Bitcoin Forum

If you like giant countdown timers :- http://solidcoin.info/ (http://solidcoin.info/)

Monday 10th October 23:35 UTC

Also of note, 3 wannabe hackers from this forum claimed they would take down the SolidCoin 2 public beta and none have. Welcome to the future of cryptocurrencies, a truly secure network.

You can download the beta and see what all the fuss is about at the SolidCoin forums :- http://solidcointalk.org/topic/252-solidcoin-v20-public-beta/ (http://solidcointalk.org/topic/252-solidcoin-v20-public-beta/)


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

Nice one mate ! Seems like the 8 Japanese scammers ( Satoshi = kano = coblee = MtGox = lolcust = SAC = BitcoinExpress = ArtForz ) proved once again that they are total idiots.

Any exchanges lined up?  I'm on board until 3 AM GMT on Thursday.

3 new ones have been working with us (and seem very trustworthy/reputable), but whether or not they will be up at hour 1 or not we won't know. :) They certainly *WANT* to be up at the release. There is also 2? I think currently working exchanges which should be able to seamlessly migrate to SC2.0 .

One of the newer requirements for exchanges if they want our support (which is essentially linking to them and telling our users that they are ok) is a very clear indication of WHO they are. We want to avoid this anonymous exchange situation so that people have more security.

More examples that RS IS doing the right thing about security in cryptocurrencies. Way to go man !

You are not even trying to make a good argument and instead resort to just spewing inane assumptions around. But then again, that's how some of these alternate cryptocurrencies work. :P


Anyway, any idea when we'll see any white papers or the actual source code, if ever?

I'm not mining when I can't see the source code, sorry.

If you look at commercial programs, non-open source code tends to be the most vulnerable in terms of security.  I just don't trust this.

I only have 1 solid question !

Will CPU mining be optimized for Intel Proc. in Windows ?

This is the KEY question. Tenebrix ( and scrypt crap coins like Fairbrix / Litecoin crap all made by 8 Japanese scammers ) SUCKS HUGE on Intel and Windows combinations. Even Linux 64bits sucks on my 2600K ! They give NO support whatsoever. Fuck them !

SolidCoin will work perfectly on Windows 7 and Intel. My 2600K gets about 160 khash/s ( maximum anyone has reported on any CPU so far ) which is damn nice !!! Fuck scrypt and Japanese scammers !

Yes, they are both coming. White paper won't be long after or before the release. Source code is dependent upon the trolls. If you have any services you want to use with SolidCoin then give me an email/PM if you need more technical information than is currently provided.

Imagine it is ScamCoin launch of the week and nobody mines...

At least nobody reacts to this douchebag seriously anymore.  ::)

Clock for Clock AMD PHENOMs seem the fastest option currently. However factoring in HyperThreading seems to put it big in intels favour. I haven't researched why yet, but a hyperthreading core gives nearly 90% of a non HT core on my I7-920.

^Nice,good to know and thanks for the info.

pics sourcecode or it didn't happen.

The only way I can explain that is if you were using two HT cores on separate physical cores. Two HT cores running on the same physical core simultaneously, and both delivering 90% of a physical core doesn't appear to make sense.

Can anyone confirm this behavior?

It does make sense you noob. Read about HyperThreading !

If you believe hyperthreading should cause the behavior described above you clearly have no practical or theoretical experience of it.

Go back to your racist rants and paranoid fantasies.

sd.. its just easier to put him on ignore.. that way you dont have to read his crap

I have reported a few of his more hostile posts to a moderator in the hope he and anyone else from his IP gets banned. I don't think many moderators will approve of his racist agenda.

Even with all the nonsense CoinHunter has posted I've never felt the need to report posts or ignore people before that anti-Japanese rant.

Of course I am anti-japanese when they try and scam me. If Nigerians tried and scammed you, would you not be anti-Nigerians etc. !? Where did I write anything racist huh !? Probably made it up in your own head. Manga watching, noodle eating is what Japanese people usually do it's not racist. It's like saying french people are croissant eating which does not make it racist son. Grow up !

It depends. If the workload is purely ALU-bound or FPU-bound and there are few instruction interdependencies, then each thread of a HT core should deliver exactly 50% of the performance of a single thread running on it, as they share execution units. IOW HT doesn't help at all increase performance.

However if the workload is memory-bound, if execution units are mostly idle, then each thread of a HT core should deliver about 100% of the performance of a single thread running on it. IOW HT doubles performance.

For real-world workloads, the number falls somewhere in between 50% and 100%. CoinHunter reporting 90% means his mining algorithm is mostly memory-bound.

So then scrypt sucks so much on Intels because ... ???

Rumor is that SC 2.0 is just a small recursion loop inserted into the BTC hash algorithm. If that is true, it should be trivial to make recursion simulation for GPUs. I wouldn't bother mining SC 2.0 on CPUs until we see the algorithm, it would be a waste of electricity.

Unless source is never released...
Then I suppose Solidcoin is dead.  :-[

Why so !? Normal people don't give a dog poop about the source of a software they use. They only care it works or not etc. Maybe he will release the source or maybe he won't. Who cares !? As long as it works then more power to him.

not going to be mining on anything that sets off virus detection on my computer, or anything i can't read the source of. good luck.

Well that is jolly good with me. More coins for me :)

I was trying to download the client to prepare.  I was wondering is it the same as the last beta client?  I went to the main page solidcoin.info.  If you click the link to download the client you get nothing?  I then downloaded the last beta and it looks awesome and seems to be awesome.   However, it still seems to use testnet folder and a new block chain.  So when will solidcoin 2.0 final be released?

hahahah!

This is a joke... Right!?!?

What you afraid of?! Hein?!!?

Having the source code is much more than a requirement for any serious/trust-able solution.

Linux = open source = trust-able
Windows = closed source = crap
Bitcoin = open source = trust-able
Solidcoin = mysterious closed source = crap

LOL nice analogy so SolidCoin = Windows and Bitcoin = Linux. You are a genius !

So then Tenebrix = Mac  ;D !?

Real-work workloads gain 10-30% from HT.  That's tested results, not theoretical stuff from whitepapers.
All time absolute record that I have seen is around 40%.

LOL   :P

Steve Jobs just move in the tomb! +_+

You did not read me correctly. You are talking about a different percentage scale. When I say "50% of 1 thread" it means "0% performance gain from HT". When I say "100% of 1 thread" it means "100% gains".

IOW, you agree with me.

CoinHunter, how much was premined? The previous plan was to premine some to transfer to all original SC owners right? In addition to that, were more coins premined?

will there be a pool available at start?

no way I will install this closed source prog.

Pools are available, but you need a working miner software for it, at the moment only the client itself can mine SC2...

It's OK.
He WILL install the closed source client just like the rest of the trolls will.
Capitalism beats patriotism every time!!!!

So true.

CoinHunter, if you are not going to bother putting a reasonable time between your posts, why don't you post your little marketing dialogs under your main ID?

I am not a detractor of SC2.0 because I don't know what it can do (yet).
But I am definitely not a proponent of people using false identities to self-promote.
Also, you could find a little more natural dialogs.
Boot licking yourself in that shameless way makes it sound pretty ridiculous.

You know a lot about SC2.0 for someone who did not design it, and someone who is not CoinHunter in spite of posting all the time at minutes of interval with him and boot licking him like he himself would do if he was flexible enough. Wait, are you CoinHunter?

If you get his IP banned, I fear that it will block CoinHunter too, so we won't get news about SolidCoin anymore.
That sucks.  Not that I like specially solidcoin, but a bit of respect for undangered species please.

