Bitcoin Forum

Note topic. No trolling.

I'm legitimately interested in why you think anyone who disagrees with Microcash being a scam is Coinhunter. Please, I'm dying to hear.

Thanks for the concise response, but can any of this be backed up and not just be FUD? And if so, does this relate to your answer (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Early_adopters_are_unfairly_rewarded)?

Reasons not to use Microcash (as I recall them):

1)  The creator is an immature, insecure, greedy little fuck.  He's already created multiple failed versions of Solidcoin which ripped directly from the Bitcoin source code without giving credit to it as instructed by the MIT license.

2.)  Development team has consistently claimed that their currencies are decentralized when they aren't.  In the past, they would not publish the code as open-sourced.  When you ask them specific questions about the technical aspects of Solidcoin/Microcash, they respond not with an answer, but rather by 1) insulting you or 2) insulting Bitcoin.  

3.)  I did the math in a previous post -- Coinhunter had about 1/8 of the coins in the entire network based upon the amount of money that he stated he had invested in it.  How's that for decentralization?

4.)  There's really so much more I could write, but I don't want to look up any specific posts as it would be a waste of my time.

Seriously, if you use MicroCash, you deserve to have every bit of your investment stolen.  Every Solidcoin version to date has been pumped and dumped to hell, this version will be no different.  

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Coinhunter is the reason we have abortion.

When enraged, you made the same grammatical errors and used the same insulting language the Coinhunter account used. A telling lapse, but not proof.

Purportedly Microcash will have mechanisms built in to enrich the largest SoiledCoin accounts (currently controlled by Coinhunter) at the expense of others. Of course, it does not yet exist so any discussion of what it is would be a waste of time. If Microcash broke cleaning from the SoiledCoin chain, it would cease to be a scam. Then we would have to wait until it was implemented and the source released before passing judgement.

As is, Microcash is just a vehicle to preserve and extend the ill gotten gains of SoiledCoin and it's tyrant nodes.

I asked why Microcash is a scam. 1, 2, 3, 4 are not valid reasons.

How does having any amount of coins relate to the decentralization of the network? Mt. Gox has a large percentage of Bitcoins in their wallets, you don't see people complaining how that harms the security of the Bitcoin network.

I believe the source code is freely available on their website. Although it was a concern in the past, it is not one right now.

These versions are iterations of the ongoing development of SolidCoin. They are not separate entities from each other, just like new Bitcoin releases.

What defines a version as 'failed'? Having no users running the specific version? I'm sure there are older Bitcoin versions which have have zero users.

Okay I agree with you on the MIT license. :D

That's the most assinine argument I've ever heard.

Grammatical errors? Are you sure those instances of my 'grammatical errors' were not me trolling, just like others in the same topic? It's shit hard to get something through some of your skulls it's sometimes not worth the effort to respond coherently.

The usage of "purportedly" means there is lack of proof of the observations following it, and usually signifies the presence of FUD nearby. I'll be willing to talk to you once Microcash is released.

Sorry I wasn't aware of that. I don't think the codebase of 2.04 is far off from the major release of 2.0. I'm not going to argue with that. ;)

I know you asked about what makes it a 'scam,' but I responded with "reasons not to use it" instead because I can't prove it was a scam.

I'd rather fuck with Magic Johnson than microcash.

Microcash is just a rebranding of SoiledCoin. To claim otherwise is to contradict the current marketing material which claims every SoiledCoin will be migrated to Microcash. In that sense, it is just an extension of SoiledCoin.

MtGox does not control the license to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the source to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the block chain of Bitcoin with tyrant nodes. MtGox holds those Bitcoins in escrow for their users, they cannot decide to spend them as they see fit without breaking the law. The CPF and tyrant nodes were under your total control. That is the difference.

The code is still not open-source. It is proprietary, licensed and controlled by Coinhunter. We can see the source for the client nodes, but not for the tyrant (server) nodes. Client/server architecture where one party controls all the servers is not "decentralized", nor is it peer to peer.


