Bitcoin Forum

The effect should be pretty obvious.

1. Miners will hit it hard before the block size change, trying to hoard the coins as much as possible.
2. The price will rise, but only temporarily.
3. Miners, now getting more than 6 times less the amount of SC per watt, will stop mining.
4. The difficulty will fall because no one is stupid enough to mine more for less, and the price with it.
5. People will continue mining at the lower difficulty, effectively causing stabilizing the price exactly where it was before, if not lower due to lack of confidence or interest.

This is the same thing as if he [Coinhunter/realsolid] were to generate tons of coin just for himself (which he already is), as it increases the real value CH has (compared to USD/BTC) while decreasing the real value miners may obtain.  It will effectively cause a difficulty and price crash.

To answer the question posed in the thread title:

It will make SC2 look even more retarded than it already does.

I noticed the new version 10 (assuming it hasn't been updated) was due to kick in at block 50000 with the new rewards.  I saw a comment that the cost of production will rise to 20-30 cents per coin.  Is this right?  The exchange price is still around 0.2-0.3 cents.

(watching for the economics of revaluation - for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwean_dollar is a fun read)

Well one thing is it will ensure that nobody has a trusted node except the "Glorious Leader"

When Real Solid was asked if the amount for trusted node should be lowered to 100K and that the community should determine when they want other trusted nodes here is his answer:


No need to rush people.  This temporary measure will only last for a few years (of complete control by single person).


I think that is about the 7th bait & switch
1) no premine - oops a premine
2) open source - oops not open source
3) peer to peer - oops it is peer - central control - peer
4) GPU hostile - oops does very well on GPU basically means CPU mining is dead for anyone paying electrical costs (botnets excluded)
5) open transaction - oops Glorious leader collects  10% tax on all blocks.
6) 32 SC per block - opps only 5 SC per block (after glorious leader GPU mines his stash)
7) anyone can be trusted nodes - oops now it is likely impossible that anyone except Glorious leader will have a trusted node for "years".

Why is stating the obvious a shame?  Oh it means you are having trouble conning people into your Fiat/Scam/Tax/PoliceCoin?  Sorry.  Kinda sucks when you add GPU mining and hashing power falls 60%.  Then again with block rewards now an amazing $0.17 per bock I can't really blame anyone for abandoning ship.

Hey you might know this.  Since half of the "Glorious leader tax" is a 1.6SC out of thin air is that static?  If so would that make the "Glorious leader" tax.

Peasant block - ~7.5SC.
King block - 1.6SC + (5%)7.5 = 1.975 SC.

So the entire economy shares 7.5SC and the Glorious leader picks up another 1.975SC.  The 10% tax is now more like a 26% tax?

It's my opinion as a user, closed source currency with glorious leader in complete control..... bad idea in my opinion.

I don't know how it can be considered a lie.  I asked a question.  Still thanks for clarifying that the Glorious leader "only" gets 0.9624 SC from the King block while the miners get (combined) 6.4148 SC  from the peasant block.   So you are right it is "only" a 15% mining tax now.  Pretty funny that the only thing going up is the rate of taxation!  :o  I mean ScamCoin has only been around a month and taxes have already increased 50%.

"It's good to be King" - King Louis XVI

Look at the bright side, RS hasn't been banned either.

You should bitch at CH for his wildly inaccurate statements as well, he's got some really good ones plastered all over the solidcoin webpage.

Viper, you can't berate anyone for guessing wrong when it comes to what the hell is going on inside of SC.

RS provides so little info that seemingly changes on a whim, it's impossible to keep up.

no miners - price falling down.
It's all folks, SC is dead, killed by its creator.  ;D

We will quote you again in some days/weeks...  ;D

Seems you were ignorant of the facts yourself a couple weeks ago... 1) You were sure it was a 5% tax.  You then used the word "constant" to describe the even block extortion.  RealSolid uses the same wording to describe the second half of the 1.6 SC so it isn't insane when two supporters use of SC use words like CONSTANT that one might be confused about the variability of the king's ransom.

There is no open protocol for ScamCoin.  Generally this kind of confusion is the results of a closed piece of shit protocol not some conspiracy against your glorious leader.  Ask me anything about Bitcoin.  Either I know it, I can find it, or I can get the answer from the SOURCE CODE.  You know that whole concept of open source, peer to peer, decentralized currency.

ScamCoin is dead.  It serves no purpose except to enrich a single person.  It was doomed to failure.

It IS a 10% tax.  10% wealth transfer via confiscation or inflation is still a transfer of wealth.  It is unavoidable and issued by decree.  It siphons off 10% of the all coins generated to a single person the mechanism isn't important.  Honestly it could have just been 10% from the trusted nodes.  The use of two methods is simply obfuscation.  

Worse the drop in generation rate now means there will be no trust nodes except the ones owned by the Glorious leader for ... YEARS; not a month, or maybe a year but multiple years.  

No chain will survive a single person having complete control to make changes at will for 3-4 years.  It isn't trust in the protocol or trust in numbers or even the dubious trust in wealth (since none of the 12M coins were earned) it is simply blind trust in a single person. There is no alternative clients (unless allowed by the Glorious leader).  There is no changing back the generation rate.  There is no removing the tax.  There is no modifying the protocol.  The trust node is the ultimate veto, the ultimate centralization.

Everything in that sandbox is controlled completely by a single person and there is no way around it.  It is 100% protocol control which is far worse than a 10% tax.

Logs or it's assumed to be more BEX fabrication.

I didn't see that one, but here is him begging from a few days ago

https://i.imgur.com/id2vH.png

Funniest thing I saw today.

I thought* RealSolid is this super $300K+ a year demi-god programmer.  Why is he freaking out about 500 SC (worth about $12)?








* No I didn't.

RS is amazing, truly.

Asking a nice "bunny" question, where is the repository of all of this information in a clearly set out spot?  Is there a nice FAQ saying what the framework is; like the taxes, revals, even vs odd blocks, different versions or even information about the "issuer" of SC?  It might then have the 0.6416 number and the % of an individual's effort going as a "tax" (I would prefer the word impost)

Most organisations have this kind of thing if they want people to adopt their product/idea.

If people could go to one central place and clearly see how much of a scam this FORK is, they'd likely never download the client other than to make sure it wasn't a joke.

Spot on. That's the best summary I've seen yet :D  Should be stickied ;)

I predict the price should rise.  You only need 1/6th the number of buyers to maintain the price.  It was 0.006 per BTC  before the change and dropping.  With some miners still mining it to promote it.  I think realsolid should offer a bounty for businesses to switch to solidcoin.

While it may rise if it rise 600% but you cut the reward to 1/6th then it doesn't really matter.  At best it would only rise 600% however that kind of rampant corruption does decrease market confidence thus while you reduce the number of units being sold by a factor of 6 you are also destroying  buying demand too.  As a result it hasn't risen enough to compensate for the huge cut in coins. 