I just want to let you know that my exchange (https://solidcoin24.com) will support SC 2.0 as soon as it's out.
You can register already now; depositing BTC and NMC works.
Since yesterday there's also a market where users can trade directly with each other in many different currencies (USD,EUR,GBP,CAD,AUD,CHF,JPY) and with many different methods (bank transfer, PayPal, Moneybookers, Dwolla, ...).

100% gain means double performance from two threads compared to one.  I have never seen, heard about, or read about an instance where HT doubled performance, or even close, excepting SC2.
In real world benchmarks, adding a HT thread adds between -5% and 30% performance.

Yes, it is very rare that HT doubles performance, but it is nonetheless possible to construct synthetic micro-benchmarks that demonstrate this. The dubious usefulness of HT against real-world workloads, where performance gains more often tend toward 0% than 100%, is one of the reasons why AMD hasn't bothered implementing it yet.

Nothing being revealed during your tiny beta means very little. If I had found a vulnerability during the beta period, I wouldn't tell anyone. I'd wait until after adoption of the full release, and then I would relieve you of the burden of having to divvy out that premined fortune you have.

Are you saying that if trolls are loud you'll release it sooner to shut them up, or later to punish them?

When will source code come available?

What if the final version has a keylogger or walletstealer inside?

TrojanCoin2?

Sorry... I won't run this without knowing if it is safe...

I was looking forward to giving it a go too, but without the source code, it's a no-no for me.

I see no reason for closed software, unless there is something to hide...
And what about safety of the coin? People like ArtForz found/fixed many errors/bugs but can't keep an eye on it anymore.

I like to try out new alternate coins but I'll skip on this one...

What if Windows has NSA backdoor ? You would never know it. Thank you for keeping off SC2. More coinzzz to me fools.

Do you trust the creator of SolidCoin?

Sourcecode or not, I doubt even half of the paranoid monkeys even know how to read it ;)

I just put the code through Google Translator and it translates it to Jibberish.

Is that modern or antic Jibberish ?

Anyone going to 51% this with a bunch of high-CPU AWS instances?

LOL fail. It cannot be 51% because of new design with policing peers. Haters gonna hate.

There is going to be a successfull attack within 48 hours after launch.

How do you know ? Please do enlighten us !

Hmh, dynamically linked against legacy libpng? No prob, I'll just recompile it for my system's libs. Oh, wait...

ouch! sc2 website down?

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the iSsue of their Currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Hey, did they release their white paper yet? What is this talk about policing peers? I was guessing to solve the problem they were going to have to add in implicitly trusted peers. It makes perfect sense really. Distasteful as it may seem.

I'm getting tingly. Little time to go now :)

Will be hitting this hard from the start.

Back up. Took a snap capture:
https://i.imgur.com/esonN.png

Didn't you just say that you didn't trust the precompiled binaries and wouldn't touch them?

Yep but the reward is too great not to :)

Dedicated mining rigs have nothing to steal on them.

GOXXED!!!

What does that mean !? Goxed ? Doxed ? WTF is all this script kiddy jargon.

20 more minutes!

... pre-mining?

Does anyone have the new (windows) client yet?  Also what difficulty will this start at?

Bueller?

Windows 32 and 64bit
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin200-setup.exe

Linux 64 (Daemon and GUI)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-200-linux64.bz2

Linux 32 (Daemon and GUI)
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/solidcoin-200-linux32.bz2

http://solidcointalk.org/topic/261-solidcoin-v20-released/page__pid__2563

I am getting way lower K/Hashs then in the beta...like 1/4 the amount.

Based on the connections my client is making, quite a few ec2 instances are mining.

RS admitted in IRC that the beta client did show hashing speed incorrectly.  Hilarious.

Linux clients are borked.

200+ shares and no transactions?

Most hilarious launch since FBX 1.0?

Difficulty raised from 8 to 6. Hilarious.

This doesn't need a 51+ attack, it got killed by the creator.

Retarded, this is worse than solidcoin.  It looks like the binaries aren't even up any more.

And tenebrix rallies on the news!  Thanks for letting me take my final dump on you guys, appreciate it.

I'm pleased to announce that Solidcoin 2 is up and running and working well, no sign of any impact from the supposed attacks that have been often promised but never delivered.  

There was an issue with stales and orphan blocks right at the start caused by too much hashing power on the network, but the difficulty is rising steadily now and we should be seeing the last of that issue in the next couple of hours. I've yet to see any evidence of a fork or any orphan chains. SolidCoin seems to be as Solid as the name would suggest.

I'm happy to report that all of my SollidCoins from the old 1.04 chain before it was taken down by RS/CH are present in my wallet, and everyone I've spoken to so far is reporting the same success on that front, so what we have is a brand new coin with a brand new algorithm, client, mining software and various other cool features all in one, yet carrying on exactly where 1.04 left off. Quite an astonishing acheivement to pull off in only a few weeks and I'd like to thank RealSolid for the fantastic and painstaking work he's put into the client. It really does make the Bitcoin client look rather amateur in comparison.

We have an exchange live already and ticking along nicely in #Bitcoin-Markets, with several more due to follow in the next days and weeks, and the exchanges are only the beginning.

And finally to all the trolls, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your continued interest in SolidCoin. Without you guys trolling us every single day we would not have got nearly as much publicity as we did, and there would not have been nearly as many people ready to start mining, collecting & trading SolidCoins at the re-launch. In fact, without the threat of attack there would have been no justification for taking down the chain at all, which gave RealSolid the opportunity to create something far superior in it's place, so it's fair to say you guys made SolidCoin 2.0 possible. Thanks again guys! :D

Because GUI improvements were amongst the biggest of worries when the blockchain was locked down for weeks on end.

http://troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-stupid.jpg

Exactly. Generation going nicely too on my 2600K :) !

Just want to remind everybody of the bet running on this:
http://webetcoins.com/rounds/41

Just wanted everybody to bet on my bet so that I can take 5% off your winnings.
FTFY

If the measuring stick of an alt chain be its block generation rate, then solidcoin is surely a smashing success. In the words of Gob Bluth,"I've made a huge mistake".

Yeah, Geist Geld now has a huge competitor for "damn fastest coin"

I got my first block, goodness, this is quite a hard coin to mine!  The difficulty is now more than 500, can't believe my luck.

I was a bit to cautious on my side  ;D

5s blocks, you tell me ;)

If the target is 180s/blk, then looks like there is quite a ways to go. How you think 5s blocks are 'normal' this long after launch is beyond me.  Even TBX (which had a much-less hyped launch) reached equilibrium within the first 12hrs or so (I think).

The TBX launch wasn't pre-announced. Not only that, but it was the first GPU hostile currency - people weren't set up to mine it.  Different situation here. When you pre-announce a coin (see I0coin) expect people to slam it. The starting difficulty should have been set much higher. Still have yet to see any evidence of an "attack".  What happened to the "chain reorganization"?

The whole problem is that formally, this behavior might very well be normal, much like formally, "Mr. Big McHuge" steamrolling the "simple guys" chain in Fairbrix was "normal per protocol

Nice! Bear in mind you got your own block solo mining in less than 12 hours. Try doing that with BTC, even with 5 fast GPUs, and let me know how you get on ;)


Well yes and no, of course a nice GUI is important, crypto currencies will live and die by how many people use them. Of course we need and want to support the Linux CLI crowd, which is why there's a Linux daemon version as well as a GUI version. However, 95%+ of computer users are running Windows and are accustomed to reliable, easy to use programs with a friendly GUI. To gain mass adoption from those 95% you need a quality GUI.