The SoiledCoin 1.x and 2.x releases are separate block-chains that are totally incompatible with each other. They are not just like Bitcoin releases. Bitcoin has not had to stop and restart it's block-chain twice. Try to spend a coin created with the first Bitcoin client, and you will find that coin to be valid. Try to spend a coin created with the first SoiledCoin client and you will hear nothing but silence.

Microcash is not just a re-branding, there are significant changes. The widely feared trust nodes are gone.

Do you read my posts in the context they are written in? "the joint" claimed that Coinhunter having "1/8" of the coins in the entire network harms the decentralization of Microcash. I responded with the rebuttal that any amount of coins does not relate to the decentralization of the network since there are no trust nodes. And here you are rambling something completely remote.

I never said it was open-source. I said the source code is freely available on their website (he was talking about SolidCoin). The Microcash source has not been released yet, how can you claim to see the source for the client nodes and not the server nodes? Anyone can run a server. Clients are only there for the average joe and those who don't want to download the blockchain. I guess you should add "Purportedly," to the beginning of your claims.

If the Microcash source has not been released yet, then how can you claim its decentralized and that the tyrant nodes are gone?

Regardless, CoinHunter's personality alone makes me want to stay away from MicroCash, decentralized or not.  Bitcoin has absolutely obliterated every former SolidCoin attempt in terms liquidity, value, # of merchants, transparency, media hype, novelty, etc., and CoinHunter still had the balls to try to claim that SolidCoin was better than Bitcoin in every way.

It's bad enough when you're a pathological liar, it's even worse when you begin to believe the shit you spew.  With CoinHunter, RealSolid, and notyep, the SolidCoin/Microcash currency has had the absolute worst and most thoughtless ad campaign I have ever seen in my entire life.  They remind me of Bulk and Skull from the Power Rangers.

I kind of think that CoinHunter has a crush on Bitcoin and that he keeps slamming it like a first grade boy slams a first grade girl when he likes her. 

Microcash does not exist except in the marketing messages on this forum. It can only be more than a rebranding when it's source is released. At this point, it is just a vehicle for Solidcoins to be renamed Microcash. Any further enhancements are promises from a group of people who have yet to keep any.

I guess you have no comment on how completely different the two situations are. I am not surprised that you fail to understand (or feign ignorance), if you did understand and had a conscience, you would not find yourself in this situation.
In one case on entity has total control of the currency, client, servers, and block-chain and also owns a significant fraction of the coins.
In the other case, one entity acts as a broker and has no control over the peers, client, or block-chain.
MtGox could not stop Bitcoin if they wanted to. Coinhunter has already stopped SoiledCoin twice.


My statements were regarding SoiledCoin and the unsubstantiated claims of the SoiledCoin crew. Of course I wasn't talking about Microcash, it does not yet exist. Thank you for admitting that Microcash will be client/server and not peer to peer.

Also, you can stop pretending you are not a Coinhunter sockpuppet. There are 3 supporters of SoiledCoin on this forum, and you pretending to be a fourth just detracts further from your image. When the organizers of SoiledCoin decide to own their product instead of hiding in the shadows, we might take them more seriously. Until then, we are left with:

SoiledCoin 1.x, fatal design flaw, blockchain shut down
SoiledCoin 2.x, fatal design flaw, blockchain in limbo
SoiledCoin 3.x (aka Microcash), vaporware, purported by a sockpuppet (none of the SoiledCoin crew will sign their name to it) to have serious design flaws if ever released. Until it is released, we are left with the rantings of a pathological liar on which to base our evaluation.

This is the first post of i_rape_bitcoins where he claims to be new to the whole crypto-currency concept. The next 4 posts are similar in nature.
Of course, as soon as he exits the newbie forum his tone shifts markedly and is revealed to be a SoiledCoin sockpuppet. One day later and suddenly he knows everything about SoiledCoin.

People who need to lie in this fashion should not be trusted with your money.


Right now, you are looking at your screen. The spit you are seeing is probably not mine.

And here we have the third puppet demonstrating The Joint's assertion:
"When you ask them specific questions about the technical aspects of Solidcoin/Microcash, they respond not with an answer, but rather by 1) insulting you or 2) insulting Bitcoin.  "

When we use logic and facts, the SoiledCoin sockpuppets respond with insults.
Enjoy your second failed block-chain.
I will look forward to May 10th when SoiledCoin promised to release their greatest creation...