Today an entire block reward is now worth ...  $0.12.  

It was 0.0097/0.0085
and early (before 2.01 b9) 0.015/0.011
Now after "economical shit" 0.0085/0.008 and slowly dropping despite regular and totally unsuccessful attempts pump price by large btc infusion.
Hash power of sc network go down and sc go down.
Hey CH! It's time to drop your coins before it's too late. ;D

To answer the title of the thread: changing the block size will have no effect at all.
After all 5/32nds of nothing is also nothing.

I do take some consolation in the fact that this scam will probably not be attributed to Bitcoin by media outlets.

Maybe you will have to open a business or have to buy them.  Deflation is key.  Maybe Mr. Bernank and congress can learn a lesson too.  We can shut down the Federal Reserves and they can be retained to mow Mexicans lawns for a change.

How does that kool-aid taste.  There is no possible fact that you somehow won't see as a net positive for ScamCoin.  Luckily the number of faithful is dwindling.  Hashing power is down 65% from peak now. 

No business of any apreciable volume is going to accept ScamCoins.  Why shutdown the Federal Reserve?  You must like the Federal Reserve, given you are supporting the only "crypto-currency" (loosely used) that not only has a Central Bank but also a failed monetary policy.   ;)

With next estimated difficulty of 0.60376 a machine with 5 kH/s mines 8.163LTC/0.239 $ per 24h. Wow, that makes a difference! ;)

You make a great point.  If someone wants to CPU mine, they can make more profit and not deal with the hassle of DictatorRealSolid, simply by mining LTC.

My point was both CPU-based cryptocurencies are not profitable to mine as long as you are not a botnet owner or admin robbing your employer. "Communist" Litecoin isn't that much better than "fascist" Solidcoin ;) I didn't mention Tenebrix because it would be too easy.

The crucial near-doubling of payout per (real...)hash makes LTC profitable for me, where SC2 is not.

Of course you are a die hard BTC supporter right? Exactly when have you contributed to anything? All you seem to do is leech, mine, hack, pump, dump, and then do it all over again. These are things that come out of your own mouth.

Must hurt to see the millions fade away, very noble to stay optimistic and positive about it  ;)


Seems your "crash at will" doesn't work on SC2, or do you like it so much that you don't want it to crash yet?  ???

But that would actually mean supporting SC and not crashing it :)

This is after all, Bitcointalk.org isn't it ?

Considering the circumstances and the 'other forums' out there and how dissension is handled by The Leader, would you rather:

a) Have the Bitcointalk Mods 'get in' on a little alternate crypto-currency banter ?
or..
b) Simply kick-ban who they deemed a threat to <insert RealSolid's excuses here>..... ?

I still don't understand how a crypto-currency that was created to serve the interests of a single person.....and continue to with almost the blessing of it's users while they support it, could have so many loyal followers considering the blatant greed on the part of The Leader and the transparency under which it all takes place.

Some of you guys actually think that CH/RS is doing you all a favor or something.

.....completely messed up.

You'd be overpaying for it by quite a bit, of course ;D

Well, you said you were mining by the end of 2009... How much was it worth 50Bitcoins then? $0.001? And how many blocks would you mine in 18hrs with 50KH/s back then?
10000BTC pizza, anyone?

That statement of yours shows what you really are: A GREEDY MOTHERFUCKER!
You already told us that you only mine Bitcoin for the money, so it must've been hard for you when your mining operation was runnning at a loss back then, hein?

lol, umad?

what's wrong with being motivated with profit?

There is nothing wrong about people having profit as a motive. You would probably agree however, in the majority of cases, that this leads them into malign attitudes. Everybody always starts with the best intentions.

This same benign initial motivation, having turned malign and metastasized, is right now destroying whole countries and nations of old. Just look around you.

But to keep things fair, the greed of BTCEX is the least of the world's problems right now  ;)

+1.

And I didn't catch it, if that was what Psy meant.

Exactly what I meant... Both of you are right, you just described it more eloquently than me.
How was BCX coping with his losses when mining BTC was not profitable? Is it consistent with his current views? You know what they say about the noveau-riches...

PS: I have this way of saying things that leaves a lot to understand between the lines to the ones that really care. If they don't understand, well, that probably says more about them than it says about myself.
And using BCX arguments: Coinhunter started ignoring peoples' questions when he was caught lying.
So, should we conclude that BCX also ignores people because he knows that we, the ones who speak against him, are right and he can't possibly say anything to defend himself? <--- Just another contradiction... Look at the ignore list that he so proudly shows in his signature!

 ... kinda like CH/RS ignores people / bans from his forums / BK's from IRC channel when people bring up that he's a charlatan for insisting his is a decentralized currency ?

The pot can call the kettle black and still be correct.  The fact that the pot is black as well doesn't change the kettles color.

Yes, kinda like that.

BCX is only fighting against himself. He pretends to be the righteous guy, but he's no better than the persons he fight against, so he should probably just STFU.


That's correct. And the opposite is also correct, the fact that the kettle talks back despite being black, doesn't change the pot color... so, draw your own conclusions.

 I'm either convinced you are truly retarded, or you have no idea what arguments you are making or lack the foresight to play more than 1 move ahead in chess.

 SC2 is not decentralized. I fail to see how BCX is fighting against himself. Please elaborate.

Thank you. Finally you admitted the real you it so everybody can see with their own eyes. All in the same post...

And who gives a fuck about SC not being decentralized? I don't, BCX doesn't, also... But you do. Stop being a puppet, you fool! It seems the one who can't see 1 move ahead is you and not me... or maybe you are just truly retarded!

1) Why do you have such a hardon for BCX?
B) I still don't see how BCX has 'lied' from that statement.
2) Why do you care so much if BCX lies?  If lies bother you, there are plenty of other bigger liars around these parts which probably deserve your attention more.  If BCX bothers you, I think you've already made that point clear
3) This post and the others have nothing to do with the topic.  Take your crush to meta if you want to continue.

So clear I'm quoting it... And leaving to others to compare what you said in your last post, about pum'n'dump of alt chains and profiting with it, to the statements in this post.

 http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/1/6/2/1/4/3/Eventual-Facepalm-26325147020.jpeg

Here's what I can tell:

RS saw that LTC was gaining on SC
RS saw that 1m+ SC had already been distributed
RS thought that he was savvy enough to manipulate the system by reducing the block reward
RS is now fretting that the value has dropped
RS then applies the 'PowerBlock' gimmick
Gimmick doesn't work
Kool-Aid drinkers are now finally seeing that SC is a joke, hashrate plummets
RS says "Oh we dont need those miners"
RS releases (partial) source hoping to gain legitimacy


But at the end of the day, no one really cares about SC anymore.  I mean, it's funny to laugh at, but I'm starting to feel like we're picking on the handicap kid.  RS can't help but eat glue.

