Bitcoin Forum

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9716/sc20publicbeta.png


Note, this is running in testnet mode to test that the SolidCoin v1 coins are working correctly for people on the new chain and also to stress test the 51% network defense algorithm in SolidCoin v2.0. It also gives time for the exchanges and pools to ensure they are working correctly with the new network.

There will be a 24 hour notice before the network resumes proper activity.

Windows Binaries (32bit and 64bit)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-publicbeta-setup.exe (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-publicbeta-setup.exe)

Linux 64 Binaries (GUI and Daemon)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-publicbeta-linux64.tar.bz2 (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-publicbeta-linux64.tar.bz2)

And here are some of the new features
1) CPU mining is now possible through an internal miner, which also lets you connect to pools or your own computers to form a "super hash node" . Can also set a "share" amount, so instead of solving the real target, you solve smaller targets like pools do.
2) Multi wallet support
3) The only chain not vulnerable to 51% attacks
4) Major reworkings of the RPC code. Including
* splitting up getwork into sc_getwork and sc_testwork
* adding pool like features to the client so that pools can form much easier
* performance improvements
5) Major restructuring of the old SolidCoin/BItcoin code. Multithreading deadlock issues fixed, hundreds of performance improvements added, cleaner code to work on
6) CPF . Coin protection/promotion fund. A 5% amount is added and put into a fund which will help protect the currency when it comes to price, network stability and promotion
7) Block format changes to help improve efficiency when it comes to mining and also for future chain downloading improvements
8) Send dialog improvements. You can now see the fee in advance, and also how much balance you will have left after sending a certain amount.
9) Windows x64 builds available
10) Windows installer automatically selects 32bit or 64bit client, one download makes it easier
11) Many UI improvements
12) Move to 4 decimal points instead of 8 for better looking "numbers" and making it easier to use for average user
13) No more saving settings in wallet.dat . All settings now saved in solidcoin.conf
14) Can now mark blocks you find in the blockchain with your own unique identifier
15) Coin inflation is now somewhat tied to difficulty.


http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6056/image9yz.png

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/sc20_3.png

So, are we gonna see the whitepaper  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44170.msg527029#msg527029)soon ? :D

So ... where's the source code?
Anyone would be a fool to run a binary not checked by someone independent given the current uncertainty with all this SC2.0 crap.
I'd also suggest anyone running it, to do a complete port scan to check the listening ports it opens (or on linux just 'netstat -na' and look through that - mainly the LISTEN lines - compare before and after)
And also check exactly what outgoing connections it makes (or read the ... missing code)

Source code only helps if you also compile your binaries...The binaries you download could be made from difference source code. So some people are checking the source code, but mostly all just download the binaries  ;D

cant start solidcoin on win 7 32 bit.

I have connections of 0, but the hash is running, the number of shares are increasing, is my Solidcoin 2 working properly?

Yep - I do realise that (I don't download binaries)
Every coin daemon and miner I run I compiled myself from source
though I did run a few early versions of cgminer linux binaries coz I know the author well from before bitcoin

(I also change every daemon to put my name in the block-chain coinbase since it is so easy to do :D)

I also do comparisons between them and the official bitcoin source - even in this case that would be useful since there will be a lot of code copied directly from bitcoin

works great for me on WinXP VM. I've copied my original wallet.dat according to instructions and I see all my solidcoins from v1 :)
Looking forward for real live network.

The one thing - why can't I run more than 1 thread for solo mining ?

copyed solidcoin folder to user/appdata/roaming/     and it works now.

any mining pools yet ? i see coinotron is testing, but u cant logon yet..

The difficulty is more than 200 now, how do we estimate how long we can mine a Solidcoin2 coin?

Definitely getting quite a good speed boost on this vs. Tenebrix @ 12.5 Kh per thread.

I find your lack of sources disturbing.

Does someone - anyone - really believe in security though obscurity in software ?

When will the source be out? Cold day in hell im running a pre-built binary. Dont get me wrong.. love to give it  a try.. but I want to make sure its safe. To many crooks out there these days

Nice one getting about 5.25 khash per two threads on my crappy U2500 at 1.2 GHz !

I am of course biased, but I find lack of sources in Solidcoin beta  seriously worrisome and *wrong*.
Say what you want about premines, premined coins can't have potential to run arbitrary code on your box...

khash compared to tenebrix means absolutely nothing, the difficulty is a thousand times higher too.

