|
Title: delete Post by: BitcoinEXpress on October 11, 2011, 03:10:38 AM delete
Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 03:25:52 AM You are a pathetic guy, that's granted and you show it to us every day. It's like you are afraid we forget how pathetic you are lol
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:27:33 AM You are a pathetic guy, that's granted and you show it to us every day. It's like you are afraid if we forget how pathetic you are lol How can people not see that CH is the pathetic one? Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 03:29:22 AM You are a pathetic guy, that's granted and you show it to us every day. It's like you are afraid if we forget how pathetic you are lol How can people not see that CH is the pathetic one? If that makes you happy: they both are! Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 03:41:46 AM I'm not a SolidCoin fanboy. And I'm certainly not a douchebagexpress fanboy also... Just stating how pathetic you are. A personal opinion...
If you were attacking any other blockchain my statement would be exactly the same. You are only entering an e-pissing contest, nothing more, you are not even trying to make a point on proving something worthwhile, just to prove us all how big your e-dick is, probably cause yor real dick is... oh nevermind... BTW, I think you are forgetting that Solidcoin is a closed-source app and a centralized blockchain(by your own definition)... I wonder how many "anti-hacking laws" have you broken in your country. And you publicly admitted on doing so by posting it in an open board. Pathetic and stupid, that's what you are. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 03:45:12 AM Also of note, 3 wannabe hackers from this forum claimed they would take down the SolidCoin 2 public beta and none have. Welcome to the future of cryptocurrencies, a truly secure network. Regardless of what you think about BCX, him exposing flaws in what's been said to be a 'truly secure network' is a service to all who may use said network. As it's already been demonstrated that CH, erm.... 'doesn't work well with others', I don't see how anything other than a live attack could have communicated said vulnerabilities. Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 03:49:17 AM Regardless of what you think about BCX, him exposing flaws in what's been said to be a 'truly secure network' is a service to all who may use said network. As it's already been demonstrated that CH, erm.... 'doesn't work well with others', I don't see how anything other than a live attack could have communicated said vulnerabilities. So why didn't he attacked Bitcoin when it was just Satoshi and 1 or 2 more guys mining and proved also how insecure Bitcoin was? Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:59:57 AM Regardless of what you think about BCX, him exposing flaws in what's been said to be a 'truly secure network' is a service to all who may use said network. As it's already been demonstrated that CH, erm.... 'doesn't work well with others', I don't see how anything other than a live attack could have communicated said vulnerabilities. So why didn't he attacked Bitcoin when it was just Satoshi and 1 or 2 more guys mining and proved also how insecure Bitcoin was? Because Satoshi wasn't a dick, and never claimed that Bitcoin was immune to a 51% attack? Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 04:00:46 AM Kind of hard to break anti-hacking laws when you have been publicly invited by the author of the code to as he stated "do your best it is unbreakable" you may want to do some fact checking before spouting off and making a fool of yourself. You may want to take some classes on how judicial systems work before spouting off and making a fool of yourself. And before you throw in jail someone who thinks what you're saying will hold up on court.Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 04:02:24 AM I don't get the hate on BitcoinExpress. The reality is that the world has people w/ ill intent. Hackers expose flaws in systems. BE is exposing a flaw in SC 2.0. Better now then if/when it has millions of dollars of transaction volume and someone else double spends a quarter million and then kills the network.
I mean it you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. This isn't a game of checkers it is a potential alternative to currency as we know it. If you think BE is the limit of what will eventually be thrown against a network well WAKE UP. The real world has mean, greedy, untrustworthly people. If there is a flaw they will find it. Granted BE is somewhat of a douche personally (I think he takes just a little to much satisfaction in his work) but he does crypto-currency a good service. Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 04:07:43 AM Kind of hard to break anti-hacking laws when you have been publicly invited by the author of the code to as he stated "do your best it is unbreakable" you may want to do some fact checking before spouting off and making a fool of yourself. You may want to take some classes on how judicial systems work before spouting off and making a fool of yourself. And before you throw in jail someone who thinks what you're saying will hold up on court.Who's got jurisdiction over this? Australian courts? United Nations? Al Gore? Court of public opinion? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 04:08:01 AM 2 blocks per second.....