Depends on what the plan was.  It reduces the number of SC generated over the next year to <2 mil.    More than 1M were generated in first 24hours mostly due to him and his cronies using GPU before the suckers.  

The price did rise.  It went from roughly $0.02 to $0.03.  A nice 50% boost for those who got easy to mine (especially w/ GPU) early coins.  Granted for new miners the sitatuation is abysmall.  Price would need to be $0.14 just to break even compared to prior to the change.  

It also solves another problem.  There will be no "SC millionaires" for years now.  The rate of coin generation is too low.  Even if someone (other than King RealScam) amassed 10% of all coins available (huge concentration of wealth) in one years time with new generation that would be ~400K.

So yeah if his goal was to create a vibrant upwardly sloping economy he failed and failed hard however if it was yet another bait & switch (I think last time I counted there were 7? 8?) to lock in more control and profits for himself then I would say it worked decently.  The bad news for King RealScam is that LTC hit the ground at roughly the same time.  I provides a stark contrast one that my guess the plan was to avoid by making ScamCoin CPU based (i.e. capture 100% of CPU market because there was no other viable coin).

One last funny thing.  King RealScam has dropped so low as to explain that miners leaving don't matter because they are "parasites" that the ScamCoin economy will somehow be better if there are less people mining it.

 The problem here is that the handicapped kids just don't have the higher-brain functions to know when they are out-classed or have had enough, and they keep posting their inanities.

Well, it wasn't that obvious it was going to increase in my opinion, but you're right. What people have got to remember is that when Bitcoin first came out it was pretty much unique - there were other previous cryptocurrencies, but they had problems that Bitcoin managed to avoid such as requring central issuing of currency or not actually being able to prevent double-spends. Solidcoin is just the latest in a long series of near-clones of Bitcoin, several of which are also based on CPU mining. Why would it succeed rather than one of the others?

I read that too.  Which brought me to another question:

Decentralized mining is a means of 1) coin distribution, and 2) security in BTC.

If SC 'solves' the security by centralizing it, mining as a means of distribution seems irrelevant, and quite frankly a waste of resources (electricity, wear-tear on hardware, etc).

But we see he has no problem cutting distribution.  At what point will he cut out distribution completely?

SolidCoin is not a cryptocurrency, or at least by most people's definition of cryptocurrency. There's really no need for miners. SC miners do not secure the chain. That is already done by the trusted nodes. So miners are basically wasting their electricity.

Think about it this way... with Bitcoin, miners hash to secure the network and they get rewarded for the security that they are adding to the network. With SolidCoin, miners are just wasting electricity because RealSolid thinks that this is a fair way to handout SCs. It's similar to a King asking his peasants to run around in circles. The faster they run, the more coins they get. So of course, profit-driven peasants will run around in circles, which adds no value to anything. King RealSolid realized that he is passing out too many solidcoins this way, which will dilute his own holdings. So guess what, he decided to pass out only 5 SC (instead of 32 SC) to his loyal peasants for each circle they complete. Then what happens? Well there are less peasants running around in circles b/c it's not worth it anymore. But that doesn't matter to RealSolid, because peasants running around in circles doesn't add any value in the first place. Hmm...

Also, since the trusted nodes controls 50% of the blocks, by definition, you cannot do a 51% attack unless you have control of a trusted node.

It's great when you create all the rules for your own realm AND you actually find suckers willing to follow you.

King RealSolid's trusted node idea has not garnered much support from me, but remember that the miners still have the power to check the trusted nodes (securing the "trusted" nodes).

Wha?

If you're refering to the block explorer, that only tells you what HAS happened, it gives no protection of what WILL happen.  Also anyone can use the block explorer, not just miners.

In SC, miners have zero authority.

No they don't.  King RealScam cut wages to all the miners by 87%.  If you didn't accept then the control nodes rejected your blocks.  So what exactly could the miners do?  The Control Nodes are complete and absolute control over the network both now and into the future.

Any change King RealScam decides to impose on his subjects will be enforced by the ControlNodes.  There is no way around them.

But the normal nodes still are the nodes where the business is done... So sure they have some kind of authority...

"where the business is done"

No.

'Trust nodes' have that say so.  Something processed by the 'miners' can get denied by a 'trust node', if the trust node sees fit.  However, the 'miners' can't disallow something the 'trust nodes' process.

Infact, SC doesn't need miners at all, so why would miners have -any- authority?

How?  If trusted node considers your transaction or block to be invalid then it never joins the block chain and thus is ignored by the rest of the network much like an orphaned block in Bitcoin except a single person decides what is ophaned and what allowed to enter the blockchain. 

For example if you tried to mine a block w/ 32 SC reward (like before the bait and switch) you "could" however that block will never get approved by the control nodes and thus never join the longest blockchain.

No matter what change King RealScam makes your options are a) accept it or b) being blocked permanently by the control nodes.  So how exactly do the miners have "authority"?  Honestly there is absolutely no need for miners.   King RealScam could just setup a faucet and let people signup for ScamCoins.  

Some examples to help you think about it.

If King RealScam dropped the block reward to 0 as a miner what could you do about it?
If King RealScam changed 10% wealth transfer (to his wallet) to a 35% wealth transfer what could you do about it?
If King RealScam published a list of "banned addresses" of known traitors to the RealScam Kingdom and your address was one of them and any transaction involving a banned address was blocked by the control nodes what could you do about it?
If King RealScam decided he didn't have enough coins and decided that block 10,000 would have a "one time" block reward of 10 million ScamCoins paid to him what could you do about it?

Think about those and then tell me what authority you have.

Exactly. Clients should just send their transactions to the control node, who will create a block of valid transactions at the speed it wants to. Since RealSolid is fond of running a game inside the blockchain, the control node can pass out block rewards on a random basis. This business of miners hashing blocks at increased levels of difficulty is completely unnecessary in the current client/server SolidCoin network.

I spent some time this morning reading about sovereign default and related topics.  While not exactly anti-SC, my opinion is that it is of limited duration so follow these arguments for fun.  I could suggest CH/RS might actually be George Papandreou because there are some similarities to the situation Greece is in.

Which may be the end game.  King RealScam has been pushing this meme that decentralization doesn't matter, that control is necessary, that you always have to trust someone.  Since he can change the source code at will and his control nodes will act as enforcers he could pull the final and ultimate bait and switch.

As some point in the future simply eliminate the need for miners, they are parasites anyways.  The network would work just fine with control nodes doing all the verification and signing.  He always has a justification for everything so blame it on the risk of botnets or mine and dump miners.  Since there is no chance of a competing control node anytime in the next couple years he can leave that bait out there and simply change that also in the future deciding that trolls and scammers might try to get a control node.  Since he has run the control nodes and the network is safe why not just permanently seal the control nodes so there can never be any new ones. If centralization, control, and implicit trust are good things that is the perfect digital currency.