Sources will be available. Intelligent people understand, that you just spread FUD because you hope that TBX doesn't die... Why should people support a CPU-currency with 7M premined coins, when there is a better alternative?  ;)

Where can I see difficulty list for all the coins !?

So far, there has been no indication of that.

Also, when will sources become available, when sufficient number of people install the binaries ;) ?

You had soooo much insider information in the other bashing thread. So you should have get the little piece of info about the source... or not?  ;D

Actually, no, I didn't have and still don't have any reliable information, insider or otherwise.

Still, one has to wonder, why would one withhold sources, if not to hide something....

I sure as hell won't be downloading a binary from someone who at least claims to know current botnet rental rates.
No thanks, I prefer to be in charge of my own computer.

You don't want to share your paypal login and password with Dear Leader of Solidcoin ?

You meanie.

Ah true, it was not you, but you could have asked your buddy  ;D
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47135.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47135.0)


I just say "7.7 mio coins"...

Those are quite in the open - relevant strings are in config, in fact :) and both source and config were available from moment of publication.

So no, I'm not hiding anything and am quite proud of my premine and the laundry idea.

Now, I assume CH is quite proud with his design, so why not show it's internals?

I mean, sure there are no parts that deserve to be hidden due to controversy or unsound design, no one actually believes such things to be possible...  ::)

Leg pulls aside, could someone please suggest a legitimate reason to conceal sources for "free" software of this kind ?

For me as a miner,the simple reason is that mining SC right now is certainly more profitable now as it is worth more and can be mined more easily for now.Should TBX increase at its time I will certainly think about going for it as another alternative.I actually mentioned in another thread was wondering if it was even possible to do merged mining via CPU only w/ Tenebrix and Solidcoin. ?

I guess I chose the right name when I signed up for this site,lol.

If you don't like SC2, why don't you just ignore it completly? Maybe you have other interests?  ;D

Someone is selling Solidcoin 2 Public Beta coins for actual bitcoins ? :-/


I don't "dislike" it, but I am genuinely perplexed as to what legitimate reasons might one have for not releasing the source of a public beta.

If such reasons exist, it should not be that hard to make a convincing argument in favor of withholding the source code from potential users.

Yep he is scared tenecrapix die now.

I am merely curious as to what reason one might have to hide the source code of the fruit of his labor :)

So you cannot see how the 51% attack is prevented and bypass that protecshun !!!

I hope you jest.

I also hope that if you said it seriously, that you are wrong, since it would be a horrible shame if the network of SC2 depends on Security through obscurity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity)

To hide the fact that a 51% attack can not be prevented without altering SolidCoin from a peer to peer currency to a centrally controlled one. To prevent SolidCoin users from seeing just how much power CoinHunter now has over every single client and every single transaction.

Now come on, there must be a non-nefarious reason for withholding the sources, I'm sure it will soon become apparent.

It's because of all the trojans and wallet stealers included :)

You know there isn't.

No, I'm sure something benign is at hand, it just has to be...explained. However the nature of this phenomenon necessitating source concealment intrigues me, hence my inquiry

Nobody here knows anything, except that the source has not been released.

coinotron now states that is supports sc in test mode, but my workers cant connect there

Maybe source code is not released to protect intellectual property ?

Doesn't that require intellect :P

LOL I think source will be released just wait some more  ;) :D

Lolcust.. your beating a dead horse here I must admit. SolidCoin 2 is Beta.. if people are wishing to test the network without viewing source its upon them.

I would say the final release should have the source code released IMHO. But again if people decide to use it even then.. its on them.

Just like people mining Tenebrix right now.. anyone doing so knows you hold 7.7 million in your hands. Its up to people choosing to mine Tenebrix given the fact. Yes the source is open however Tenebrix isnt in beta.

Just giving my opinion here.. and I am sure everyone here knows your invested interest in SC2 failing. Because if it is a success it will be cpu only and possibly not pre-mined. Yeah I can see it hurting TBX..

Well said !

Well, I did admit a bias, but at this point my interest is purely academic - and not in source code itself, but in the reasons for its concealment



To be fair, the only non-premined CPU coin is Fairbrix :D

Well one thing is interesting to me. What algo is this using say compared to TBX !? Is this GPU proof ? No mention of algo used anywhere.

The algo in SC2 is custom-designed by CoinHunter.

So far, no whitepapers have been published and no peer review of the algo has taken place.

No details have been released as to its structure and operation, to the best of my knowledge.

Well ATM custom designed sounds MUCH better than your tenecrapix copycat of scrypt that favours amd processor crap !!! SC2 is pretty good now. Can't wait for final thing.