Having said that, GUI development is a very small part of what has changed in Solidcoin. Bigger changes of more importance were:

- Blockchain attack protection, including 51% and various others
- CPU hashing algorithm and built-in miner with equal performance on Windows / Linux
- Coin Protection Fund implementation

and various other cool features. These of course took precedent over the GUI improvements, which are actually fairly minor. Expect a much nicer looking client in the future.


Ok, this is obviously a troll post, but quite a funny one so I thought I'd take the time to respond to it in full.

Actually, I think 750k coins generated in the 24 hours is about where we will end up. At the time of writing, approximately 12 hours in, we are at difficulty 883 with 14650 blocks generated or 469312 coins. This large number in such a short time is purely due to the huge number of mining peers we have connected, over 1000 at last count, which I think is close to 25% of what Bitcoin has, with no sign of the adoption rate slowing.

As you know, the very start of a Blockchain is a unique time where a lot of blocks get generated, as you have a lot of people mining at a low difficulty. This is true of all coins to date with the exception of Bitcoin, as nobody knew what the fuck a Bitcoin was when that was launched, so Satoshi generated all the easy early coins for himself. As difficulty goes up, block generation speed goes down. Since the chain started at difficulty 8, the first 24 hours are the "best" time to mine, as blocks are generated easiest when the difficulty is lowest.

Of course there is an advantage for those people mining in the first week or month, that's true of any CryptoCoin. However, I beleive that Solidcoin 2.0 is the least "early adopter friendly" coin to date. Thanks to all the free publicity we got from trolls, there were so many early adopters right from the get go that nobody really had a chance to accumulate a vast fortune cheaply. Also, the fast difficulty retargets mean that the window of opportunity for anyone to easily accumulate a lot of coins mining is very small, much smaller than any other coin to date.

As you also know, the 1.1 million pre-mined coins represent the coins from the old 1.04 Blockchain. When the Solidcoin Block Explorer comes online, you will be able to see what has happened to them, but I'll give you a sneak preview: They have all been transferred back to their original owners from Solidcoin 1.04 (with the exception of those that were lost on the Mooncoin exchange which will be handled by a separate process later on). As I mentioned in my earlier post, everyone I've spoken to so far has been successful in importing their old wallet.dat from Solidcoin 1.04 and has access to their old coins.


Indeed there is a ways to go, we are only 12 hours in. Short blocks are indeed normal for this stage in the blockchain, especially when you have so many people mining as hard and as fast as they can. The Tenebrix client (RIP) was an ugly mess, not many people installed it, hence the quick stabilisation of block generation rate for that project. It simply didn't have the mass adoption and hashing power behind it that SC2 does.

So, ladies and gentletrolls, it does appear that RealSolid has delivered on every promise he has made to date, and exceeded all expectations in the process.

You're saying that even after 12hrs and 15+ difficulty retargets, the hashing power is still SO STRONG and GROWING that 5s blocks are still 'expected'? SC is at 15k blocks already.

No, that doesn't make *any* sense.

If it's true that only 1/2 the blocks are generates, it doesn't look so bad.  That would mean ~ 250k coins generated in the last 12h.

I wrote a haiku in honor of SC2.Fail

"Solidcoin released
Unable to retarget
May it Rest in Peace"

You're absolutely right of course, I forgot about that.

Start trading

https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC

https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD

I like your exchange and I use it for some coins.

But you can't expect people to buy coins while one person has mined 10,000 US$ worth of coins (250k SC) in 24 hours.
I don't think people like to trade a coin from a chain that will be restarted sooner or later.

This chain is dead, I advice not to buy/sell until the restart... Hmm, maybe better to stop this nonsense completely...

SC2 will never be safe without programmers who know what they do (people like ArtForz).
Source is not open, we can't even tell what more unknown vulnerabilities are in this client / network / chain.

And as long as the creator has a button to stop this all, I wouldn't invest a single 0.01$ in it.
You can loose it all...

If CuntHunter really wants to save this coin, he releases the sourcecode and let some pro's fix it for him.

Correction.  Half the blocks produce coins for you the other half produce coins for Coin Hunter's personal wallet.  You knew about that right?

I get wild variations in hash rate...

It goes 25k ... 22.5k... 6k... 0.00k... and then back up.  Is this normal?

I have 4 cores running.

Yes it is normal.  It is a feature.

what is:
 

If miner doesn't get notified of new block, the maximum time in seconds it mines before requesting new work.

+1

I've been stuck at block 16709 for a while. Is there something to be worried about?

Restart client !

No I don't think so. Maybe restart SolidCoin app or your PC? Block 18722 here.

Difficulty is now more than 4k, thank goodness I mined from the start, but I guess a few more hours I have to switch to a pool as it seems too difficult now.

Using the console:
Maybe I am doing this wrong.

Solidcoin sc_getblockbynumber 19180  time:1318377732
Solidcoin sc_getblockbynumber 18000  time:1318361977

if time value in full seconds?

block difference 1180 blocks.
time difference 15755 seconds
time per block 13.3 seconds?

Is that right?

Or is timestamp in fractional seconds?

Assumming it is correct it has taken ~1day to increase block time by factor of 13x.  Block times are still roughly 1/26th of where they should be so it would take 2 more days before system is using proper difficulty ~150,000. 

Didn't really check, but the blocks arrive real fast

You can check http://coinotron.com/coinotron/AccountServlet?action=statistics

It has the difficulty in the top-right corner, as well as the last 20 SLC blocks/times/difficulty

The difficulty now is 8800 more than doubled!

Based on the Coinotron statistics, it looks like block generation is about 22 seconds per block? I guess double that if every other block is diff 1.

Is the 90 second (?) target average for only the odd numbered blocks, or all blocks?

My understanding based on CH correcting my math is the odd blocks.  There is no target timeframe for even blocks.

So best way to measure block time is from one odd block timestamp to next odd block timestamp (obviously across a larger span, say 1000 blocks to get average).

I downloaded the solid coin client and Norton scanned it and said it was bad.  It automatically deleted it.
What's with that? ???

I've never had anything Bitcoin related pick up on a virusscanner.

Too bad we can't look at the source to make sure it's clean.

Especially considering that built in malware is one of the primary reasons people want to see the source and distrust SC2, especially coming from someone who claims great familiarity with botnets (CH/RS).

This is why I haven't

https://i.imgur.com/ajoa8.png

Joke or not, when the guy talks about putting CP on your computer and calling the police, no way in hell will I his that crap on my computer

Source please?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48226.0

I understand why.

- SolidCoin is closed source
- The creator can take it down
- security is only secure until someone finds out how to attack the trusted nodes

I like alternate crypto alternatives but you have to use common sense sometimes.

I agree on you with a lot of things but not on the "bankrupt an exchange instantly" part.
If I put 10$ on an exchange, I can buy coins worth of 10$ (minus a little fee).
The exchange only is a buy/sell platform, holding coins and money for trading.
It won't bankrupt, even if you put 13,000,000,000,000,000 coins on it.
It just won't sell any coins if there isn't enough money left in ones account.

It would still crash the value of the coins, though.
And that might cause a bankrupt of some users of the exchange  ;D

LiteCoin only has 3 blocks premined so there is no risk of a sell-off at all, so I jumped from TeneBrix to LiteCoin.

SC should be avoided... CuntHunter can do anything he likes, with your coins...

Are you going to stop bumping that stupid thread in the end?
We had a good laugth, that was fun.
But please, keep it short.

http://solidcoin.info/faq.php

Above link answers questions about the CPF and the genesis funds. 10 x 1.2 million accounts were created as trusted accounts, they cannot be spent on the network, so the total amount of coinage in the system is the SC1 coins and the SC2 coins generated. Roughly 1.6 million.