FIXED FOR YOU =)

The MicroCash system is rigged in such a way that coins will transfer over time from those with few coins to those with a large number of coins. This is done on a pretext of limiting the addresses in use but that's clearly nonsense as the address space of BitCoin is in the same order of magnitude as the number of fundamental particles in the universe. They invented a tax to stop people from wasting an infinite resource.


Those with a large number of coins are all in the SolidCoin inner circle. The whole system is designed to transfer wealth from the honest miners and traders to this inner circle without the inner circle putting in any work to deserve this income. Essentially MicroCash is BitCoin with a mechanism to tax the poor and give to the rich and a pretty GUI to hook in gullible people. If any of those gullible people find their way here they will be educated.

This system is at best poorly designed deception and at worst outright theft.

The only alt-currencies that seem worthy of use to me is litecoin and namecoin plus there both struggling opensource projects.  With Microcash/Solidcoin being more developed on that would help it but with it being closedsource no "nerds" are going to trust or use it and its only really nerds using virtual currencies at the moment.

It is a scam because you are not an early adopter.

Oh wait, it is the same with BTC ...

If you steal 25 BTC from a nice German guy on btc-e chat ( say transaction 84bfc754ff8e60d1042be7e6c2a0e6b83d5fdc4919a4e7c9efac6c86bec67d0a ) and keep it in your wallet ( address 1Bu1424Lf7y3Jz9p4ZyCo2mRSQDwdaXrHa ) you will have 25 BTC today.
You will have 25 BTC tomorrow.
You will have 25 BTC next month.
You will have 25 BTC next year.
You will have 25 BTC next decade.

If you started with 25 MC you would have 25 MC today.
You will have 25 MC minus minor losses tomorrow.
You will have 25 MC minus bigger losses next month.
You will have a seriously degraded amount next year.
You will have nothing or almost nothing next decade.

So where do the coins that got taken from you go? To everyone else who owns coins proportional to the number of coins they own. That is they go mostly to CoinHunter and his cronies.

The difference between BitCoin's early adopters and MicroCash's inner circle is that the MicroCash system is rigged by design to slowly filter coins away from everyone and into the wallet of CoinHunter. BitCoin early adopters have to give up some part of their capital in order to get value from their coins, MicroCash's inner circle do not. Therefore MicroCash is a bad medium for quick transactions and a truly awful store of value.

Microcash is a scam. Not in some figurative or weasel-worded sense but in a very real one.

I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account  0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc

Then the rules would be the following:
 - spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
 - low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
 - high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)

EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.

Just my two cents.

Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.

I agree with you, no need to lose money and we already have bitcoin for that.

Actually what I just described wouldn't work as people would just start splitting their accounts as they get to the middle threshold and above.

There is a difference between losing control of your private key and losing currency by design. Why must the currency be redistributed among it's users?
Everyone is still addressing how it should be redistributed, not why.

Because there is a cost involved in storing your accounts and transactions on hundreds or thousands of computers around the world.

It's free in Bitcoin, but there is a small fee in MicroCash for this luxury. Just because it's free in Bitcoin doesn't mean it's a scam to have fees for actual services. Just because one person runs a node doesn't mean everyone else around the network doesn't have to also store their accounts and transactions. There is a cost for storage, network transfer and cpu usage related to accounts, MicroCash has a fee for this so that it can protect itself from spam and so that the system self cleanses. If you don't like the daily half cent (0.005) fee then you don't have to use MicroCash. No one is forcing you to use the service.

I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes.  :D

You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness.


That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence?

Since most users in MicroCash won't be running nodes this isn't a zero sum game for the nodes. Apparently all running nodes are going to be paid a reward from the CPF through some mechanism. I doubt it's going to be "that much" though.


Everyone who has an account pays, not just the node operators. People who run nodes are generally going to be businesses, supporters and people seeking the utmost in anonymity.

Because there is no known way to pay nodes fees for running and providing the service in a decentralized manner MicroCash will be using part of the CPF to help support the infrastructure, which is a good use of it in my opinion.