If I mine some coins now do they get carried on when final thing is up ?

OK that's a bit unusual to say unless you really don't know what you are talking about
Your saying an undocumented, unknown algorithm "sounds MUCH better than" another that is documented, source available and anyone can see it.
Hmm - interesting - I wonder why someone would say anything that silly ...

So now it's scrypt's fault that phenom II's have more L2 cache ?  ::)

Well it is easier to damn copy and paste than write your own thing from the ground up. Respect to CH !

ArtForz and lolcust are just AMD holding / biased copy and pasters. Good luck. TBX price already 0.0099 which is damn nice. Hoping it falls to 0.0000 as everyone realises your scam. Satoshi ( same people as ArtForz and lolcust etc. ) scam also coming to an end. Price tanking. These people must be long on AMD stock right now. No wonder both bitcoin and tenecrapix is made for amd silicon.

Why no Intel and Nvidia love from both bitcoin and tenecrapix !? Because they are made by same person who is probably AMD employee or holds loads of AMD stock etc.

No hashes of the binaries provided so one can make sure that we are actually downloading Coinhunters binaries instead of trojanware from someone else.
No source.
No whitepaper.
Identical feature set to other coins.

Hope the "beta" goes well.

Good the hear, but I am not concerned about the algo.

I am genuinely interested as to what sane, legitimate reason could one have for not releasing the sources of beta version ?

If anything, that would have facilitated bughunting, which is the whole point of betas

Hope you're not being facetious.What I mean is the value of "Solidcoin (https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger)" is actually higher right now than Tenebrix and considering the difficulty will be extremely low when it becomes final will certainly be more valuable to CPU miners !!!!


My current issue with Tenebrix as a miner is simply that the custom made miner for Windows does not allow you to enter options for further optimizations (esp. for Intel processors) as it seems pretty flawless with AMD processors.I don't know anything about compiling for Windows and have never used Linux thus when you say "but do build one for yourself, since home built is best built" to compile my own simply translates to me as being unsupportive of the product you have made in maintaining performance standards equally or at least try to !!!!

More BS from lolcust. Why not supporting Intel CPUs on Windows !? Or at least Intel CPUs on Linux. Why so AMD biased ???

I did give you instructions on how to compile TBX miner with maximum optimization for intel, any luck?

And, TBX's performance on intel really has nothing to do with purely academic inquiry into the reasons for withholding the sources.

Yes, just did not have enough time to try it out BUT I bet my 2600K with 8 threads < crappy AMD Phenom II with 6 cores so I'm like OMG WTF BBQ switching to SC2 dont care about anything but the $$$ it makes me.

So far, SC2 isn't even available for you to switch to - what you see here is beta, and coins won't "carry over" to release.

Anyways, let's get back to the subject of sources, or rather, their lack :(

Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it.

You can learn a lot more far more quickly about how secure / full of trojans / likely to open up backdoors a program is by running it in a Virtual Machine and inspecting what it does while running.

But of course you know this. These accusations are simply FUD, anyone with half a brain can see that.

He has found a new way of trolling SC2. He just scared that his crapixtenescam is going to end before he gets the chance to dump 7.7 mils of scamcoins. Just wait and see which one wins SC2 or tenecrapixfailbrix.

bulanula, Ten wasn't even responding to me :D

Or is John me now, too ::)

Like I said, I am quite sure that nothing foul is going on, but that makes concealment of sources even more pointless and perplexing...

I think you already know the reason for witholding the source prior to release, and I think we both know why you are the loudest voice demanding it.

Care to share that with us !? I honestly don't know the reason.

To be honest - and I am being absolutely sincere  - I can not imagine a legitimate reason to conceal sources.

If the PoW algorithm is sound, if the system is secure, and no nefarious components are being present, then availability of sources can not in any way harm SC2 and in fact can only benefit it, since everyone will be able to be personally impressed by the...ahem...solidness of the code.

I don't doubt that code is sound, so I am extremely perplexed by the fact that it is being withheld.