If you didn't accept I believe that the clients rejected your blocks. I don't think (I haven't read the source, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that the control nodes have the power to do that. What I mean is that the public has 50% of the "vote", which is enough to check the power of the control nodes. What if miners got 51% of the blocks? This may help relieve the ability for a malicious control node to 51% the network easily by requiring it to gain at least 2% of the miner blocks, while still preventing 51% attacks by miners.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean by rejected (as in stop mining on the old blockchain). If King RealSolid enforces unpopular changes, wouldn't the control nodes choose not to support them however?

... who controls the control nodes?  Realsolid.

How do you become a control node?  Get 1m SC

Realsolid just made it ~86% harder to become a control node when he reduced the block subsidy.

Convenient, huh?

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

Nope.  The control nodes will refuse blocks or transactions from anyone running on the old client.  So when King RealScam issues a new change you have two choices

a) update client and accept changes.
b) refuse to update and then control node will refuse to accept your blocks/transactions as they are now "invalid" and don't comply with new network protocol.

Going back to the example of 32 SC vs 5 SC block reward.  You could redownload the old client and mine 32 SC blocks.  Sure you can "vote" by using the client which allows you to do that.  The "small" problem is that the control nodes will reject anything you do and as a result your block will never become part of the block chain.  So you can mine for a decade and finds thousands of blocks but none of them will become part of the longest chain.


Starting to get it.  King RealScam controls the control nodes.  They are his enforcers.  He makes a change, you upgrade the client or the control nodes consider your transactions/blocks to be invalid.  Cutting the reward by 87% ensure that nobody else will have a control node for years (if ever).

There is only one insider - King RealScam.  He has the private keys to all 10 control nodes.  Maybe in the future he may use a sockpuppet to claim someone else has a control node but
a) how do you know maybe he just posts under another account "hey guys I am Joe ScamReal and I control control node 1"?
b) if he chooses who gets gains access how likely are they to block him?
c) the control nodes with 51% of the funds can veto others so he can pass out some control nodes but they would have no power
d) he has the private keys to all 10 and ability to make code changes. He could simply regain control of them.

You do bring up a point though.  Centralized Control is a bad thing.

Now here is where it gets really sketchy:  No one BUT RS has claimed to operate a trust node.  Infact (I may be wrong on this point), he has specifically stated that he retains a backup of all trust node wallets.

Until anyone steps up and verifies that they operate a 'trust node', we have only left to know that RS operates them all.  If the trust node operators insist on 'being anonymous', then that isn't really an trust at all.

I don't think you can mine at all because all even blocks must be mined by a control node. In this way Solidcoin is even worse than fiat currency.


In my opinion the control nodes should be distributed to people like CoinRich or Ahimoth or Coblee or Viper rather than concentrated. If this is not done, RealSolid can shut down the network by emptying the control nodes of all their money.

A user on the solidcointalk forums proposed addresses controlling more than 0.3% of the total coins in existance being control addresses. I think this might be a better proof-of-stake (although I would still prefer weighting the blocks on money).

I have posted a question on the solidcointalk forums about this. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/418-who-owns-the-control-nodes/

Minor technicality but my reading of the source code you CAN mine "invalid" odd blocks.  You can even find a block solution and sign the block.  You can even submit it to the network including control nodes however they will reject them. 

While an interesting assortment of people, you still have major bias among those even if they aren't merchants.

Regardless of who and how many people control the inital control nodes, RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.

I believe control nodes should be solidcoin supporters, rather than RealSolid supporters. While I would nominate myself, I do not have the time or resources to run a full node.

If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?

There is only 1 requirement to be considered a control node

1) Having a wallet with 1m+ SC

So even if Joe, Bob, and Sue recieve these premade wallets from RS, RS can at any time use the backups.  And if he wanted to invalidate Joe, Bob, and Sue, he could just use all the backups and regain majority trust node control.  At any time.

What I mean is that although RS can use them, he cannot remove coins from the addresses nor wipe Joe's memory of the private key, so both he and Joe can share the same address.

Of course he can.  The even blocks can transfer any amount of money to the CDF which is also controlled by RealScam.  There is only a limit on the minimum amount required to sign the block.  If a control node gets out of line since King RealScam has the private keys he can simply create an even block transaction transferring complete balance of control node to the CDF signed by the private key he will always have.

"Trouble some" pesky control node is gone.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that King RealScam doesn't wants there to be centralized control only by himself.  If he did there are many ways he could have ensured he didn't have complete access.  For example he could have selected 10 people and had them generate a private key and public key and provide only the public key to him thus King RealScam wouldn't have control over all 10 nodes.

dree, concerning 'SolidCoin Supporters', take into account a few things:

The biggest selling point of SC is supposed to be protection from a 51% attack.  While a 51% attack is a problem, the design of SC replaces it with other, bigger problems.  And as your now learning, SC is designed to revolve around the control of RealScam.  So who  is going to support a network which replaces one problem with another?

Either the unknowing or the malicious.

Many 'regular' users (peasant miners) are unknowing, as you can see very little of this informatiom is covered on the main SC site. Many of your list however are not ignorant, they've dealt with the source and have allegedly been involved with many of the design decisions.

What option does that leave?

Edit: Of course you have the third option, those who have been genuinely put under the spell that RS is a 'great guy'.  The references to 'King RealScam' and 'Cult of Solidcoin' are born out of the reality of how RS interacts with people.  He only keeps people around who praise him, and bans/censors those who do not parrot what he says.  So the overwhelming majority of what you read on solidcoin.info and #solidcoin is a result of him pruning users who don't agree with his rhetoric.

Edit2: Let's take a trip down memory lane : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42069.0 <--- On Sept 7th, only 20 days after the launch of SC 1.0.

The king says otherwise. I won't infringe on copyright by posting his exact words, but he said that the amount transferred is capped. I don't understand the mess that is the source though, so I'm forced to trust him for now.

No, you do not.  You can take your current holdings of SC and transfer them into a currency in which you do NOT have to trust one person.

My current SC holdings are worth less than 16 bucks. I can afford to lose something if a) I learn a lesson from this or b) you do ;).

Well that is the entire point.  Complete centralized control and you have to trust him.  Not just now but in the future.

Still here is the section of code he is either lying or he doesn't understand his own code

(from transaction.cpp)

On edit: crap you can't bold inside code block.  Well let me grab that line

                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");

There is no restriction on max payment only on a minimum payment.  ValDiff is the amount of the transaction.  blockValue is the amount required for the evenblock.  It is computed as 5% of the prior block.  Notice the code only requries that ValDiff (amount transfered to King ScamCoin's personal wallet be GREATER than the BlockValue)

So 0.35 SC is valid but so is 800,000 SC.  ;D

Still the larger point is he controls the code and the control nodes.  Even if the code blocked him now he could simply change the code.  What is going to stop him?

The control nodes he owns?
The miners who need to upgrade or have their blocks rejected by the control nodes?

LOLZ.

You are right about one thing.