Anyone running a node is storing the blockchain but they aren't the only one. Part of the reason p2p decentralization works in a security sense is the fact hundreds or thousands of computers store the same information. If your computer is corrupted you then go out to the other nodes who have it stored (storage cost) and ask them to send you everything (cpu and network cost). So even though you are storing it there is still a cost in those other hundreds of computers storing your information also.

Most people think putting a price on services is a good thing as it means it can't be taken advantage of. This is the reason for Bitcoin transaction fees after all?

In the Bitcoin model the miners get all the fees, why isn't this discussed as unfair? All the non mining nodes do the same work and they get nothing. At least in MicroCash anyone who has an account does get something back for all the network fees (both transaction and account). So this means nodes are paid indirectly for helping the network, the amount they get paid just depends on how much MicroCash they have.

The amount collected in daily transaction fees is only a relatively small amount, each account only pays half a cent, most real banks charge on the order of 100x more. So it's certainly not free like Bitcoin, but it's also much less than real banks. People have a choice if they think a daily half cent fee is too much or if they think that the biggest accounts are getting unfair rewards. If these two things are contentious to new users then MicroCash simply won't be popular. I don't see how these concepts are too negative though as they are similar to what people in the real world already deal with today (account fees and interest).

When comparing to real life banks a daily half cent fee is about 100 times less cost to a business. When comparing to wiring funds around the world a half cent fixed fee is about 6000 times less. When compared to buying items, you can buy something in MicroCash that is 5c and only pay a 10% fee for it, Visa/Mastercard would be jealous. MicroCash when compared to real life examples is extremely competitive.

... There you have it then

But what happens when you need to hire a lawyer and there is no protection fund?

oh, Why is microcash a scam?
It needs a protection fund

P2P and decentralised mean two things to me - FREE and Opensource - Which MicroCash is neither.

If all running nodes are paid, why tax them in the first place? So you can take a cut for "administration fees" ?
If you the creator of Soiledcoin don't know, how is anyone to have any faith in your work?
Are you just making this up as you go? If so, that isn't a good foundation for a cryptocurrency. It would explain why there is no alpha or beta source, and why no paper has been written detailing the inner workings of SoiledCoin 3.


So your plan is this:
since you have no idea how to reward nodes based on value provided, you plan to give some coins to people who you think deserve it. At least you admitted it instead of saving it for surprise sex later.


Yep, and when one of them crashes I am storing the block-chain for them. The can download part or all of it from me. Thus the term "peer" is applied. All the nodes are providing the same service.


You say that the non-mining BTC nodes do the same work as mining BTC nodes? You say that non-miners magically create blocks and encode transactions in them? That is a bizarre statement and betrays a deep misundertanding of Bitcoin. No wonder you are so hostile to BTC, you have an incomplete understanding of how it works.


Yes. Congrats, Microcash charges less than real banks do. You do charge account fees and interest just like banks do. So if people want to put their money in a bank run by an unknown group of people, running code they have never seen, running a system that it's creator cannot exlain, they can. They can feel right at home getting charged fees and taxes which go straight into the pocket of the "bankers".

Its a scam because its SolidCoin!. Enough Said!

I made 40 Bitcoins from that SolidCoin crap so I don't feel too bad. I was foolish though I could have made at least 500 Bitcoin if I had played my cards right.

The problem is the lack of participation. If you store some tiny ass amount in an account and expect it to be there in 20 years, that is ridiculous. Why does everyone have to service you for nothing? Bandwidth and storage are cheap, but they are not free. However, I think the way soiledcoin 3 is doing this is just another early adopter scam joke. Charge inactivity fees after an extended period of time, but not daily fees regardless if there is activity or not. If you are making or receiving transactions, then you are supporting the network regardless of how much is in your account and you shouldn't be charged anything since you are already paying tx fees--and it ensures that the wallet key is not lost. If you have some piddly balance after a year with no activity, yes you should be charged a fee, imo.

Bitcoin has made a bunch of self-serving whiners that expect everything to be free on the backs of the people who actually support the network. Although, at this point, a good majority of them are miners too, but this will certainly not always be the case. Not that the bitcoin network is even capable of charging inactivity fees though.