He may not know what to look for, but I do. If I were to find something, I could post the filename, the line number, and why it is a problem. Then others can validate what I posted. Then you would have a measure of confidence that there was a problem. I couldn't prove the code to be secure, but I would have the opportunity to prove the code to be insecure (if any flaws exist). It is the difference between "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence". Security through obscurity mistakes one for the other.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't activate any trojans until after a cooling off period has expired. Gotta suck in the fish before you pull the net closed.  ;)

It's not an excuse for witholding the source, it's a defence against the argument "We need the source to check for trojanz!!" I accept that there could indeed theoretically be a secret ticking time bomb in there somewhere waiting to be activated, but I trust RealSolid enough to believe that there isn't. I accept that many people don't, won't or can't reach that level of trust, but then nobody is forcing those people to be part of SolidCoin, in fact we'd prefer it if you weren't.

In any case, surely if I were that clever and nefarious to plant some advanced, remotely activated, undetectable trojan like that in the client, I wouldn't be so stupid as to leave it in the source code? So how exactly would the source code help you there?

I'm sure the SolidCoin community is breathing a sigh of relief knowing that you're on their side and ready to validate the various improvements RealSolid has made, and I'm sure RS is flattered at your interest in his little project, but I do have to ask why you're so keen to validate the good work RS has done when you've made it so perfectly clear you dispise him?

Let's keep personal attitude toward RS at bay here.

The question of "why would a sane man who has produced benign, secure code for a free software product conceal the sources" is purely academic one.

The quest for academic knowledge is truly a noble one, and it heartens me to see someone so inspired by it. I do hope you publish a paper containing your findings. I would be more than happy to peer review it. However, I still believe that you do already know the answer to this question, despite your claims of ignorance.

I have been wrong before though, and am prepared to entertain the possibility that you could indeed be so naive as to not realise the true reason for the secrecy. Perhaps, once the client is released into the world and SolidCoin 2 is flourishing, RealSolid may yet explain his reasoning to you.

A claim most peculiar.

I am not telepathic (so can't have any awareness of anyone's motives here beyond their written claims and third party evidence) and really do not see how (inherently unsustainable) ignorance of a beta version's internals could possibly benefit a project, assuming it is both technically sound and benign.

It is extremely odd.

But what I'm seeing is that somehow CoinHunter causes people to go towards extreme ends. You either hate him or you love him, there's no in between. This is a trait of some natural born leaders. I have to give him credit for that. He does manage to get very loyal followers.

GREAT RELEASE COINHUNTER!

I assume once the final client, the source code and RS' "white paper" (lol) on his encryption algo are released, everyone will be happy? Of course not, you're just looking for reasons to dislike / distrust SolidCoin because of the threat he poses to Bitcoin.

I don't care if you don't join the party though, just leaves more SolidCoins for me ;)

I'm getting this error when solo mining:http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/7316/sc2error.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/84/sc2error.png/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

can someone upload the right settings file,or upload right settings for me to put into a file? Does solo mining use GPU or CPU?If CPU how long with 10MHash/s to get a block? And how many SC do I get per block?

Thank you

You misunderstand. People don't mistrust SolidCoin because of the threat it poses to BitCoin; they mistrust it because they have no faith in the lead developer, and the design as we understand it is no longer true peer to peer but a form of indirect central control.

CoinHunter has a proven history of introducing fixes with unintended side effects because he doesn't fully appreciate why BitCoin is designed the way it is. He may even be a good programmer but he is a bad designer.

Has any description of the algorithm for preventing 51% attacks been posted anywhere? I can't seem to find anything but the claim in their forum. Am I looking in the wrong place?

If anyone has seen even a cursory description of that mechanism please post a link. I'm not expressing skepticism. I'm just genuinely interested.

Yes, very odd language. I'd be happy with a white paper explanation for starters at least.

Does that require trolling or not trolling?

It requires no trolling  ;D

OK, then.

If you wouldn't mind PMing me when either the white paper or code is released. I would greatly appreciate it!

Strictly speaking, it's nearly impossible to tell if a program is malicious just by running it in a virtual machine and inspecting what it does. For example, suppose the actual SolidCoin 2.0 client had a booby-trap "if block number is greater than 8000 and difficulty is greater than 100, find and upload all wallets for all Bitcoin variants to RealSolid and erase the hard disk". Easy to code, very difficult to detect because until the booby-trap is triggered it doesn't do anything suspicious - no unexpected network activity, no dodgy file accesses, nothing. It'd also be more or less impossible to meet the booby trap condition in testing before it triggered for real.

(The observant will notice that SolidCoin has actually crossed that threshold and nothing's happened - it's just a hypothetical example.)

If memory serves me correctly, Bitcoin's moved to having its binaries compiled by multiple trusted developers that check they all get the same binary as each other in order to make this kind of attack harder. It's a shame SolidCoin doesn't do the same thing.