Complete bullshit until we see the source.

You've told enough half-truths (and flat out lies), you've shattered your credibility.

Source or GTFO, scammer  8)

You can make any claim you like... We can't check the source to verify...

So why believe other things until you have evidence? Goes both ways doesn't it? You can be hesitant to believe my claims, that's fair, but it's not fair to promote some alternate reality because it's what you want to believe.

Don't make me laugh...

Norton is trying to keep you from become a victim of Coin Hunter obfuscated wealth transfer mechanism where he takes a % of every SC 2.0 minted each year.  1.2 million SC a year to be exact.

Well honestly it likely is false + by Norton but I find it funny Norton would delete it.

People may believe things from people they trust, you burnt any trust people had in you a thousand times over. In anything as important as a currency personal trust isn't nearly enough anyway. We need hard facts ( i.e. the source code. )

'Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master'

Haha, gee you are a bitter person. How did I "burn trust". I haven't lied, I've been honest with everyone here and anyone saying otherwise will have zero evidence to the contrary. *zero evidence*

No one is requiring you to to run the binaries if you don't want to, those that don't mind running closed source (99% of the world) have run it and they love SolidCoin. Those who absolutely demand source code before they run anything will have to wait a few more days for v2.01 or v2.02. In the mean time why not just cool it with your bitterness and hate. I seriously feel sorry for some of you people here, I wonder what happened in your lives to turn you this way.

Err why wouldn't I want to post that as me? Haha, put a tinfoil hat on.

Fully agree on that one.
There is no point arguing about SolidCoin at all.
SolidCoin is a non-event until we get the source code.

I can confirm that sd has solid evidence about what he is telling.
Unfortunately, it is closed source at the moment, so you get to take my word on this one.

Cool, I have some hard evidence also. Take a look at the new SolidCoin v2.0 interface and see the improvements it has to make things easier for everyone. Now you can just tell your mother or sister to download one thing and in two clicks she is mining or sending money to others. Neat isn't it.

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

You always talk about yourself in third person? http://i.fokzine.net/s/emo.gif

You just failed by posting under your own account while wanting to post under one of your sockpuppet's account.
You made a fool of yourself, again.

That's evidence of a feature-rich client, but not evidence of a secure client.

If you could read, you would see I mixed both third and first person together. If it was a so called sock puppet account why would I do that? Oh snap I was so careful up to this point to not mix my first and third persons.  ;D

Check out the new SolidCoin send dialog with it's fee calculation.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/38674765/sc20_3.png

Some Sherlock already find out you are bulanula (among others).
Your mistake revealed this.

And 10% of what they mine goes to you.  Funny how that works.

The funniest part is consumers don't give a crap about mining/hashing.  Not everyone using Visa for example wants to run a Visa processing node.  There is no need for anyone's mother or sister to become a miner.  A crypto-currency can have its hashing power sufficiently decentralized even if only 1% are providing the network power.

Of course if your goal isn't to develop a functional economy and instead to simply collect as much as you can via your 10% tax well then you want everyone and their mother mining 24/7.  More miners = more skimmed off the top.

Why not release v2.00?
Anything questionnable in it that you plan to remove in v2.01 or 2.02?

Of all cryptocurrencies SC 2 have been undoubtedly the most user friendly inbuilt miner for any newbies to p2p currency world.

CH knows people are stupid. Sad as it is a lot of them are. His mistake was to abuse BitCoin users who are mostly technically literate.

CH wants the kind of people who spend a fortune on premium gold-plated HDMI cables to get a better color balance on their TV. Those kind of people are not going to be cryptocurrency early adopters.

With a closed source client isn't he now in violation of the oracle berkley DB license?

Good catch.


So technically CH could be sued by Oracle for using their intellectual property without proper license.  ROFL.

I shot an email to piracy@oracle.com (just took a guess most companies use a piracy@ email address to handle stolen software).

You guessed correctly

https://i.imgur.com/rV69K.png

So Solid Coin 2.0 works on implicit trust model.  

You must trust that Coin Hunter doesn't do anything wrong with the 1.2M SC he siphons off from the SC economy each year (stealing electricity from miners).  
You must trust he didn't include any nefarious code in the closed source client.
You must trust he is the world's first perfect programmer and introduced no bugs, exploits, or flaws in the code as you can't verify it yourself.
You must trust that he is telling the truth and the 12M SC premine can't be used.
You must trust he wouldn't suddenly change the rules in the future (20% tax instead of 10%, reboot launch SC 3.0, kill entire network, etc).

Without trust SC 2.0 is dead.  Everything relies on complete trust of the glorious leader......

Now we find out he is committing MASSIVE software piracy.  Distributing thousands of copies of Berkeley DB without commercial license.

This is the person everyone is trusting with their mined scam coins?
This is the network which is going to replace Bitcoin?
Companies are going too use SolidCoin (also known as PiracyCoins) for payment and being linked w/ CH software piracy?

Oh man this story just keeps getting better and better.

Google for 'berkeley DB license violation'. It might not be the same where you are but I get SolidCoin as the top link.

Isn't it against the forum rules here to advertise and distribute pirated software?

I think so.  Any mod want to comment on bitcointalk policy on advertising & promoting pirated software?

BTW here is the Berkeley DB License.



SolidCoin 2.0 is in violation of both provisions 2 & 3 and thus is not licensed to use the Berkeley DB, property owned by the Oracle Corporation.  As SolidCoin 2.0 does use and distribute this software without a valid license those involved in SolidCoin project (Coin Hunter et al) are engaging in software piracy which is a crime in some jurisdictions and subject to financial damages by Oracle in many jurisdictions where it is not a crime.

Stop talking about solidcoin and it will die away. Your thinking is far too precious to waste on a delusional aussie that proclaim himself God of the Cryptocoins and gather a massive number of brainwashed followers to praise his every keystroke.

Are we sure that he isn't licensed? Does SolidCoin even use BDB (I wouldn't know, since I don't have it installed)?

Since I somehow doubt that you can prove a negative, we won't be able to do anything about it until we hear from someone at Oracle. If it turns out that he is pirating BDB, though, I would suspect that policy would be to remove every link that points directly or indirectly (one hop) to the client. Most links to solidcointalk would be safe, since fortunately there isn't a big download button on each forum page.

Yes I am sure PiracyCoin uses BDB.  I used a hex editor and opened the dat files.  They match Berkeley DB format.  I used Oracle's tool db_dump to dump the contents of wallet.dat file.  It is indeed valid Berkeley DB.  He didn't even change the structure very much from Bitcoin.  Both the file/folder structure and internal database structure are nearly identical to Bitcoin.

It is possible albiet highly improbable that he has a license but it is my understanding that a commercial licenses from Oracle start in tens of thousands of dollars.  Had SolidCoin community obtained such a high value license one would imagine there would be something, a post, a blog entry, a forum thread, a press release, a line in the FAQ, something.  My guess is Real Solid didn't even realize he couldn't ripoff other people's work, make it close source and keep using BDB for free.  Berkeley DB is Oracle commercial property.  Due to the roots of the project Oracle left an exception to encourage OPEN SOURCE PROJECTS not closed source and proprietary solutions.  While you are right I can't disprove a negative I can use this thread to seek confirmation or denial from someone (other than Oracle) who would know.

So I am asking it unambiguously:

Coinhunter have you obtained a commercial license to distribute Berkeley DB in SolidCoin 2.0?  
Potential users have a right to know if they are engaging in piracy by downloading software that you unlawfully bundled with Commercial Oracle software.