The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 04:09:23 AM 2 blocks per second..... The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:09:30 AM Also of note, 3 wannabe hackers from this forum claimed they would take down the SolidCoin 2 public beta and none have. Welcome to the future of cryptocurrencies, a truly secure network. Regardless of what you think about BCX, him exposing flaws in what's been said to be a 'truly secure network' is a service to all who may use said network. As it's already been demonstrated that CH, erm.... 'doesn't work well with others', I don't see how anything other than a live attack could have communicated said vulnerabilities. Agree! BTX is doing a huge favor for us! If it is unsafe, this needs to be done. Just got my popcorn!! LOL Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 04:13:56 AM 2 blocks per second..... The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? And then BE pulls his cluster off, leaving patsies to mine .01 coins per week for the next six years. See: namecoin. Oh, except now with the threat of him taking the biggest dump since the invention of Ex-Lax on people's bids at any moment. Yeah, I can see that driving adoption pretty hard. Title: Re: delete Post by: bitleaker on October 11, 2011, 04:15:21 AM This is hilarious ;D
Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:15:59 AM Love it! LOL
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 04:16:04 AM This is hilarious ;D Indeed. A combination of schadenfreude and BX's excessive joviality is making my tummy jiggle with laughter. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:16:49 AM I don't have any way to look at the diff/block generation, any screencaps?
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:17:03 AM Idiots will be idiots. No surprise here. Move on.
Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:18:28 AM Well, trading in pennies... Solidcoin 2.0 RIP?!
Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 04:19:22 AM Can't download the client from solidcoin.info or I'd fire it up in a VM to witness the miracle of decreasing block generation times as difficulty increases. That's a pleasant anti-pyramid twist...
Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 04:20:11 AM Who's got jurisdiction over this? Australian courts? United Nations? Al Gore? Court of public opinion? The courts of the country where bitcoinexpress lives, in the USA, maybe? They sure like to use guys like him and make them examples out of them. It's not like he's hiding all the persecution he's been making to all the alt currencies, even to the ones with no arrogant lead developers. The fact is that he's enjoying on disrupting computer systems that are not his to disrupt and he openly admits it. Oh, and the fact that he's using Amazon EC2 for his criminal enterprise and saying it here: LOL to that. And probably the person from whom he's stealing all those instances resources will not be happy also. ...the crimes start to add up... not gonna be pretty when it all comes down on him. Ofcourse all of you who are here defending him couldn't care less. It's not your ass after all... lol Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 04:20:41 AM 2 blocks per second..... The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Genius, If you haven't noticed, as the diff is rising and so is the block generation LOL... Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 04:23:01 AM Can't download the client from solidcoin.info or I'd fire it up in a VM to witness the miracle of decreasing block generation times as difficulty increases. That's a pleasant anti-pyramid twist... Because CH has pulled the clients. Clients are still posted chief. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/261-solidcoin-v20-released/ Title: Re: delete Post by: tacotime on October 11, 2011, 04:23:30 AM i can't stop laughing
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 04:24:32 AM The courts of the country where bitcoinexpress lives, in the USA, maybe? They sure like to use guys like him and make them examples out of them. It's not like he's hiding all the persecution he's been making to all the alt currencies, even to the ones with no arrogant lead developers. The fact is that he's enjoying on disrupting computer systems that are not his to disrupt and he openly admits it. Oh, and the fact that he's using Amazon EC2 for his criminal enterprise and saying it here: LOL to that. And probably the person from whom he's stealing all those instances resources will not be happy also. ...the crimes start to add up... not gonna be pretty when it all comes down on him. Ofcourse all of you who are here defending him couldn't care less. It's not your ass after all... lol Oh Whatever. I doubt the DOJ really cares about how PoopCoin 2.0 couldn't survive 10 minutes without failing. Did typing out that fantasy make your penis hard? Just wondering. My prediction: Absolutely nothing happens. Nobody comes down on nobody. Coinhunter makes up some excuse and in 2 week launches PoopCoin 3.0 with some equally ill planned security measure. Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 04:24:53 AM Seriously? You expect the US government to step in and defend a scheme tailor made to avoid taxation and regulation? One a congressman has already spoken against as promoting illegal drug use? In the interest of someone who is not a taxpayer or citizen?