The security of Bitcoin is proportional to the length of it's block chain. Each block added makes past transactions more secure so adding blocks is in everyones interest. Most transactions are less than a K in size, so storing one costs ~$0.000001667 and that number gets smaller every day. Transactions can be pruned in theory (although the client does not yet support this feature), so in theory not every client need store the full blockchain for 20 years.

Every bitcoin client stores the blockchain and more importantly, they check the validity of it. How can the clients be whining and expecting free stuff when every single one is paying to store the blockchain and verify it?

I consider it scam, because there is no valid proof it´s not.
Plus the community lacks all means of delivering or validating such a proof.

I just used 1TB for $100 I think. But yeah, it is a small amount.

No, it's not. There are countless banks in the real world that provide free checking and savings accounts. My jar of pennies on my shelf also stores cash indefinitely at no charge. Digital currencies should also be free to store their value. Transaction fees and block rewards provide plenty of value to the miners.

Microcash is scam because it not store of value. Best to put money in bank with 0.25% annual interest or under mattress than put in Microcash.

With Microcash daily account fee you lose money every day.

it's not correct, when you have some MC$ in your wallet, you will get daily interest...

the daily account fee is MC$ 0.005, that means MC$ 1.825 a year, when you have a very small account...

every account has to pay it, after that it is redistributed proportional to the network regarding even how big every account is...

this is a "cleaning" mechanism and spam protection...

this will strengthen the network, you can get some MC$ even if you are not mining, only by hoarding the currency...

correct numbers of holding MC$ to get interest can't be given now and it will fluctuate because it depends on the number of accounts and how much MC$ you have...

Agreed. Microcash is designed to steal your value of your investment over time, just like Fiat!

Except that there is more than 1 hard drive in the entire network.

Say there's 100,000 users with the block chain

$0.00000004184246063232422
becomes
$0.004184246063232422

that's about twice as much as the current tx fee. And when bitcoin is big enough that there are hundreds of transactions per second, bandwidth caps/speeds become a big issue. We still want new people to download the chain, right? There have to be at least 100k people that have downloaded the block chain already, who knows how many in the future even if lite clients are the norm.

I still think microsoiled -3.0's way of handling this is abjectly stupid, but that is realsolid for you. It really doesn't matter though when there are going to be all of 10 people using it.

What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them.

This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin.

then you are not up-to-date, we are discussing the point on SolidCoinTalk that the biggest account (CPF - CoinProtectionFund) will give his account-fee-income to charity, global organizations with good reputation like UNICEF


when we just think of someone who doesn't like SC/MC very much, now with SC he can create hundreds of different clients/accounts with a little amount and this blows up the whole network with dispensable transactions and "dead" accounts...
yes, he has payed transactions-fees or he has only mined one SC-block, but these accounts will be there "for ever"
now he will do the same to MC...
hm... after a few days this mini-accounts have gone away and the fine MC$ of the spammer are back redistributed to the network and he does something commendable too: a part of his money goes for charity :)
for me that looks like fine spam-protection

Edit: in the past there have been some problems with spamming - regarding SC - and LTC too (blowing up blockchain)!

You forgot to account for two things.
1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning).
2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage.

 If you added 1,000,000,000 users today there would be issues. Clients would have to implement pruning, but with 1,000,000,000 extra users BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. There would still be incentive to mirror transactions and find blocks. The problem is not in the block chain as much as the BTC clients current implementation is not optimal.

If you are not going to use the interest, don't collect it. The founders promise to donate it to charity? Like they promised SoiledCoin 1 was better than Bitcoin? And how they promised SoiledCoin 2 is better than Bitcoin? And now they promise SoiledCoin 3 is better than Bitcoin AND going to give to charity?
How about they first make a block chain that works, then they can donate money to charity.


You have no way to differentiate small users from people who are up to mischief. So it just boils down to money being siphoned form everyone who is not a founder and put into the pockets of people who are founders. Classic pyramid scheme outcome.

 You now saying two different things.

 First you say account get daily interest ? I never heard this before ?!??? Then on top of daily interest, I have daily fee's to keep account ?!???