On edit:
Obtained a pricelist from Oracle.  The cheapest license available for Berkeley Db is $800 per CPU
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf

If anyone wants to verify it themselves db_dump is an Oracle tool to dump the contents of any Berkeley database.  It is part of the berkeley db development package here (annoyingly Oracle makes you signup first)
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/index.html

So with 1,200? CPU in SolidCoin network that would mean CoinHunter either paid Oracle ~$1 million or has already engaged in $1 million of software piracy.

Again, I can't make that assumption, as unlikely as it may be to be wrong, without proof. At the end of the day, all it would do is cause more work for the mods and remove a few links. We wouldn't ban CH, since this would just be considered a single infraction. We also wouldn't ban discussing SolidCoin. In many ways, the topics would become quite similar to Silk Road threads, and I HATE Silk Road threads since that means I always have to read every post to make sure nobody starts linking to it, or otherwise tell people how to find it, and also that nobody mentions specific deals.

I understand completely that you can't act without confirmation.

You could ask him.  Users of bitcointalk have a right to know if they are engaging in piracy when downloading SolidCoin client.  

While I may not be fond of Coin Hunter I doubt he would directly lie to a mod.  He tends to obfuscate, mislead, providing incomplete information and change the topic a lot but to my knowledge he rarely lies.  If he does lie and it is later confirmed to be a lie in the future I would assume that would be ground for a ban.

The question "Have you obtained a commercial license from Oracle to redistribute the Berkeley Database with Solid Coin 2.0?" could resolve this question and ensure Bitcointalk users aren't engaging in piracy because they aren't informed of the risks.

Are you trying to kill this forum? I've told you why it was bad to pursue this, but you have persisted. Now that I have read your reply, I may be legally obligated to do exactly what you asked. Of course, CoinHunter doesn't really have to tell me the truth. However, if we are ever approached by Oracle with information that contradicts his response, we might be legally obligated to ban his account.

God damn it.

I do not believe that would satisfy the Oracle license.  The license requires complete source code for any software which uses the database.

Also even if the source code is included in the future it would merely make future versions compliant.  It doesn't "undo" the fact that Solid Coin project has committed widespread software piracy.  They recklessly included others in that piracy by not warning users of the risk before they downloaded the software.  

Edited:  to reduce sarcasm and snarkiness.

Ouch. Smart move by cryptoxchange to drop sc2 as they could have been in legal trouble.

Take it easy. It is highly unlikely that Oracle will go after you. Unlike Silk Road there's no criminal activity involved, this is at worst a small commercial dispute that would most likely still fit under the small-claims rules.

I speak about this as somebody who "illegally distributed" some information from the Oracle Technology Network. When I was contacted by Oracle legal they wanted us to add the proper (TM),(R)&(C) signs after their trademarks. Those guys are smart, they don't go after the pikers and they understand how building up a software business takes time and many beta releases before actually going commercial. It took us several years to go from "illegal distributors" to "gold partner".

It is quite incorrect to make direct comparisons between Microsoft and Oracle as far as licensing goes. With Oracle you can still register for free and download fully functional non-expiring top-of-the-line database system. All you have to do is click the check-mark that says "I will use it for R&D purposes".

I'll finish by emphasizing that my post is about the forum, not about the Solidcoin software and its distribution.

The forum is US based.  If you want to maintain the protection it offers service providers, you need to follow that.   The best advice for that is you don't act like copyright police and only act on dcma take down notices, which must be given by the copyright holder or an authorized agent of them.

I thought the forum was based in Finland.

Both whois and traceroute give Texas based locations.  Unless I missed some reasonably major news, last I knew that was USA and not Finland.

If anything happens to Dallas, we can still move it to Helsinki :P

CoinHunter says that he's licensed, so unless Oracle (AND ONLY ORACLE) specifically tells us otherwise, I consider this matter closed.

Seriously though, what else could he possibly say?

Not necessarily. That'd depend on what our lawyers say. Of course, I'd hate to have theymos hire a lawyer from our forum improvement fund, so it'd be best if we never knew.

Let me put on my tinfoil hat and say that something smells fishy here.

It's not a double-standard. Had BCX lied about his attack, he would have been trolling. If CH is lying, then he just pirating software, and that has nothing to do with the forum. As for why we'd try our hardest not to ban CoinHunter, that's because we don't want to EVER ban people here, especially for something as stupid as this. As I'm not an administrator, though, I can't say for certain what would happen.

Lying to mods is not a bannable offense.

I think lying to community members about your cryptocurrency should be a bannable offense— after all, if you don't do so you're just enabling people to defraud others since people make guesses about the value of those currencies based in part on the claims people make.

Alas, I can't make policy decisions. Post in Meta where theymos will hear you.

I agree. I'm not sure why lying to mods is not a bannable offense. If you don't punish people for lying to you, then why would anyone tell you the truth if they have something to hide? It doesn't make sense to me. If anything, I think lying to mods is the worse than just trolling. When someone's trolling and it bothers people, people can just ignore them. If someone is outright lying and trying to defraud others, how is that different than being a scammer?

Of course, I'm not saying that CoinHunter is indeed lying. But if he (or anyone else) is caught lying to mods, they should be punished. Maybe give them a scammer label.

Lying isn't a bannable offense, but it's not a good idea, either. If we ever ask you something and you lie to us, we are forced to ignore your statement and only use whatever other evidence is available to us. In fact, we usually won't even bother talking to you unless we feel that your side of the story might shed some light on things and we have enough evidence to take an action, anyway.

Again, lies for the sake of trolling are still bannable. For example, if you lie about someone being a scammer, or if you pretend your account was hacked and waste administrator time having it recovered. Pretty much any lie that causes us to pointlessly waste time will result in a ban. Otherwise, lying is fair game.

me-gusta.jpg

Are you saying that trolling is a bannable offense?

Uhh... Yeah? You didn't know this? Of course, we always weigh the troll posts you make against the value of your normal posts. If your signal-to-noise ratio gets too high, however, you're out of here.

I was merely confused as it seems as if I can't read a thread without seeing a couple of what appear to be thinly disguised trolls from SA (or related).

We miss a lot. Report trolling when you see it, and we'll look into it if the user does it

Ok, I honestly didn't know that I should be reporting trolling, I thought it was for spam and threats and such.

Does anyone know when Solidcoin 3 will be released ?

Yup, november 2nd.

Cool.
What do I do with all my version 1 & version 2 Solidcoins then ? It would be nice to consolidate multiple wallets.

SolidCoin 3 is for Android and iPhone mining only, a new chain.
You can use CellMiner v0.90a, it supports 2+ cores.

Will Solidcoin 3 also be ready for the Bitcoin collapse ? or is that just Solidcoin 2 that will be ready for the collapse ?
Obviously Solidcoin 1 wasn't ready.....

Solidcoin is indeed ready and waiting for the Bitcoin collapse. Judging by the drop to well under $2.50 today we won't have to wait too much longer  :-*

Seems so:

{"ticker":{"high":3.74,"low":2.26,"avg":2.989312567,"vwap":2.898371151,"vol":190317,"last_all":2.31013,"last_local":2.36788,"last":2.36788,"buy":2.36,"sell":2.36788}}

Then you should count the losses on your bitcoins since weeks/months...

Most be backwards yoda talk as we all know BitCoin is ready for the inevitable SolidCoin collapse. You do know the SolidCoin network will crash when the one control node gets DDOSed, suffers a network, or power outage, or its disk fails. Good luck with your single-point-of-failure-currency. It was designed by a moron.

Yeah, the 10+-point-of-failure is indeed a weak point...