Of course needing trust at all is a fatal flaw.  I mean there is nothing wrong with Paypal or Federal Reserve.... as long as you trust them.

At current market (BTC/SC), that's roughly 660 SC.

Your value rising depends on more people 'having to trust' RS with their money.  Merchants and people who have more than $16 at stake won't ever do that, thus SC will never be adopted, thus the odds of you seeing any greater profit (outside of electricity costs) are slim.

My suggestion to you is to get out while you can (with a market depth of only ~200 BTC (on btc-e), you control 2.5% of that), but when do get burned this will be one of the cheaper lessons you'll of had to learn the hard way.

Wow pro reply kid.

The reality that everybody refuses to see is that he is 2 steps from creating the almost perfect way for a private company to transfer value, hell, even proceed to payments a la paypal way... If it ever gains as much traction as Bitcoin it will be an asset more valuable for any company to hold than bitcoin itself.
Even if he creates the NPO, the NPO has funding, with his royal tax, and if it really turns a profit maybe they will be the company that will hold such asset, if somebody else with more money doesn't show up and buy the whole thing.

Doesn't matter what you all say, that's it's unfair, blah blah blah

If he does it with you all against him, just because you don't agree with his decisions, then you can all be sure that his arrogance will be 100x worst than it is today.
If he fails, he can just blame you all for is failure and will continue being the same prick he is today. <-- Do you really want to give him such weapon? ;) Or maybe you already did gave him that weapon, even if you stop all this nonsense now!

The only thing I'm certain is that you will never stop hearing/reading about him, he doesn't looks like the kind to stay put and eat the frog.

What 'nonsense'?  Even when people produce code from the source allowing the premine to be spent, you say it's 'nonsense'?  That sounds like critical information people should be aware of, and in direct contrast to what RS says.


Well gee psy, you just broke your 'I've never supported SC, I only rag on BCX' stance.  

Chalk another one up as a confirmed kool-aid drinker

Nope, not supporting him. I don't need to support him to recognize that he worked the way he wanted and created a new "thing"(not going to call it cryptocurrency) that may even succedd, even if just for a while. That's what enraged persons do, refuse to see opposite points of view just because you don't agree with them, or maybe because you're jealous, still couldn't figure it out.

Keep chasing those windmills, fellas... that's all I'm saying

http://www.toonpool.com/user/856/files/don_quixote_425585.jpg

Nope. The only time the pools have any kind of power over the trusted nodes at all is when two different trusted nodes disagree with each other. When all the trusted nodes are running in concert - and this'll be true for the foreseeable future because they're run by RealSolid and people he trusts - miners have no say. They don't get to decide which transactions to accept or which to reject. Remember that the trusted nodes can insert transactions into their even blocks too, and unless another trusted node comes along and disagrees the miners have to either go along with it or abandon SolidCoin altogether.

OK, I asked RealSolid about this since I was talking about how the trusted blocks work in #solidcoin anyway, and apparently I wasn't missing anything. It is indeed possible to transfer as much from the trustfund to the CPF as you like so long as it's over the minimum, and apparently this may have been intentional at one point:


Apologies for the long paste. Anyway, hopefully this issue will finally get fixed. >:(

Edit: Yep, fix should go into the next version according to RealSolid.

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.

Of course even that is academic because there is no proof that anyone other than King RealScam has control of any control node.

100% fully centralized and absolute control over both the source and the network by a single King.  How exactly is this better than Federal Reserve?

I appreciate your diligence in finding and pursuing this, makomk.

what I still can't fathom is why folk like viper, spacey, psy, etc are all still trying to compete as to who can get the most brown on their nose from RS.

For weeks it was said 'The 12m+ premine is unspendable' when all along RS knew they could be spent.  How anyone can simply write off a blatant LIE like that is beyond me. 

Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

Thx for your effort. The haters don't want to discuss, they just want to spread FUD.  Although they know that regular nodes wouldn't accept such a block, they state it the other way around...

Normal nodes can't stop the control nodes.  If control node say doing x is valid a normal node either does x or its blocks & transactions never make it part of the blockchain.  Sure you can compile your own source.  Compile the source and put the correct block reward of 32 SC back in.

You can communicate with the network, mine a block, even find a solution, sign the block and submit it to the control nodes .... who will promptly reject it and your block never becomes part of the block chain.


There aren't.  He has private keys for all 10 control nodes.  There won't be any organic control nodes outside King RealScam's control for 6+ years at current generation rates.  At any point in the next 6 years he can simply change that to and ensure there never is a control node not under his control.

Also the control nodes are based on the money balance.  If King RealScam wants to pretend this is a democracy he can give "control" (which is dubious if he knows the private keys) of 49% of control node balances to other people.  Hell he could give 49% to Bitcoin Express, Me, Gavin, and Colbee.  It wouldn't matter.  If he retains 51% of control node balances he has 100% control.

The peasant nodes will do whatever 51% of the control nodes (by balance) tell them to do.  Period.

Spacey, it's not FUD when it's FACT - FACT is the 12m+ premine are VERY spendable.

'Same Agurments'

Dude, your guy just got busted lieing and you're over here being pretentious about 'same old arguements'?

Do you have -anything- to say about the great lie your dear leader has been trying to pull over on his sheep?  Or were you in on it?

Fact based on the code.  Observation is no test for capability.  The US hasn't killed everyone in Europe with nuclear weapons.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have the capability.

Didn't you chide everyone for not reading the code.  Well really reading the code takes some time so read it.

The only limit on trusted node transfers is
a) they can only be in a even block
b) they can only be to King RealScam's personal wallet
c) they can only be GREATER than the minimum required (5% of prior block) (KingRealScam wants the full tax not just some of it).

Now since equality is to test for.  Like this...


why would such a God among programmers accidentally allow any amount greater than the minimum?

Please stop lying (since you claim to have read the code) and provide the specific line of code which prevents tax payments to King RealScam that are >5% of prior block reward.

When the code is fixed, it doesn't matter what a trusted node does in his own chain fork. It only counts what the nodes which run the SC businesses (exchanges, shops, normal nodes, etc...) accept as valid blocks. And it's also FUD that the entire 12m are spendable, it's only 2m...

Another blatant falsehood.  Have you looked at the code.  The peasant nodes accept the block signed by 51% of trust nodes (by balance).

Currently KingRealScam has 100% of trust node balances (and will always retain the private keys for 100% of the balances).  Still even if he only had 51% of the balances he still retains complete control of the network.

Any node which submits a block or transaction contrary to the Kings edicts will never become part of the block chain.  Anything the 49% of trust nodes signs will never be accepted as valid by any of the peasants nodes.

And unlike you, when someone lies over and over again, I have the backbone to call them out.

