Bitcoin Forum

Not me...  :)

as said in some previous posting the line between scamming and "using hideous methods to get someones money" is not clearly defined. Imho it shouldnt be a line but some Mandelbrot but nevertheless - there are strong arguments against SolidCoin / Microcash being honest cryptocurrencies and more likely a scam or at least a scheme to rip off people.

1) Early adopter bonus
THis can be said also about bitcoin, though here its not a bonus by design. Whilst the first few million coins were mined in just a few blocks with payouts of - i think - 32coins per block todays coins per block amount is at below 1. That allows early adopters to have a huge share of the overal amount of coins

2) MC Fee structure
From what i read so far MC will have a daily fee structure (How does it apply to cold storages btw?) which is given back to users depending on their coins. If you look at 1) you will clearly see a major bonus for those who had been early in the pyramid.. again.

3) Altering key parameters of a blockchain by will. Realsolid is known to have changed the key parameters of solidcoin2 block generation multiple times and hence is not reliable when he says that x or y will never happen. So if he tells you he wont ever be able to spend 12mil pre-mined coins its not exactly a lie, but it is an assumption based on his current mood and can be changed any second.

4) Realsolid is a known thief. (See takedown of SC2 source code)

Those were facts so far.. now for some things that have been discussed over and over but cannot be proven but look right:

a) "8=====D"
When SC2 emerged there was a miner with that signature in the blockchain that mined > 75% of all (available) blocks yet never sold them.. evidence at that time was strong that this botnet had the sole function as to keep the price stable... and more.

b) "8====D" and DDOSs
"8====D" stopped mining at the exact moments when the Big Five of Bitcoin pools were dossed.. that happened a few times and was visible on Ahimoth's SC2 information page. Once that topic was discussed (massive drop of Hashing speed, disappearance of the Dickminer and DDOS happening at the same time and FOR the same time the SC2 information site was changed.).

c) "Reaper"
Out of nothing and without anyone knowing it someone posted a fully functional GPU miner for a solely for CPU designed Blockchain. Call me a tinfoil hat.. but that all looked too artificial since exactly when people came up with the idea that the dickminer was not a botnet but some gpu miner Reaper emerged and brought sc2 to its salvation.. oh and the dickminer finally totally made its last appearance.

Enough Facts and Fiction?

it seems you've misunderstood my question:
report of a personal scam
i didn't find anything in your post...

just a few thoughts to your points:
Facts 1-4
1) Early adopter bonus
this bonus is for everyone: the early bird catches the worm...
even you could have done it...
ask some early (happy) bitcoiner

2) MC Fee structure
we will see when it's released...
but the plan of a small fee of ~ 2 MC$ a year to hold the account seems to me not oversized

3) Altering key parameters
so far as i know: the one-man-show has come to an end, now there is a developer-team...
so with SC, it worked, but i don't think with MC...

4) Realsolid is a known thief
this denunciation is not a fact or have you seen his Character Certificate?
i leave this uncommented

Fiction a-c
a) + b) botnets and DDOS - no comments

c) the reaperV13 made obvious to everyone, that LTC is nicely minable by GPUs...
here i have a personal point, that someone did it in the beginning, so called "botnet", because in this LTC-early-adopter-days i was one of the green miners who bought some LTC and lost some BTC, because of some early LTC-GPU-scammer, who ever they are...
yeah, that's the risk to be an early adopter, or to feel like one :)

did this:


and this:


Happen while SC2 was closed source? It'd be nice if a real timeline with links and provable things can be put together. Interestingly, AFAIK there will be no permanent transaction block chain any longer with MC, so I think those earlier awards might end up being history that is not easy to find in the future.

So many accusations are thrown around here like poo at RS and SC that it is hard to keep them separate from the facts. What we just need is to compile a real list backed by evidence and make that easily available for people to judge on their own rather than sifting through posters like BCX.


I am not a SC expert and there is very little in actual data on their website, but from perusing the forums I think GPUs were only getting around 2x a CPU, which makes them pretty worthless as far as energy usage goes. Or at least no better than comparable. I don't know anything about "dickminer" or how much reaper could have made a difference.

Not me either. I love MC ! ;D

Of course not. You are CoinHunter, why would you scam yourself?

I have been involved in both mining and buying SC since SC 1.0 and I have not been scammed
nor have I lost any $$ in doing so. My only losing proposition thus far has been in mining bitcoin
and my loss is small and will probably be recovered once I finish selling off the mining equipment.