Single.. CH admitted it was a single node and he could not fix it due to his broken blockchain design.

Even if it was 1000 trusted nodes BitCoin and its direct clones have a functional network when there is nothing left but one single miner. That's good design. SolidCoin solved the 51% problem by introducing way more serious problems. It left itself open to anyone with a very small botnet freezing the entire network. As you may have noticed BitCoin mining pools get DDOSed all the time so there is a high change they will kill SolidCoin dead if it gets even slightly noticeable.

So again - SolidCoin was designed by a moron.

CoinHunter - I assume you are CoinHunter,

SolidCoin is one small DDOS from being a dead coin, you misdesigned it and it is utterly unfit for use on the public Internet. Anyone who holds SolidCoins should know that your blockchain is fundamentally broken and could be frozen by anyone at any time. You took a peer-to-peer application you didn't really understand and turned it into Scheiße, you sir are a fricking moron.

Don't worry, we are expecting BCXs attack anytime soon. He will take down the chain. You need to have some more patience :)

Comments have been made about reversing transactions.

Now that shouldn't be possible in a chain without forking back to the block that contains the transaction ... unless the encryption keys used are part of a key pair that someone else has the 2nd part of for all access.

That would make releasing the source code rather a MAJOR problem :)
(or if someone bothered to decompile it they could find how to get this key ...)

So either none have been reversed, or everyone using SC2.0 is in even more serious trouble than already stated.

Also, the fact that every 2nd block is low difficulty also says that the chain itself is not secure to the network hash level - technically, only half that :P
(and what does everyone hash while waiting for the 2nd block to appear?)

This release seems to be an exercise of "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks". If the technology and code was truly secure, there should have been no qualms about releasing the source code. Given that some of the licenses employed require such at a release it seems very suspect that none has occurred.

So far, it appears to me that SC2 is just a manually controlled block chain with one individual's finger on the killswitches. I presume this is so that Coinhunter could release a binary with the smallest chance that people will hack it. Perhaps later source will be released without some of the killswitches in order to lend credibility to the block chain. However, if a trusted node gets hacked and its private keys stolen the whole block chain is compromised. I wonder how long 12 relative novices at computer security can keep their "trusted nodes" 100% secure. Should be an interesting experiment.

All publicity is good publicity!

We'd much rather be hated than ignored.

Thanks for your continued interest and support :D

I.. I.. is that you, Britney?

Yeah damn shame about that being back over $3 today ... ... ... ...

And you are proud of BTC for reaching $3 again?  :-\

 :-*

The only exchange rate that actually measures "readiness for the Bitcoin collapse" is SC2/BTC, not USD/BTC. If the Bitcoin collapse is because of an inherent problem with cryptocurrency, SC will fold too. If it's because of Bitcoin's decentralization, then the SC2/BTC exchange rate will go up.

There's no point in going back and fourth saying "look at the exchange NOW, bitches!" every time it goes one way or the other.

Nicely put.

SolidCoin isn't better than Bitcoin because it is going up in value faster than Bitcoin did, or because thousands of people mined it from the start instead of a handful, or even because it's gaining hashrate and users while Bitcoin is losing them.

These are all things that people like to fixate on but they aren't the real reasons why it's better.

It's better because of the approach that RealSolid is taking with the development. Adding new features that are actually useful, doing proper testing before releases, making plans to promote SolidCoin in the future, and so on.

A lot of people don't like him, I guess because he says bad things about Bitcoin and I guess because he always thinks he knows best? But I think he's a real cool guy who really seems to know what he's doing.

Secretive closed source is a better approach than open source? What?

Can you show me something similar to this (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/impact) for SolidCoin?


Features like...?

Proper testing, like...? How do you know that this is occurring? The entire development process is cloaked in secrecy. Also, proper testing doesn't lead to bugs which are fixed, then unfixed, then fixed again (hash rate reporting).


Please answer this question. Are you one of the few who were given 1.2 million SC and run a trusted node?

SC isn't going up in value.
SC wasn't mined by thousands of people.  A single botnet made up ~50% of hashing power and total network is <300 CPU.
SC isn't gaining hashing power its hashing power is declining.

So pretty much nothing you said was factual.

Completely untrue, but then most of what you say turns out to be completely untrue so I trust that the other people reading this thread (those that aren't your multiple personalities anyway) won't believe any of that.

I can't prove that I didn't get a GPU mining client before anyone else (very hard to prove something that didn't happen), but some file you fabricated and stuck on Rapidshare is hardly proof of anything now is it? So it's my word against yours, and your track record for truth-telling isn't exactly stellar.

I will say this though, I sold the one single powerful GPU I bought for Bitcoin mining some time ago when the price crashed down from $8 to under $5 within the space of a couple of weeks. It had the stench of death about it so I sold up all my coins and got out. This was long before the SolidCoin chain re-opened. So, even if I did have this non-existant early GPU miner you're on about I would not have been able to do anything with it.

I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to, hope you don't mind :)

1. In this instance, yes. The initial release was closed source for many good reasons. Open source is coming very soon, watch this space!

2. Nope. But when the source comes out you can run a comparison with the Bitcoin code to see the incredible amount of work that RS has put in so far into making SolidCoin "Best in Class" for CrpytoCurrency!

3. Features like multi-wallet, 51% protection, integrated miner in the client, faster confirmations and so much more!

4. Proper testing as in Private beta followed by public beta followed by a full public release which happened at a scheduled, pre-announced time. You obviously haven't spent much time developing software or IT projects, no matter how much testing you do there are always defects in the live code, especially the first release. Good testing just tries to ensure that none of them are "show stoppers"

5. No, absolutely not. And just to clarify, the people who do have the trusted nodes were not given 1.2 million SC, they were given 1.2 million dead token coins which cannot ever be spent on the network. You will be able to verify this later when the source makes its grand debut appearance :D

1. Closed source - there are no good reasons in this situation. In the real world there are only business IP protection reasons (which aren't really well hidden by closed source anyway ... e.g. DVD keys, BluRay code and BluRay keys)

2. Yeah we keep hearing this over and over again and time keeps passing without it happening.
Either he's a shit programmer or he's stuck spending ages trying to hide the crap he put in there before.
I'm gonna love it if someone runs the new code with an empty block chain and finds it can't download it from the start :D

3. The 51% protection we already know about and is a scam.
Bitcoin had integrated miner in the client long ago but they removed it.
Faster confirmations? Oh that old idea?

4. So if this is nothing new for him, why did he totally f*ck it up with SC1.0 Everyone keeps ignore the fact that he's screwed up the previous version yet supposedly he has this long history of great software development ... what happened last time? Still haven't heard an answer to that one.

5. Absolute bullshit. Either they are zero, they can already be used, or they can be used by simply changing the code.
There is NO reason to generate a fake number of coins that can never be used coz that is NO different to generating none and would represent a mind numbingly stupid programming decision to create a large number of coins that can never be used since that would mean they represent absolutely nothing so they should be zero. That is seriously another decision that either shows he has no logical skill or the coins can be used or will be usable in the future.

1+2. Boring. This has been hashed out again and again. The source will be open soon and then we can finally stop talking about this. (yeah right  ;))

3. I'm glad you know about the 51% protection, it's one of the most important features of SolidCoin and something that no other coin has. I'm pleased you're paying such close attention to our little project ;) But a scam? Care to back up that opinion with any evidence? Who is being scammed exactly?

Bitcoin had an integrated miner back in the CPU mining days, but it was removed when GPU mining came along and made CPU mining irrelevant, which was never Satoshi's plan, he never wanted coins to be exclusively mined by a select few with expensive GPU hardware. Solidcoin addresses this issue with aplomb.