If you really would have followed the discussion you whould have noticed that the baseAmount is also checked later. It is not possible to send a higher baseAmount, but RS didn't though about also checking the fee amount of the transaction. At the moment it is possible to send higher fees with the one fix base amount in a trusted block, but that will be fixed soon. And if all of the normal nodes upgrade to the fixed version, they won't accept such false blocks anymore... You should better follow the discussion instead to post outdated info over and over again :)

Viper there are about 20 references in this thread and other threads about how it is IMPOSSIBLE to not spend the 12M PreMine.

Absolutely impossible.  Before seeing the source code I pointed out that since the even blocks send those "impossible coins" directly to King RealScam's personal wallet and was promptly based by you and others that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

Now we find out it is very possible (BTW you are the first (and so far only supporter) to admit it.  Suddenly the argument changes (yet another bait & switch) that "the intent isn't mailicous" however the intent wasn't what was argued from day one.  What was FALSELY claimed is that the 12M premine is unspendable.

So I agree with you it comes down to trust & intent. If someone implicitly trust King RealScam with everything they have invested in ScamCoin then there is no problem.  However the entire ScamCoin scheme boils down to complete trust because it is completely controlled by a single person.  If his intent is malicious there is absolutely nothing you or anyone can do about it.

The purpose of CryptoCurrency is to facilitate trade without trust in a third party.  Now there are some flaws with Bitcoin.  It doesn't YET achieve that goal of absolutely no trust in third party however it is improving.  The ability to have dual signature addresses can eliminate the need to trust exchanges or eWallets.  The ability to create contracts in the block chain will allow verifiable proof of ownership changes of digital goods.   Dual signatures may enable someday the ability to create "trust-less" escrows.  Technology like p2pool can make pools less of a trust concern and harden the network against DDOS attacks.

So Bitcoin is an evolving network striving for the goal outline by Satoshi to create a peer to peer decentralized currency that requires no trust in third party.  ScamCoin even if it works is a huge step backwards because it requires absolute trust in a single person.  You claims of intent are exactly that a statement of trust.

Even if that were true (and it isn't) it is irrelivent.  King RealScam controls 100% of control node balances.  As long as he controls at least 51% he can make any change to the source and force it upon the network.  The network will only accept even blocks accepted by at least 51% of the control node balances.

He can make any change (any possible change) and if you refuse to upgrade then you are locked out of the block chain.  No mining, no transactions, no access to your funds. 

It is 100% complete and absolute centralized control by one man.  No amount of double talk and empty promises changes that.

You seem really naive to call all the SC users so stupid. Now that the source is out they will follow every change made to the source. Do you really think that exchanges etc. would use new source which would build in new ways to spend the 2m premine? That's the same for the other trosted nodes. Do you really think all the people who run trusted nodes now are just RS puppies who do everything RS says withouth brain?

And for the 51% you don't have any source code available to enforce your claims, I suppose. You should better check the source how trusted nodes decide if they accept a trusted block or not.

Supporters of King RealScam and RealFiatCoin are starting to sound like people with Stockholm Syndrome :(

I'm assuming in this scenario that at least one trusted node doesn't consider this action valid, most likely the node that's being revoked. That's all that's currently required to keep the fork of the network in which raiding trustfund accounts is against the rules running. (RealSolid is apparently planning to change this to require two at some point, though.)

With the appropriate usage restrictions, having access to the trustfund private keys is not the same as controlling all the trusted nodes that use them.

It has nothing to do with stupidity.  Not everyone has happy w/ change from 32 SC to 5SC.  Guess what happens if they tried to keep using the old client.  Any blocks or transactions were simply rejected by the control nodes.  

It isn't an issue of stupidity.  It is an issue of absolute control (regardless of if you can see it or not).   Try mining w/ client that generated 32 SC reward and tell me what happens to your submitted blocks.


Maybe you shoud.  Honestly if the control nodes disagree on prior block how do you think the network resolves it.  King RealSolid himself even has admitted it and it is in the source code.  The peasant nodes our bond to the decision of 51% of the control nodes (by balance).

If 51% of control nodes (by balance) say a block is invalid then it is invalid and will be rejected by every client.   No block joins the block chain unless accepted by the control nodes (of which King RealSolid controls 100%).

Circular logic.  

What sets the "usage restrictions"? .... The source code.
If someone changes the source code what ensures that it is compliant?  .... The control nodes.
Who can sign off on an even block as valid?  ... Someone who has the private key to a control node.

Thus if you have the majority of the private keys (or all of them) then you have no restrictions on what you can do.

Now in theory I agree that if
a) 10 new control nodes were created in which only the owner/controlller new the private key
b) those people were verified to actually be 10 independent people (not 10 sockpuppets of King RealScam)
c) the balances from the "tainted" control nodes were transfered to these new control nodes

then yet at that point (assumming King RealScam doesn't have direct access or indirectly access via syncopanth) then the control nodes would work for the good of the network and not at the personal whims of the King.

However as long as 51% of control node balances are in accounts that King RealScam has the private key for then he has 100% control.

The whole point of a cryptocurrency is that users of the system cannot be raped by a few random people on a message board. Solidcoin does not qualify as a cryptocurrency since a single person can change any aspect of it, at will. Solidcoins can be moderated out of existence as easily as forum posts on the solidcoin forums and that is quite the opposite of what cryptocurrencies stand for.

Intent without means is useless.  Colbee has shown no malicous intent but that isn't the point.  I don't trust Coblee.  I don't say that to be a jerk.  I am saying I don't HAVE to trust Coblee and I don't want to HAVE to trust Coblee.  LTC has no centralized control.

I think is sad that the arugment has now changed from "it is IMPOSSIBLE to spend the 12M SC" to "you can trust King RealScam to not spend the 12M SC".


Here is the thing you aren't getting.  You may be right.  We "may" be able to trust him but I don't want to trust him.  A network that REQUIRES implicit trust is a failure.  It took the problems Bitcoin has and made them worse.  Paypal is fine if you want to implicitly trust someone, so is Liberty Reserve, so is Dwolla.  There is no utlity in decentralizing a network in functionality and then still needing to trust a central authority.   You merge all the issues of decentralized network with all problems of implicity trust in a central authority.

I would say the need for implicit trust makes ScamCoin inferior to BOTH Bitcoin and Paypal.
Bitcoin - decentralized (no implicit trust required) but low adoption
Paypal - centralized (must implicitly trust Paypal) but high adoption

ScamCoin - implicity trust required AND low adoption.


It is like saying "There is nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve  .... if they always do the right thing for the people."  I would argue that is a logical failure.  EVEN IF they do the right for the people there is STILL a problem with the Federal Reserve because it requires implicit trust that they will not just do the right thing today but everyday into the future.  

Show me the code where the trusted nodes make a 51% poll about if a block should be accepted or rejected... I don't think that this works as a big "trusted community effort", instead every node decides for himself, if a block wins over another by certain rules. Do you really think, the the trusted nodes send there "decisions" out to the network, and every normal node checks "Hm, how many trusted nodes like this block, and how many not? Hm, accept it or not?" But maybe you can instruct me, if you have source proof.

