrypt Bitcoin2 threads/posts yet. I asked Fablio to lock his Scrypt Bitcoin giveaway thread, and one other person to lock their announcement thread, but I have never had to actually delete anything thusfar.

I'm not sure how much of a debate this is, I do value everyone's opinions, but ultimately its going to be the staff/admins who decide. If any good points are raised, I'd be sure to add those to the discussion, but leaving it up to the Alt Coin majority, to decide on something that has the potential to effect the entire forum, whether positively or negatively, is something I feel would be best decided between the 30+ Staff members, who have no biass in the matter other than how it will effect the boards they moderate.

If brand confusion or personal dislike is taken into consideration, it will be banned.

If the decision is truly based on whether or not BTC2 will harm BTC wallets, then it will be allowed.


~BCX~

Any updates?


~BCX~

Can someone link me to any information about what Scrypt Bitcoin is?

https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/1169-bitcoin-scrypt-btc-information/


~BCX~

i wonder hmmm, this could get some more eyes?  8)

Any update?

The original reason for the ban was due to it damaging the wallet, this has been debunked entirely.


~BCX~

There really hasn't been much feedback on the subject. The hack and all of the stuff having to do with that has really taken the attention of the staff. I suppose that since no one feels strongly enough about it now to voice their opinions, Scrypt Bitcoin threads will be allowed, but cautiously. I ask that people please use disclaimers, or making it incredibly obvious whether they are talking about Scrypt Bitcoin or Sha Bitcoin.

With that in mind, its still thin ice so to speak. There will be a very very strong lookout for deceptive practices which obviously would get the thread removed. Again, this is kind of a gray area. Since no one has had much opinion on the matter as of now, I'm going to assume it will be allowed. However, should Theymos or John K individually, or the rest of the staff as a whole decide against allowing Scrypt Bitcoin, it will go back that way. So if you use and support Scrypt Bitcoins, please don't do anything that will grab the staff's attention and give us reason to disallow the coin.

I'm actually pretty stunned at this decision.

You should create a bold disclaimer which must be posted at the top of every Bitcoin2 related thread and sticky the instructions. Any thread not following those directions should be deleted without warning.



~BCX~

That's pretty confusing, so we have a coin named Bitcoin...but is not Bitcoin. Oh wait, it is Bitcoin 2.

Well, I have an idea then, lets create another Viagra like pill and boost the sales by calling it Aspirin 2.
That should clear up the confusion.

It's a coin called Bitcoin Scrypt, not Bitcoin.

Nice try, but fail on the grandstanding.


~BCX~

Hm, I just thought I saw it referred to as BTC2 (and even Bitcoin2 few times)...but I it see now, it is not BITCOIN 2, is BITCOIN scrypt and that is not confusing at all.
Oh, silly me  :P

Did I nail it?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=318253.0

If you had flashing ascii neon text I'd give full marks

success breeds competition, sounds a bit like luddism

Interesting. I am still using the legacy Bitcoin. Where can I download the new Bitcoin?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=318253.0

Wait longer,it will be more premained.I getting blocks everyday.V 1.2 released couple days ago.Block explorer http://blocks.btc2.pw/ ,pool http://btc2.cryptominer.net/index.php ,and I like idea the most:

"When Bitcoin was first created it was mined using just a cpu and only used as a mess about hacking currency but also just to see if we could do it in the first place.
Then can the greed came in, which moved it onto GPU's which is fair enough, just like the internet, it spread and became more or less decentralised and pretty much everyone in this gaming world has a GPU.
Now, with the birth of the ASIC, Bitcoin SHA is not decentralised even for a second and if you believe that, then maybe you shouldn't mine it or think long and hard about it.
ASIC's put the power into the hands of governments, the rich and the powerful (Manufactures).The governments know what they are doing with Bitcoin, to suck you in and then slowly take control.
This is why I created Bitcoin Scrypt, a new Bitcoin currency that I will fully support and is free of ASIC control and once again as Bitcoin should be.
I want this to be the rebirth of Bitcoin once again BACK into the hands of the people."
cheers ;D
by the way am user "dtom" on cryptcointalk.com If somebody need more info.

http://bitcoinscrypt.org/

 

on it :)

Bitcoin sCrypt Mandatory Client update to v.1.3.2
https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/10570-mandatory-client-upgrade-to-v132-for-hardfork-at-block-96000/?p=89627

Version 1.3.2 is released and requires mandatory update by all clients because hard-fork at Block 96000.  

Please update to version 1.3.2.

any mining pools? ty

Cryptominer Pool - http://btc2.cryptominer.net/
Broken Arrow Pool - http://btcs.broken-arrow.pl/
Hash RR Pool - http://btcs.hashrr.com/
Omar's p2pool - http://omargpools.ca/
Mining Pool 123 - http://btc2.miningpool123.com/

More info can be found at http://theotherbitcoin.com