Yes the "old idea" of faster confirmations has been taken into the next generation with SolidCoin, 6 confirms can take as little as 3 minutes. Nobody can claim to have invented the idea that faster = better, but everyone agrees that sending Bitcoins to someone and then having to wait 2-3 hours in some cases for the standard 6 confirms is much, much too slow.

4. Everyone makes mistakes my friend, even our dear leader. The reason SolidCoin 1.04 was discontinued has been discussed many times on these forums but I'll summarise the key events for you nonetheless:

- Solidcoin starts to gain significant traction, Bitcoin holders get VERY worried.
- RS starts issuing bounties for supporters to spread an article via social media about SolidCoin being "Ready for the Bitcoin Collapse", Bitcoin Holders get real mad.
- Artforz / BTCEX / some other trolls start to spam the chain with thousands of tiny transactions, effectively shutting down the chain with massive blocks
- RS codes and releases a hasty patch in a few hours which fixes the issue (1.03), but in doing so prevents large withdrawals from the exchanges
- RS codes and releases another patch which fixes the withdrawal issue (1.04)
- Solidcoin 1 back up and running and perfectly stable, but there is a chunk of very large blocks in the blockchain which bloats the database and slows down initial chain downloads, not ideal.
- BTCEX demonstrates a Bitcoin timewarp hack on GeistGeld and rewrites a portion of the GeistGeld blockchain.
- BTXEX issues a direct threat against SolidCoin, effectively stating that he will use this and other exploits present in Bitcoin to take down Solidcoin. At this time, Solidcoin 1.04 still has most of the Bitcoin code intact, so these threats were very credible.
- RS issues an request to exchanges, pools and users of SolidCoin to stop making any transactions after a certain block, as the chain is being shut down to prevent any damage from these attacks, and will be back soon with better attack protection, hopefully within 2 weeks.
- The vast majority of the users, pools and exchanges voluntarily comply and the chain is effectively "Stopped", while 2.0 is developed.
- 4 weeks later the world's most secure CryptoCurrency, Solidcoin 2.0, is launched.

5. OK I have to concede this one to you. The trusted node token coins could theoretically be used on the network by changing the code in more than half of the clients and more than half of the trusted nodes, yes. I guess how much you believe in SolidCoin depends on how likely / possible you think that scenario is. Personally, I would say it's theoretically possible but highly improbable.

1. Reasons like...?

2. "Best in Class" only because it is not in the same class as Bitcoin, as it is not a decentralized no-trust-necessary network.

3. Multi wallet: lol. It takes an amazing programmer to swap out berkley DB files by combo box selection... 51% protection comes at the cost of decentralization, faster confirmations is not a feature as the amount of computing power (and thus security) represented by it is smaller. I'll give you that the miner integration into the client is nice, but after playing with it, it seems very cluttered and bolted on after the fact.

4. Ah, assumptions, you know what they say, right? I actually develop software for a living, and while I understand bugs happen, the hash rate reporting "bugs" were far too convenient and do not seem like a coincidence.

5. They are not dead tokens, because a number of them every block are transferred to CoinHunter's "fund". Anyway, if they are dead, then how does that create an incentive for the controllers of the wallets to protect the network? His theory for trust is that those with a large amount of wealth can be trusted... if it's not real wealth, from where does that trust come?

1. I answered 1 in a previous reply.

2. Haha! Nice retort. Yes, a "no-trust-necessary" network is a nice ideal. However, you still have to trust Deepbit not to perform a 51% attack, trust Mt. Gox not to run away with your dollars, trust any retailers (if any existed) not to run away with your Bitcoin and trust your pool not to keep back some mined coins or merged mine without telling you. There is a lot of trust required to live and operate in the real world, even with Bitcoin, that's life I'm afraid... There is a slightly larger amount of trust required in SolidCoin, you're right, and it does differ from Bitcoin in that respect. Is that inherently a bad thing? I don't think so, you may disagree but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

If you want and need a "no-trust-neccessary" network: You already have one, it's called Bitcoin. Go use it to buy shit with, god knows nobody else is...

3. Sorry, but I don't recall saying that all of the new features brought by SolidCoin 2.0 were "amazing" or required an "amazing" programmer. Some of the smaller improvements like Multi-Wallet could and should have been introduced to the mainline Bitcoin client long ago as even a noob developer like Gavin should have been able to manage them. The fact is Bitcoin development is stagnant so you don't see any new features, "amazing" or otherwise.

I'm sorry to hear you don't like the GUI layout for the integrated miner, but do bear in mind that it was one improvement of many that were all developed in the space of 4 weeks. Now that the chain is up and running again RS is not under quite so much pressure to develop at incredible speed, so non-essential things like the GUI look and feel can be focussed on.

On a positive note, the development team is planning for Solidcoin to have a much improved integrated miner in a future version which will include hybrid GPU & CPU Mining all within the client! Pretty exciting stuff I think you'll agree and another world first :D

4. Ok, well you kind of just have to trust me on this one, it was an error. I'm really not sure what the project would have to gain by everyone thinking they had a lower hashrate than they really did? Certainly this was an embarrassing oversight for a coder of RealSolid's high caliber. You seem have a problem with the word and the concept of trust, so I doubt there's anything I can really say to make you believe that this wasn't a massive conspiracy to erm... trick people somehow?  ???

5. Sometimes people.. you know... talk to one another, share ideas and feelings and genuinely make a connection with one another. I know you'd rather live in a world where that didn't happen but we are in fact humans, not robots. RealSolid has chosen a few core supporters that he believes to be loyal to the project and given the trusted nodes to them. They have earned the trust of the project leader. So far it has been working perfectly.

Eventually, the fake coin trusted nodes will be replaced by genuine SolidCoin Millionaires. Will someone with a million real SolidCoins in a wallet wish to use their position as a Trusted Node to destroy the chain and make their million coins worth less (or indeed worthless)? Well we don't know that for sure, but we're banking on a universal human constant holding true here: Greed.

Greed is why the hackers restrict their attacks to alt chains. They own a lot of Bitcoins so, although they easily could, they don't attack Bitcoin directly and devalue their own asset (although they do stupidly attack the pools as "punishment" for adopting merged mining which is indirectly attacking Bitcoin itself ::)).

Someone with a large asset will typically do everything reasonable to protect it, and we expect that someone with that many coins will naturally want to run a trusted node to keep the network fast and secure and protect the value of their own coins, even though it is of no benefit to them directly.

This is the same reason SC 2.0 will never go anywhere. We're banking on a universal human constant holding true here: Greed. No one with 13m premined coins will just 'throw them away' if sc 2.0 goes -anywhere-.

Checkmate '98 ;)  Thanks for making that so easy to communicate, now that you're on board as well.

Care to link it? I've not seen any "good reasons".


None of the things you mentioned are integral to the Bitcoin network. I don't have to use exchanges, mining pools will be abandoned if they harm the network (or people will switch to a p2p pool), and I can use escrow or purchase things face to face. I cannot do anything about having to trust CoinHunter's friends which are an integral part of the network.


FUD. I am and others are.


Multi-wallet is a hack implemented by someone who doesn't understand the problem he's trying to solve (more intelligent/manual unspent output selection algorithm is the proper solution). No new features, huh? Not even the password encrypted wallet that CoinHunter copied from Bitcoin?  ::)


If SolidCoin grows as you desperately wish it will, mining will become a specialized activity just like it has for Bitcoin. In that case, what good will mining built in to the client provide? None, as larger scale miners won't want to micromanage their mining machines.