Statement one:

Statement two:

Plain and simple. Statement one claims accounts can't be drained, statement two says the intention was to be able to drain them. Lie.

You don't get it? It meant to be impossible, and then after the fix it is IMPOSSIBLE to send a trusted block with incorrect fee to a node running the new corrected code. You probably confused past and future? And why are you always repeating 12m over and over, even if the source falsifies your argument? Maybe you got stuck when thinking?

"Orginally... but then it was changed so that movement shouldn't be possible"  I don't see a conflict between the 2 statements...

Of course they do otherwise one rogue node could mark any double spend or 51% attack as valid.  If the peasant nodes just accepted any block signed by one control node regardless of being rejected by other control nodes then 1 rouge trusted node with 1M SC (0.00001% of total) could sign any bad block and if the attacker had the longest chain the could reverse transaction just like they can on Bitcoin.

I mean think about it.  How would you resolve a "conflict" where some trusted nodes reject a block and some accept it?  If you are too lazy to look in the source yourself you will need to wait until I get home.  For some reason my work's firewall considers download from solidcoin.info to be "untrusted" (not a joke).

You may also be interested in King RealScam's comments on stackexchange


http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/what-can-xxxcoin-do-to-stop-the-impending-51-attack

So by definition it is possible.  Right now it can happen.  Maybe you should look up the definition of impossible.  As far as it is "meant" to be impossible.  How can you know the intent of the author.


Unlike you I actually read the source.  There is no restriction on how much money can be dumped from a trusted node to the King's wallet.  None (other than a minimum check).   The statement "it is impossible to spend the 12M SC" is false.  Period.

You claim the source code WILL be changed?  By who?  When?    Even IF it is changed it can be changed back if one person controls 51% of the "control money" they control the network.  They can enforce any change they want.

The point is, if the other trusted nodes reject a trusted block, the will continue to mine their own valid block. First the normal nodes reject the invalid trusted block, because the coinamount+fee is too high. Then they get a new trusted block from the other nodes, accept it, and the rogue trusted node sits on its own invalid chain fork. That's the szenario if a trusted block with too many coins is sent after the fix. If a normal node gets multiple different trusted node blocks, they can decide which of them wins by comparing the work done in the different blocks. You can check the source, the chain wins with the most "work" done, the "work" also factors in the trusted node money balance.

I hope people reading this thread realise that it is just the same few people on this board trotting out the same bullshit again and again and again. Take a look at the other SolidCoin-related threads in this section of the forum and you will see the same 5 or 6 names appearing again and again. Why do these people feel the need to trash talk SolidCoin every single day of their lives? Are they simply the same 2 people with multiple accounts? Who knows, you'll need to ask them.

However, I think people are starting to wise up to the trolls. I've noticed recently that very few replies to their threads are from anyone other than either themselves or SolidCoin supporters correcting their invalid arguments. The same old crap about who might be able to spend premines, who might be able to take control of trusted nodes, who might do what with the client, who might do what with enough hashing power have been played out so many times that people making these arguments are starting to make themselves look stupid. These troll arguments are all "what if..." questions and are not worth the steam off my piss.

Anyway, trolling aside, so far the singular valid point anyone has made against SolidCoin is that one person is in complete control over the entire project. This is the one accusation anywhere in this thread which is actually true.

Thankfully, it is a non-issue. RealSolid is a good leader, he has his head firmly on his shoulders and is wise enough to listen to people whose opinion he values. Unlike the trolls here, he actually changes his mind about a lot of things. If he was a tyrant who did whatever the fuck he wanted and failed to listen to reason, then we'd have a genuine issue here, but he just isn't. He is decisive, driven, extremely productive and isn't afraid to make changes to the project as and when they are needed, even though they might not be popular with everyone. He understands that sometimes the majority are wrong, and has the courage of his convictions.

Even so, as awesome as RS is, a single point of failure is of course a weakness for any project with as lofty goals as SolidCoin has. But I think people need to get some perspective here, we have goals and aspirations to be a successful, trusted and open mass-market internet currency but we are a long way off from achieving them. People comparing SolidCoin to the federal reserve, or a government, or to massive open source projects like Linux are really seriously missing the point. We are growing and evolving and in time the project will become what we aspire for it to be, but for now it is merely an embryo, a private project controlled by an individual. To hold it up at this point to the same standards as the international banking system is just downright ridiculous. Rome was not built in a day.

RealSolid has stated publicly a number of times his desire to relinquish control of the project to a group of people capable of taking it forward, and one of the major goals for all supporters of SolidCoin is to come up with a structure for that group, decide who comprises it and what their roles should be. Nothing worth doing is easy, especially organising a group of people over the internet. So certainly for the foreseeable future, yes, RealSolid calls the shots.

Unlike RS, most of these trolls have entirely inflexible minds and will never change their opinion about SolidCoin, no matter how SolidCoin itself changes. They will always find something else to hate about it. First it was no source, source came and they still rage. Next it is the trusted nodes all in the hands of RS, trusted nodes are distributed around multiple people around the world and they still rage. Next is the  fact that the CPF is handled by one person and will be used for personal profit, RS will spend it all on the project and document every spend, but they will still rage, just about something different. You can never please all of the trolls all of the time.

Trolls, in their own way, are actually quite useful to the project. Their incessant whining, snorting and braying helps us to understand where we need to apply our efforts to improve the project. In their own little way, they are all contributors  :D

Yeah I know, he thought it was impossible, but there is a bug and it will be fixed. That happens thanks to the effort of all the people here checking the source :)


Isn't that the check to reject a trusted block, if the balance falls below 1mio?

RS cannot enforce any change. If RS makes useless or scamming changes to the code, people won't accept it, and the worst case is that the chain get stuck. At the end only the source that the business nodes are running counts.

No he didn't. He admitted to planning on a capability to drain trust wallets. He said so here:

Funny, the same could be said about SC supporters.  Yet the 'trolls' have many questions, yet the 'sockpuppet supporters' deny any wrongdoing on RS's part, even when he has been caught lieing.  You tell me who the sockpuppet accounts are.


Yeah, that 'same old crap' are critical security issues SC users should be aware of.  Sweeping legitimate questions under the rug is not a way to inspire confidence.


And it's scary for SC users


You switch back and forth so many times here.  He's a 'good leader' who listens to people.  He changes his mind a lot, but you claim he can't do 'whatever he wants'.  Remember the 32-5 SC block change?  Then you go further to admit that he knows they aren't popular with everyone, which contradicts the idea he 'listens to people', at which point you admit he understands that he's wrong a majority of the time.  So at the end of the day we have a guy who doesn't listen to people, does whatever he wants, and is often wrong.


SC lead by RS or RS sockpuppets is hardly relinquished control.  Especially when RS has keys to all the control accounts.


Yes, the source came and 'we raged' because the source contained the truth to RS's lie - the fact he can infact spend that premine.  That's cause for 'rage' when one person controls 85% of the coins, when previously he lied about that.


ten98, your rhetoric has been dismissed.