 What is daily interest rate on account vs daily account fee ?!??????

Someone ran the numbers, and I don't feel like looking them up again, so feel free to correct the actual numbers. Basically, in a month or so (assuming the chain isn't reset...again), anyone with less than a couple hundred dollars worth of MC$ will pay more in daily fees than they get in daily interest.

In other words, all the poor people will have their funds transferred to the rich people.

The transaction spam is almost harmless and the money you would use to setup these accounts will end up in CoinHunters grubby little paws.

If you have any spare BTC you can donate it to me at: 1EQnZLQS1BoLtf9KNaJG6vCjdBPAswQnzi

1) The issue is about "spam" accounts that have small amounts and stay unused. If the tx out is unspent, it cannot be pruned. Pruning is not the answer to every problem with storage. First you actually need to download the whole block chain first, THEN prune. It is not very efficient. If you trust somebody else's prune, you are trusting them instead of "no one." It saves no bandwidth whatsoever and only eventually saves disk space.
2) See the wiki about 4,000 tps and what kind of storage you'll need. I'm extrapolating; you have a narrow view.


the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round

For perfect security, one can download and verify each block from the network of BTC nodes. Sort of like downloading the source code, inspecting it yourself, and then building the executable yourself.
Or you could download a signed full blockchain and then verify each block and only download the last few blocks from the network. Not as secure..
Or you could download a signed pruned blockchain that has been signed by N authorities you trust (like Gavin, or the Church of Scientology, or Bill Mahr, or etc). Less secure but that would save bandwidth.
BTW, bandwidth is also growing as fast as storage. (Just not in the USA because our infrastructure is made out of feces and michelle bachman's tears). In Sweden they have tested 40Gbit residential links. Not sure when they will be generally available.


You cannot both presume that BTC will suddenly be popular and worthless at the same time. Either BTC is in widespread use before storage becomes incredibly cheap and therefore BTC become more valuable in dollar terms since they are created at a fixed rate and cannot expand to fit demand. Or BTC is not in widespread use before storage becomes cheap and there is less of a problem with needing to store massive transaction volumes. Miners could also just ask for higher transaction fees to support storage as a stop gap solution.

Another potential outcome is that BTC could become a currency for the rich. It costs money to participate and issue transactions and mine. Only people able to support the currency can participate in it. No need for a tax designed into the protocol, you are taxed in electrons and hard drives. ;)

its also been said that because of the fee as you have explained it, all the coins will be in one account... the biggest exchange/bank will be collecting the most so there is no reason to not store your coins with them, meaning that one exchange and realsolid are the only two accounts paying fee's?

That's not exactly what I meant, but I was being silly so whatevs. I dunno, me personally, I think the best way to have a p2p decentralized protocol is to have one where running a node is very inexpensive. Nodes don't get paid for transaction fees, so raising the tx fee does not help them.

you are welcome  :)

Microcash is a scam because RealSolid scammed me, again and again, out of my precious time that i spend here waiting to see something happen.


I'd say i spend like 5min per day looking through the forums and part of it of course here.
So.. looking at how much in average my kind of profession earns per hour i calculated that Microcash scams me out of roughly 1.88Eur per day (3544Eur/20 workdays/8 workhours = 22Eur per => 1.88Eur per 5min) - and that without even releasing anything.

How is that with other people here? I guess that the Microcash scam already hit others here as well..

And that is why Microcash is a scam.

not to mention there was a bit of activity on SC on btc-e leading up to the non release...

I thought that your job ?

I also think that Bitcoinexpress should compile a list of why Microcash is a scam.

Who else, except maybe RealSolid and Coinhunter could explain best why microcash is a scam...

Very well written mate!  ;D

Just a few ideas on what is wrong with Microcash:

Immature untested code. BitCoin has been audited many times, Microcash is going from newly written to production.

Closed source. No-one can audit this or pay a security auditing company to do so.

Account tax. Robbing the poor to pay the rich. The fact that the taxes don't go to the nodes or the miners but to the wealthy shows this isn't meant to support the network but to make the rich richer.

The implications of tax means that people will be forced to use a single address instead of the very many addresses BitCoin gives people. This destroys anonymity.