These digital-crypto-currency/commodies are highly speculative from an investment standpoint
and one should be fully prepared to lose all $$ invested prior to speculation.

If at some point in the future my situation changes regarding being scammed, I will GLADLY
update this thread and the crypto-currency/commodity community.


-ST

You should consider yourself lucky that you've stayed under the radar.  Unlike Bitcoin, your solidcoins can be taken any time by the owner.  Several people on here have had their wallets invalidated by the network, which is possible since solidcoin is not decentralized as advertised.

yeah, i have been caught by an extremely wise guy...  ;D

Edit: as thick as a brick  :)

interesting claim, tell us more about how your wallets were invalidated

I played around with SC 1 and early SC 2. Actually guys, there was a time when RS wasn't a douche! That was very early on though. Back then, I actually preferred SC to BTC, as this was back when you had to wait 20 minutes before BTC would even show up in your wallet as unconfirmed, causing a lot of anxious minutes, trying to figure out if I had been scammed or not. I never got burned using SC, but after RS started acting like an asshat I sold off my SC and bought LTC, because at the time, they were fast, and backed by BTC. Then BTC began having faster transaction times, and I went back to BTC.

Long story short, I didn't stay invested in SC long enough to get screwed.

Yes at first RS wasnt a dick but that was for like 10 minutes. Once the initial rally in SC occurred he was like "i'm god and you shall bow to me lowly peasant"

LOL....the rest is history.....

Short answer- anyone who bought into the fraud that is ShortBusCoin or StolenIntellectualPropertyCash. The entire premise of both is based on stolen code, stolen intellectual property and stolen branding. They are equally worthless except to a very small circle of insiders who artificially prop up the values, often by grotesque actions attacking the entire bitcoin community.

If you want to carry water for that group, go for it, but perhaps you could take your glowing fanboy adoration over to their forum, it really has no value whatsoever here. Here it just makes you look like another patsy.

please give us facts about these invalidated wallets, not only empty suggestions...

That bonus applies to bitcoiners as well, there you are right.. but not the way it does/did for SC users. In bitcoin coin generazion drops from 50 to 25 - not from 32 to 0.X... and not all of a sudden but with a plan in mind..


And WHY is there a fee? Does it have any legitimation? And reason to be there? Especially: Who is the benefitor? Maybe those chosen few who have 9/10 of all coins?


We have heard the fairytale of the industries best crypto specialists also in SC2. As it turned out SC2 was only a result of plagiatism hence theft of intellectual property maintained by a one.man show.

See my answer to 3.

Comment as much as you like, but if you look at the early blockchain you will notice the dickminer and if you look up for when there was a major drop in hashing speed of the big BTCPools you will notice the dickminer disappeared. Not exactly evidence, but a damn good correlation.

No.. i meant its predecessor. Solidcoin2 was meant to be a CPU only chain until all of a sudden a GPU miner was released with RealSolid being the first one to cheer about it..

again: i haven't read anything about YOU concerning this theme


LTC too has come out as a CPU-only-chain

i did a personal statement of being scammed by this currency, like - i think - several others...

... but i haven't been scammed by SC  :)

To be fair, at least the system is inflationary and not restricted so there is no insane amount of control that the early adopters could have over the currency via the supply itself... BUT THEN the CPF exists and throws that out the window.


The legitimacy of the fee is in serious doubt by anyone who isn't eating from the hand of RS. Even by some of those that do.


Respond to my statements about this. From what it looks like to me is that something is being blown out of proportion here. I think you're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. But I can't say for sure because your facts are seemingly hearsay.

"if you look at the early blockchain you will notice the dickminer and if you look up for when there was a major drop in hashing speed of the big BTCPools you will notice the dickminer disappeared. Not exactly evidence, but a damn good correlation."

provide links and explain this correlation for someone who was not here when this happened. None of this groks for someone not knowing the whole story.

I really suggest a sticky thread or something that unbiasedly puts this information together. I'd do it but I wasn't here so I am not intimately familiar with what happened and I won't go off hearsay.

Why bother? If somebody needs information about ShortBusCoin, or any of the derivatives there is a whole forum devoted to just that subject. While the inspiration, code, and concept were taken from here, this is not that forum, and it has no need of providing stickied resources for the two or three potential users who would need any information about these shallow, worthless copycat coins.