That'd be like expecting the RIAA to ride to the defense of the original Napster. I don't know the details of the EC2 use, do you? I certainly wouldn't risk using work assets to play with internet funbux, but hey. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:25:49 AM WOW so much BS on here about SC2 it really is unbelievable. Go to solidcointalk.org if you want to get the real answers.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 04:28:02 AM WOW so much BS on here about SC2 it really is unbelievable. Go to solidcointalk.org if you want to get the real answers. Possibly the funniest thing I've read all day. And that is really saying something. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:29:42 AM WOW so much BS on here about SC2 it really is unbelievable. Go to solidcointalk.org if you want to get the real answers. Possibly the funniest thing I've read all day. And that is really saying something. AGREE!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAH!!! These SC guys are UNBELIEVABLE!!! Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 04:30:03 AM 2 blocks per second..... The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Genius, If you haven't noticed, as the diff is rising and so is the block generation LOL... Maged... he's lying through his teeth ... no exploit, no attack, nothing ... he's full of crap the network is operating as it should with the rather large opening hash rate it had. Title: Re: delete Post by: xzion on October 11, 2011, 04:31:12 AM So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D how many coins you got? lol'in =] Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:32:57 AM 2 blocks per second..... The awesomeness of "CPU friendly" algorithms. No reason this same thing can't/won't happen to every "CPU friendly" FailCoin. Diff will solve this... Have you ever watched a new blockchain starting with low diff? Genius, If you haven't noticed, as the diff is rising and so is the block generation LOL... Maged... he's lying through his teeth ... no exploit, no attack, nothing ... he's full of crap the network is operating as it should with the rather large opening hash rate it had. I'm not even joking the amount of hate and BS you people have towards SC2 and CH/RS is just phenomenal. If you delete his account he will come back as another one so pretty much pointless IMHO. Too bad he has also too many anti-SC drones following him around all the time like SAC etc. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 04:34:51 AM So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D how many coins you got? lol'in =] I'm estimating 1900 blocks so for. Do you have any screenshots or anything you could share? I really don't feel like installing SolidCoin. Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 04:35:22 AM @Maged See, that makes no logical sense. Thus, either the code was made by a dumbass (which, I admit, isn't out of the question), or you're lying through your teeth.Solidcoin 2.0 uses a variable block generation time (really stupid) I just found a way to crank it up at will. Having the resouces I do I was able to take the beta client and put in a test environment. I discovered if you hit Sc 2.0 at the onset hard it cannot readjust block rate regardless of difficulty LOL So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D Dumbass coding supreme. Title: Re: delete Post by: worldinacoin on October 11, 2011, 04:35:28 AM No wonder, I am getting zero despite mining since the very start of the launch :(
Title: Re: delete Post by: bitleaker on October 11, 2011, 04:35:51 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill?
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:37:28 AM @Maged See, that makes no logical sense. Thus, either the code was made by a dumbass (which, I admit, isn't out of the question), or you're lying through your teeth.Solidcoin 2.0 uses a variable block generation time (really stupid) I just found a way to crank it up at will. Having the resouces I do I was able to take the beta client and put in a test environment. I discovered if you hit Sc 2.0 at the onset hard it cannot readjust block rate regardless of difficulty LOL So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D Dumbass coding supreme. Trust me he is talking total BS. My client is just perfectly fine. Generated 12 blocks like a pro. It's all good. He is talking BS as usual. Don't even bother to ban him because I am 100% sure he will come back. He is "too big to fail" in the hacker sense eg if you ban him he will just come back as someone else. Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 04:39:04 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill? His employer... Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:40:07 AM Just in case anyone with a brain doesn't know, BCE is lying, pretty much everytime he mentions SolidCoin.