As the tax system contains a fee per account there will be a strong incentive for end users to leave all coins in some kind of central repository. We saw how well that worked with moonco.in, bitcoinica, that polish exchange ( name? ), slush's pool, etc..

The long address scheme in BitCoin is by design. Although the address space looks crazy huge right now there is no reason to reduce it. No-one can know what the future will bring.

The 50%+1 protection system claims to be implemented by active nodes voting in a one coin one vote system. This implies that each node will regularly broadcast how many coins it holds, great for tracing wealth to IP addresses to plan robberies. As we have seen it's quite possible to trace BitCoin addresses to IP addresses unless special care is taken.

The 50%+1 protection scheme appears to be open to gaming. As wealth will be concentrated in few nodes and these nodes are findable it's possible to DDOS certain voting blocks in order to effectively control who does and doesn't get a vote at any given time.

Everything about the CPF is wrong. It's a personal wealth fund and has no need to exist.


I'm sure I missed some pretty big stuff but that's my contribution so far.

Umm, how about the very name itself is stolen intellectual property? Yup, MicroCash is copyrighted and a registered trademark of another business.

This, of course, is par for the course for the same asswipes that stole the intellectual property to form their first group of poorly implemented clones, then tried to claim they owned the copyright, and then stole a 1992 graphical convention from AOL for all of the clients.

Do you have a link?

Sure: http://www.uniquepokerchips.net/Micro-Cash/ (http://www.uniquepokerchips.net/Micro-Cash/) for the google-challenged, ranked as the seventh most popular hit.

Number one is the http://www.microcash.nl/ (http://www.microcash.nl/) payment processing service based in the Netherlands, sorry I can't offer more details, Dutch is not one of the languages that I speak. But there is certainly some legal looking language concerning their business use of the name.

Naughty little ShortBus monkeys got caught stealing again!

It's not a scam, its a very high risk investment that you can't get back

The first one is not a business name.  The second one - how are you sure they have an international trademark?

Making accusations we can't back up makes us no better than him.

Really? A company that has been using that trade styling for 20 years and you want to split hairs about it? No, number 2 trumps ShortBusCoin and their Next Big Thing by a mile. The poker chip guy doesn't have it as a company name, he has it as a service mark, no different than what MicroCash the ShortBusCoin version intends, except he has them beat on first use, on trademark application, and on recognized service mark.

At the very least, and even if you are an RS cheerleader you have to admit that this was piss poor due diligence to pick a name and roll out the shill machine to promote it withour even looking at the first 5 lines of a google search!

is that how it works? use someone else's name and then check if its protected?

wouldn't it be better to just have an original idea once in a while?

Wait... isn't it all brain trust guaranteed professional super-secret open source wonder-code just like ShortBusCoin? Why would they need to remove any references to bitcoin?

Oh, I get it, they stole that code too!

Now come on! You aren´t going to suggest just because they have stolen something they might be untrustworthy, are you?

can someone explain to me how you can steal bitcoin's code?

Grab the free available code, put it into a closed source projects and reject to give any credit to the original authors and in case you open source your program you remove all copyrights and references to the original owners. Thats stealing.

Nachtwind- you could add to your wonderful description "have your use of the misappropriated code blocked by the very entities whom you took it from after trying to apply your copyright to works already protected under license from the very people you took it from."

Bitcoin is published under MIT-License (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License)
The important sentence is:

The most straightforward answer to this question is:

MicroCash is a scam because of the very people behind it. They are proven scammers, liars, sociopaths and delusional nutburgers. Any attempt to flog a new crypto-anything from these fools will be as tainted with scammishness as every other thing they have presented to the world.

Fuck.. that applies to 99% of the world's politicians..

Oh and yes, that makes microcash a scam.

I'm surprised that you were able to think of 1% who are not lying, thieving scum! Unless you include dead ones.

1% is optimistical, but in the end i still need someone to vote for.. though i dont know if 1% applies to Microcash or Solidcoin since its reigned by scammers..

Oh come on, think of all the politicians that no one votes for, the honest ones that no one can hear over the lying thieving scum

Could be they compiled it without debug infos.  ;D