Why bother to actually put some thought and evidence into a thread to dissuade newbies rather than them wading through the myriad of unsubstantiated FUD that all of you who love to rage against solidcoin do?

Nah let's just continue the 10-year-old style back and forth between two sets of mouth foamers.

You have to understand that people like you pop up about once a week. You haven't been following the conversation since the beginning of Solidcoin and for some reason can't click on a persons post history (Coinhunters) and read what has already been said on the subject.

You then claim that the information you have seen so far is incomplete, and you cannot draw any conclusions from it. That statement is true, and you should not draw any conclusions from the small bit of the play you have seen. Unfortunately, some of the best actors deleted their own performances when their true identities were discovered (Viper and Psi).

+1

Well said.

I've read most of the solidcoin threads. The whole purpose of "people who pop up once a week", which I have not, is to give them an easy way to learn this information without the poo-covered cherry on top. If you don't provide any evidence, all you do is give credit to any SC supporter who says "they're just afraid it will take down bitcoin."


So? You have evidence available, for now, here: http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/600-as-we-migrate/ that is probably going to be deleted soon, so get some screen shots and archive them somewhere.
You have evidence available in the block chain which may disappear as soon as microcash starts with what I assume will be with something new and just carrying over old accounts. That history of award changes will be gone forever if someone does not actively get it and archive it somewhere.

The onus of proof is on the accuser. So how's about some of you grow the f* up and do something constructive for a change.

Someone's got their panties in a twist. lol ;D

I don't have my panties in a twist. I couldn't care less about solidcoin. But you guys are giving a shit ton of free advertising for it. The webpage for Solidcoin was incredibly deceptive and lacking information on all kinds of important subjects. Since none of you want to provide any evidence, people will type in "www.microcash.org" and see that everything looks legit there--there might even be some favorable propaganda to let them know that the BTCTalk members are just full of shit and afraid. "They're scared of our new and improved awesome protocol blah blah blah" sound familiar?

So are you...so now who is the hypocrit?

As if warning people about Nigerian scams or 976 charge back phone numbers is some how helping the scammers. Those who hear the warning and proceed anyway are beyond help. SoiledCoin is welcome to all those who are too dumb to live. When they are killed crossing the street, Bitcoin cannot be associated with it.

Except they won't even make it to the crosswalk... they will die standing on the sidewalk screaming that they inventing the automobile, and have copyrighted the transmission concept, with everyone in a car laughing at them.

No. Fail. Wrong. Incorrect.
The onus of proof is on those who claim to have created a cryptocurrency.
We do not have to prove anything. We need only critique the "proof" SoiledCoin provides to demonstrate that it is either not secure, not decentralized, and/or not a currency.

In this case, our effort is minimal. They have supplied nothing but claims so far.
Unless they released the code for the nodes (not the thin client) that control the currency.
And a paper that discusses their methods and reasoning behind choosing those methods.

Natchwind made an awful lot of claims in the post I quoted and you responded to, none of which are backed by any actual evidence. Are you going to stand in front of a judge or magistrate, accuse someone of wrongdoing, then say "now they must prove they did not do anything wrong"? I hope you like having books thrown at you.


I'd sure like to see some of the SC haters on this board show some provable lack of security in the design of a cryptocurrency. And "decentralized" and "currency" are definitions that are basically in the eye of the beholder, so I foresee any argument for those definitions will be "it's not like bitcoin."


Perhaps you should wait until it's actually live before making more assumptions then?

Well.. those awful lot of claims.. I have seperated them into facts and rumors for a reason. Please.. The first 4 points were facts so far. Please proove me wrong there. The parts about the Botnet are just made by comparing data available at that time. I spend a while on Ahimoth's Block explorer, but it seems he just substitutes the miner IDs for all Solo Miners with just "Solo Miner" - therefore the dickminer IS no longer simply visible. If it was it would be simple to compile a chart where it is possible to spot the correlation between Appearance/Disapperance and DDOSs of Bitcoin Pools. The way it is now it is NOT possible to proof. But not due to the lack of evidence but by obfuscation of evidence.