What reason do I have to trust you? I suspect you have ulterior motives for promoting SolidCoin. RealSolid had an incentive to make people think they were mining faster than they were. When it was suspected that this number was inflated, he "found a bug" which meant the hash rates in the beta were wrong. Whoops. Then, when developing a GPU miner with the intent that it is "equal" to the CPU miner, he magically discovered that CPU hash rates were being under reported. I posit that the first bug was introduced by him to make CPU mining artificially attractive, and was fixed to cover his ass. Further, the second bug was "discovered" (introduced) by him to make it appear that CPU and GPU mining are on equal footing, when in fact they are not.


But you said that the millions of coins are "fake" and not worth anything!


What alternate reality are you living in?


Bitcoin is not susceptible to the attacks used against SolidCoin, both because of a lack of a centralized "trusted" nodes, and much higher computing power securing the network.

The reason why Gavin prefers not to implement low priority updates, such as multi-wallet functionality (other than the fact that the idea in itself is utterly stupid), is because there is only so much testing you can do before sending an update out into the wild - and who knows, maybe it'll turn out the hashrate reporting went bad.

What is this new bullshit?

So if the pre-mined 1.2 million SC wallets go below 1 million, then they no longer function as a trusted node, but the coins still flow back to CoinHunter?

Where is the source code?
How do you know the coins can't be spent or moved?

100% implicit trust in a single fallable human.  Yeah that is a great basis for a decentralized peer to peer network.

Once again based on what assurances?  How do you KNOW (not just believe) funds can't be trusfered out of those accounts?

....

...

...

You don't.  The system only works if you have 100% implicit trust in a single human being.  A king of the network if you will (one who also collects a 10% tax into perpetuity, has the private keys to all 12 million SC trusted nodes, has complete control of source code, has kept things like GPU mining from general public, can kill the network at will, etc).

Is anyone arguing that SolidCoin is decentralized? I thought its centralization was the whole point, what distinguishes it from other cryptocurrencies. Like halfway between Bitcoin and e-gold.

I'm actually hoping that the value of SolidCoin goes up, just to see what happens. We already have reason to believe RealSolid is in Australia, I wonder what other organizations are better at finding people than we are...

Isn't the official block chain defined by RealSolid and his trusted nodes? He could take down the whole network again and start SC3.

Are we entirely sure about this? The addresses can apparently only be used for trusted blocks, and creating those apparently requires 1 million solidcoins - but what happens if RealSolid combines two of these depleted addresses to fulfil the million-coin requirement? I have no idea if this would be allowed by the rules and I'm not sure if RealSolid's thought about it much, but if this was possible then a full 11 million premined coins could eventually end up in RealSolid's CPF wallet.

Funnily enough the Bitcoin developers actually wrote a lot of the internal changes to support multiple wallets that RealSolid piggy-backed on - not that long before he started work on it in fact - and that code exists in the official Bitcoin client. They just haven't got around to exposing it yet, possibly because of the difficulty of doing proper testing. (RealSolid's initial release with it had an unfortunate bug that corrupted users wallets' if they used wallet encryption and multi-wallet support at the  same time.)

Really?  I mean, really?  Are you honestly trying to claim that he does proper testing when he's constantly releasing bugfixes?
You do know what bugfixes are for, right?  Fixing bugs.
What's a bug?  Something that wasn't found and fixed before being released.
Proper testing exposes those bugs before release, leading to bug-free releases.

Sorry - but that is quite ridiculous of CH.
He's taken untested code from bitcoin and here CH acolytes are saying how it makes it better than bitcoin, but that code corrupts wallets?
I wonder if that explains a post I saw elsewhere where someone had SC wallet corruption - i.e. when was it fixed in SC? (or has it been fixed?)

Whoops, panties showing.

You loudly proclaimed on an exchange chat earlier today that you hold "5% of your wealth in SC, and over 75% in BTC."

So I guess that we should take your statements with the same Gibraltar-sized grain of salt that once must use to filter any agitprop about sc. You have learned your lessons well, you lie, like he codes, pathetic, arrogant and sad. And your stories have as many holes as his security.

No major software project is 100% bug free, you could test for years and still not find every bug. Granted, the hashrate bugs in the mining portion of the client are embarrassing and should have been captured, but nobody's perfect!

"Proper" testing, in my opinion, ensures that core functionalities or "Minimum Marketable Features" are 100% working, and allows for some minor defects. You can learn about this approach on Wikipedia if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_software_development#Lean_software_practices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_testing

There's a balance to be struck between time spent testing and speed of updates, you're always going to have to trade one for the other.

You could spend 3 months testing each new version and release maybe 2-3 updates a year, or you can test enough to be satisfied the core functionality is working well and release new features quickly. I think SolidCoin is a project which benefits from the latter approach.


I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't hold any Bitcoins at all. Sold the majority at $8 when it was on the way down from $10, and transferred the last few I had into SolidCoins a few days ago. It's a dead currency with no future, makes no sense to hold it...


This wallet corruption was in one of the early private Betas, it never occurred in any version that was released to the public.

The point of private beta testing is to find bugs in untested features, this was one of them. The users who had their wallets corrupted knew the risks and had wallet backups, so you'll be pleased to know that there was no harm done.

I'm thrilled that you're all following the development of the SolidCoin client so closely, but if you really want to keep up to date with all the goings on in the fast-paced ever-changing world of SolidCoin I strongly recommend checking out the new SolidCoin Wiki: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/ (http://wiki.solidcoin.info/)

Peace out, and thanks again as always for your continued interest in our little project :D

My guess? He's either CoinHunter or a "friend" of his. Either way, he's got his head pretty far up CoinHunter's ass.

Maybe because of common sense and following SC forum + IRC?  ;D

Obviously a completely unbiased arena for free and open discussion of SolidCoin!

Seriously, that has nothing to do with it.

Just get ANY unbiased opinion of it (yes ignore mine as well) and you will find that they will not say that common sense has anything to do with SolidCoin.

I said goodbye to common sense once I started using magical imaginary internet money.  ;D

SolidCoin makes only slightly less sense than Bitcoin when you look at both from afar.

Minor correction:
The actual usage of the coins other than to trade for other coins/cash.

And clearly there was time for "proper testing" during the three updates within a few hours mess, right?

I don't know what exactly any cryptocurrency is actually being used for; they are difficult to trace to the point of being practically anonymous. I also cannot measure scumbag factors. I see no reason to trust anyone here or speculate on their motives, and I couldn't care less about forum drama.

So I have no choice but to minimize trust. The only meaningful difference between the two is whether to trust the Bitcoin block chain or some anonymous guy. Yeah I choose the block chain, but a constant stream of hate is not constructive.

Well here's a clue.  All crypto-currencies other than BTC curentl;y have no significant use other than to speculate on and trade against BTC.  Mervchants aren't touching them.  If you belive you have soimne iside infoirmation then by all means trade them - otherwise ou're just gambling on the success of BTC but insulatingyourself from that success by one step.

Arguably you could invest in SC2 rather than BTC if you believe some anonymous guy with control over 12 million premined coins and over the netowrk is a better bet than the consensus on which BTC operates. 


If you don't have inside info or trust in RS then investing in alt-chains is gambling at best and burning money at worst.

... looking at BTC-E at the moment SC2 could drop down to as low as .00001 BTC in the not too far future,
(buys are a total of 50BTC including all the fake ones - everyone seems to be selling)
so you could get 1mil SC for 10BTC (at .00001) and become a truted node :D
(or even .000001 thus trusted for only 1BTC)

Looks like trust will be cheap soon :D

Nice one ! LOL