12 million is correct. Each trustfund address contained 1.2 million Solidcoins, and there are ten such accounts. Although each account becomes totally unusable once it drops below 1 million solidcoins, this check is on the input to the transaction. Since there's currently no upper limit on the amount of solidcoins that a trustfund transaction can send to RealSolid's CPF, he could just drain the entire remaining balance of each of them in turn to the CPF for a total of 12 million unencumbered, premined solidcoins.

Pretty much, yeah. You're overestimating how much protection the trusted nodes actually provide, probably because you foolishly believed RealSolid. (Haven't you noticed that he tends to exaggerate rather a lot?) There's not even any way for more than one trusted node to signs a block as far as I can tell; if multiple trusted nodes produce even blocks building on the same odd block, the client just picks one.

The block is accepted, unless it's invalid for some other reason. The rest of the network doesn't even have any way to detect that the block has been rejected by some trusted nodes.

I'm going to say that's BS. You may need more money than the largest individual trusted node for at least some attacks, but that's not the same as needing 51% of the total trust money.

JohnJ, you are one of the biggest trolls on this board, I'm not surprised you chimed in here. Anyone that wants to take a masterclass in attention seeking, spreading FUD and generally making shit up could do a lot worse than just reading all of your posts.

I thought about doing a little point-by-point rebuttal of all of your statements, as you did for me, but I think your stupidity speaks perfectly well for itself without me adding to it. This is one of your "classic" troll posts and should go into the hall of fame. You really do just seem to let the bullshit flow, nice work.

Again, the 'troll' arguement is getting old when every question and concern the 'trolls' have had, have been validated.  Calling fact 'fud' is just silly.  What have I 'made up'?  Cite please?

Your wordplay does yourself a disservice, ten98.  You should show more concern for informing SC users, rather than trying to sweep fatal flaws under the rug.

 In YOUR opinion.

 A real cryptocurrency wouldn't need draconian central control or a glorious leader. We really should not even be discussing SolidCoin here as it doesn't even qualify as a cryptocurrency any more.

 It's cryptofiat.

Corrected it for you.

it is not a fiat currency. fiat means by law. it is not a cryptocurrency, or at least not a network controlled peer to peer currency.

it could qualify as a centrally controled cryptocurrency. just like egold.
the thing that we want to avoid, wih he bitcoin project, is central control. therefor it is useless.


go away solidcoin!

 Thank you for addressing my post with factual, intelligent counters.

 See my previous point on Stockholm Syndrome.

 The fact remains that SolidCoin does in-fact substitute one problem (potential 51% attack on BTC) with one of complete central control under the domain of one person. Him saying "I plan on eventually relinquishing control to other people" is questionable at best. Given the choice of supporting Bitcoin vs SolidCoin, I think the choice is clear.

 Yes, Bitcoin does have it's problems, but it's a better alternative to SolidCoin in it's current state.

 If Coinhunter/Realsolid is serious about SolidCoin, he would do well to scrap v2 entirely, reboot with v3 with source available ahead of launch,  look to Litecoin as to how to handle a currency launch in a fair way, stop posting on the internet, and get someone skilled with PR.

 In my opinion.

 And I'll concede the point that SC is not fiat, but with the recent 32 to 5 change for the purposes of affecting a change on the markets, it's arguable.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. The thing about exchanging 51% security with less decentralization has already been mentioned hundreds of times, it doesn't get more correct by repeating it. SC supporters live with it, haters criticize it.  The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible. It would bring the community forward if you also could provide some constructive feedback, we all know that you and some others hate SC, but that really doesn't solve any problem, it only gets you white hair.

Why should a switch to v3 change anything? Piss off all the SC supporters with coins just to allow others to get early adopters? The trusted node thing would be the same in v3, so no advantage regarding this.

I'd say it's achieved the opposite of this goal.

No, because decentralization was not the main goal. The most important thing for RS was to get 51% protection, and then to reduce the negative side effects as much as possible with keeping 51% protection intact.

solution to the 51% attack: single point of failure.

A few will invest. One can always find a few people to sign on the dotted line.
Be glad that those few will not be using Bitcoin when they get scammed.
For once the news will read "Beware of things that are *not* Bitcoin" ;)

Sadly I think Bitcoin will be lumped in. I hope your right.

Not really much being said about what I first posted about.  Maybe it's already spoken for itself.

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3001/scamcoinloser.png

All this proves is how well the solidcoin difficulty algorithm works...

No it shows miners are fleeing ScamCoin over the clearly superior open and decentralized LightCoin.  ScamCoin is a small and shrinking minority despite GPU mining, and the diehard fans using EC2 clusters to generate coins at a loss its support is still contracting and is now roughly 1/3 of LightCoin and falling fast.

If you compare the SC and LTC graphs for the same time frame, there is zero relation between the drop in the SC network speed to any increase in LTC's network speed.  So your statement that people are leaving SC for LTC is clearly bullshit based on the data.

I mine several different coins, including BTC, LTC, and SC.  All of them are flawed, all of them are attackable, that is the truth.  But if any of them ever have a chance to become anything but a purely speculative form of exchange, then the community as a whole has to start discarding people that are blatant liars and do nothing but spread bullshit so deep you can't see the top from the bottom. 

In your one statement, you lied about why there was a drop in the SC network, you hurt LTC and Coblee's reputation by involving them, and you hurt BTC in general by posting your noise in these forums.

And last of all, you made yourself look like an idiot by posting a claim that anyone can verify as totally false.

You don't like SC, we get it, we (99% of *coin users) also don't give a fuck.
I personally don't like GG and TBX, do you see me posting ever 30 seconds about how they will kill and eat your babies?  (To be fair, as far as I know, they have not killed and/or eaten any babies to date, although, the fact that it may happen in the future, no matter how small the probability, seems to be enough for some people here to start a holy war about a baby killing chain)

These forums are rampant with people bending the truth to fit their views, and flat out lying.  Nothing that any of these chains have accomplished, whether you like them or not, will survive unless the community and/or the mods put a stop to this.

To be fair,  GG and TBX fans don't go around promoting those two in the same fashion SC users do.  There was never really any need to for GG - the source was available from the start and since it's decentralized, that's all you needed.

As far as I know, no one has proclaimed anything false about SC except for RS himself.  If anyone has, there is only to blame the lack of documentation and constant flip-flopping.

However I do agree with you about the noise.  But good luck getting anything else out of the mods.

I went and looked at your post history - not interesting, possibly a little odd - not sure why you showed up here.

What were you actually trying to say? 

This thread provides some entertainment to those watching the politics of an alt chain evolution.  It's a nice microcosm of something that doesn't actually matter - unlike a similar maelstrom around the looming history in the making on the euro/drachma story.

They invented the square wheel mate. It is not a real cryptocurrency. It is just the new ScamFiat !