Also SC2 has shown lack of security in the past. I have to admit, that i dont have a thread at hand right now, but afaik several key scurity mechanisms had been compromised in the past:
- Trusted Nodes were mined by "untrusted" miners
- People were able to inject falsified Block Timestamps in order to toy with the difficulty

RS Quote from solidcointalk.org:

"MicroCash is on a new codebase so the code isn't compatible with Bitcoin anymore. Also our license strictly prohibits using our code directly (but not the ideas in it) in other digital currencies. We have no problem with the Bitcoin developers getting ideas from our source but they can't use the source directly. "

Isn't that just awesome that he could steal the entire bitcoin source code and use it and not include the MIT license in it then say the quote above.

Wow ....lol....just...wow

Sorry for the delay.  I wrote my post based on this comment:

... right over your head eh?

LOL @ an incremental fix release?

What, did this mess with your plans for cryptocurrency world domination through DOS and service denial? You sound more and more like a sockpuppet of RS/CH/Douchebag with every drolling comment issued forth from that lopsided simpleton's grin you call a pie-hole. He clearly has his hand waaay up your ass and is moving your lips.

This is me demonstrating your logical fallacy:
1) We both agree there is bridge.
2) I want to sell a bridge and you want to buy one.
3) You ask for proof that I own the bridge, I say you must prove that I don't own it otherwise you must buy it.

As for your other statements. Go hug a tyrant node in SoiledCoin 2 if you think it is decentralized. Decentralized is not in the eye of the beholder if one person has complete control of the block chain, and the clients and servers are covered by a proprietary license.
Those are not claims, they have been verified endlessly and you can go look them up yourself (which you clearly have not).

As for secure or not secure, having one person owning the private keys to the entire block chain is a terrible idea. Anyone with those tyrant node keys can double spend every coin by halting the public chain until he has mined a block with his spend transactions undone. Then just have the tyrant nodes build off the double spend fork. The government could seize the servers his tyrant nodes run on (ala megaupload) and now the block chain is ruined. Someone could hack into one box and own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could trust the wrong fellow and lose control of the keys. Finally, this guy has failed twice already at creating cryptocurrencies. He has had his flaws pointed out before launch but had too much pride or not enough smarts to fix them.

These points and many others have been discussed already. I only rehash them for the umpteenth time to illustrate your ignorance. You are not the standard we must satisfy.

P.S. yes I could stand in front of a judge and tear up any "expert" witness who put forth the claim that SoiledCoin was secure.
P.P.S all Coinhunter would have to do is release the source and a paper that are digitally signed, then sign the claims with the same key. Then there would be more than just vapor to the SoiledClaims.

how is anyone even supposed to follow nonsense like this?


yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.

If that's what passes for wit in your world, stick with shit.

So you dont even try to argue anymore?

Can i understand this refusal to discuss the points i brought up earlier in this thread that, at least, you accept these?

Exactly. That is a demonstration of what you are doing, and you rightly flag it as nonsense. Coinhunter supplied  a "proof" that his cryptocurrency is secure and awesome. We bring up flaws in his proof here. One of those flaws is the missing components of his proof. You declare that we must prove that these missing components do not exist.

How about you wake up and smell the coffee? Coinhunter must demonstrate that his currency is secure. Otherwise, by default we must assume he cannot. This is accomplished by him showing the code, and explaining the reasoning behind the functionality. All he has done is declared what the features are, not how or why they are implemented. Then he asks us to trust him, after he has failed twice already.


yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.
[/quote]

Sorry that you do not understand the practices of computer security. It must seem like black magic to you for us to want the math behind the marketing material and UI screenshots. Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request. Yet we are called trolls and poo-flingers for making it. The unwashed masses are ungrateful I guess.

The thing is... you seem to be assuming that it won't be open source. Why? Just because SC2 was closed source for a period of time? Has RS or any of the developers confirmed anywhere that it will not be open source?

Why do you keep making all of these assumptions before the software is even released?


Do you think that it is necessary for a developer to release code in development? It is reasonable to whine about it not being released after a date was given, but it's not like this is the 1st or 10,000th time that's happened.

Jesus christ man, you are raging to the world about software that, as far as we know, doesn't even exist.

We dont assume wether SC3 will be open source or not and we dont ask for code here.. but k9quaint is right about the following thing: Maths. Every code can be derived from math or put into simple formulas - and thats we would like to see (at least!). It easily proovable that, for example, a private key to a BTC address is impossible to be found with brute force on the current generation (kind?) of computer - and you dont really need any line of code. It is also simply showable that a 51% attack on bitcoin is possible, by simple maths and pseudocode. Yet what we have so far is nothing but some UI shots and claims.
We are often enough asked to show proof for our claims (and we do wherever possible.. and where not possible we use proxies or correlations.). We dont meddle with the data available like the blockexplorer that ahimoth hosts. We dont just ridicule every argument of the solidcoin followers - we try to bring up valid points.. yet some people seem to be quite ignorant in understanding the way we argue.

It is not open source. That means it is closed source. The promise of one day seeing the source is not "open".
It has a proprietary license. That means it will not be open, even if they let people see the source. Why is this a problem? The holder of the rights to a proprietary license can revoke your permission to use the software. Then you cannot get at your currency. They can also force you to upgrade your client to include features you deem inappropriate.

You just admitted that the software is closed source. That is a problem.


Yes. It might be vaporware. Except they seem to have a functional block chain in beta and people already running the nodes and clients. Hmmm, seems like some software might exist. What software might that be? Could it be a keylogger? Could it be searching your harddrive for child porn? Could it be looking for pirated software? Or maybe looking for your bitcoin wallet? Could it be the next great cryptocurrency? We can't know.

Do you think it is a good idea to launch and release the code for inspection at the same time? That is a recipe for idiocy. The code is reviewed only after it is in production? Nonsensical.

This is standard operating procedure for the SoiledCoin crowd. They operate in secrecy and all critics are trolls. True security operates in the light of day, inviting all criticism.

And this is hardly rage. If you want to see rage, look at the Coinhunter sockpuppet posts.

Given the title of this thread, rage would not be off-topic, but I think most all of the responses have been restrained and productive to the discussion at issue here.

The fact that most of those same responses do not serve the intent of the OP in trying to debunk the established shortcomings of the SC development crew and the code itself is perhaps an unintended outcome, but an honest outcome nonetheless.

All a bunch of made up bullshit, once again. Either you've seen some license we haven't, or the best I can go by is the light client:

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software, including the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"

And the only way your permission could be revoked is if you used the source code in a project other than microcash without permission. And I think it might just be a *tad* difficult for them to associate a person who uses their source in a different project with a MC account balance and make it so that "you cannot get at your currency." This is the absolute definition of made-up FUD.


"Bitcoin did it"


I can hardly disagree with you here. But sentence #2 is exactly what satoshi did and critics of bitcoin are called trolls just the same. But since only 10 people use SC and 3 of those are the developers who are rather immature, they get involved in the name-calling as well.

If you had read the previous threads on the earlier versions of SoiledCoin, you would know how wrong you are. This is how I know you have not done your research. The purpose of having an open source license is to preserve the ability to fork a currency chain rather than accept a change that "breaks" the protocol for you. Of course, that results in two currencies with two discrete groups using them. That is the textbook definition of a "competing currency". What Coinhunter is saying with that license is that only he may fork his block-chains. That is how he shut down the earlier versions. The exchanges cannot withstand the threat of lawsuit and the revocation of the license in order to preserve a SoiledCoin fork. So he killed SoiledCoin 1, all the exchanges dropped it, he promised to give people their coins in a new block chain. Then he made a block chain with an extra 13 million coins for himself (diluting everyone else). Now he is shutting down that block chain and promising to re-issue some of those SoiledCoins in Microcash. If (when) Microcash is demonstrated to be insecure, they might shutdown that one as well. Do you feel safe investing in such an institution?


Actually, we don't know how long Bitcoin was in beta, nor how many people reviewed and/or wrote the code. Certainly, they do not operate that way now. If you have evidence detailing Satoshi's identity(s), I would be interested.
Bitcoin did have a bizarre genesis no doubt. It also did not have thousands of people ready to pounce on it as soon as it was released. There was a chicken and egg scenario that protected it when it launched. Such a condition does not protect follow on currencies, which makes launching them very problematic.


All of the current developers of Bitcoin operate in the light of day. Critics of Bitcoin are not called trolls. If you have an issue with the code, or an idea of how things should work you can go into #bitcoin-dev and discuss it without fear of reprisal. I was banned from #Solidcoin before I was posting here about the currency. I asked two terrible questions: how many people were using it, and how did they know how many people were using it. When they claimed hundreds used it but could not provide a method by which they arrived at that number, I was banned for being a troll. I found that really bizarre and that piqued my interest in this subject. I guess there is an IRC Streisand effect.  ;)