If he understood how the 51% protection worked he would realize how stupid him saying "generated 2 blocks really fast" is. It's quite hilarious to those that know the new SC2.0 algorithm. But if you want to believe SC2 is hacked and bitcoinexpress is all powerful. Go ahead, it gives us some laughs :) BTW SC2.0 in 2 hours has already tripled the size of TBX network. And is gaining on Bitcoin. Welcome to the future. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 04:41:52 AM If he understood how the 51% protection worked he would realize how stupid him saying "generated 2 blocks really fast" is. It's quite hilarious to those that know the new SC2.0 algorithm. Do us a favor and stfu till you cough up some source code. We've heard an awful lot of "if you saw the code you'd piss yourself" out of you, but you seem to be afraid to actually show us the code. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:42:37 AM Just in case anyone with a brain doesn't know, BCE is lying, pretty much everytime he mentions SolidCoin. If he understood how the 51% protection worked he would realize how stupid him saying "generated 2 blocks really fast" is. It's quite hilarious to those that know the new SC2.0 algorithm. But if you want to believe SC2 is hacked and bitcoinexpress is all powerful. Go ahead, it gives us some laughs :) BTW SC2.0 in 2 hours has already tripled the size of TBX network. And is gaining on Bitcoin. Welcome to the future. Pleeease... No one believes you. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:44:21 AM Do us a favor and stfu till you cough up some source code. We've heard an awful lot of "if you saw the code you'd piss yourself" out of you, but you seem to be afraid to actually show us the code. Do some block analysis if you think BCE is telling the truth. It's public record. If you want to champion a retards cause then you'll just make me not consider your opinion going forward. Source code isn't the only way to prove it's 51% protected. More details are coming soon, obviously I am rather busy at the moment coordinating the release. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:44:49 AM Screenshots from *someone* or I don't believe anything.
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 04:45:16 AM It depends on how long he needs to keep it up.
A micro instance is $0.08 per hour. 400 instances would be $32 per hour. If he is using spot instances it would be half that. That even assumes he is paying. I have 8,000 free hours of EC2 small instance time given to me as a gift by Amazon. I doubt I am the only developer that Amazon gives free time to. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:45:40 AM @Coinhunter Are you seriously trying to say you designed 2 blocks per second? Then behold 4 blocks per second on the way! In case you're unaware difficulty is low at the moment, so blocks are found fast. As difficulty increases block speed will decrease. Any other newbie cryptochain info you need? Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:45:44 AM Just in case anyone with a brain doesn't know, BCE is lying, pretty much everytime he mentions SolidCoin. If he understood how the 51% protection worked he would realize how stupid him saying "generated 2 blocks really fast" is. It's quite hilarious to those that know the new SC2.0 algorithm. But if you want to believe SC2 is hacked and bitcoinexpress is all powerful. Go ahead, it gives us some laughs :) BTW SC2.0 in 2 hours has already tripled the size of TBX network. And is gaining on Bitcoin. Welcome to the future. Don't even bother with these low lives CH. I tried but it just makes me angry. Leave them be. Your time is not worth their stupidity. Title: Re: delete Post by: dust on October 11, 2011, 04:46:04 AM BTW SC2.0 in 2 hours has already tripled the size of TBX network. And is gaining on Bitcoin. Welcome to the future. Couldn't this be because BCX is throwing 400 ec2 instances at it?Source or gtfo. Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 04:46:39 AM Well, one thing's for sure. This bad boy has more CPUs on it than the Tenebrix network, no denying it. So, the question is -- did all the people who didn't accept tenebrix or litebrix stay up to jump on this minute 1, or is BCE telling the truth about 400 EC instances + other cluster?
Keep in mind he's pulled off 51% attacks in the past, and people are getting a bit burned out on the various scamcoin releases... Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 04:48:37 AM This is what probably will happen: Diff will raise further, blocks will come in slower and will settle with 1 block per some minutes as planned with the appropriate diff. BTX will drop off soon, then he will say, he has HACKED the chain and that the chain failed. If he mined lot of coins, that's ok, everyone with lots of CPUs should get some coins... But no hack and no chain rewrite as he mentioned... The antis will continue "LOL the chain got hacked, SC2 failed"... and the supporters will continue to mine and do their thing...
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:49:26 AM Well, one thing's for sure. This bad boy has more CPUs on it than the Tenebrix network, no denying it. So, the question is -- did all the people who didn't accept tenebrix or litebrix stay up to jump on this minute 1, or is BCE telling the truth about 400 EC instances + other cluster? Keep in mind he's pulled off 51% attacks in the past, and people are getting a bit burned out on the various scamcoin releases... I stayed up all night BUT IT WAS WORTH IT :) Tenebrix is shit. 7.7 million pregenerated scam => GTFO. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:50:46 AM Well, one thing's for sure. This bad boy has more CPUs on it than the Tenebrix network, no denying it. So, the question is -- did all the people who didn't accept tenebrix or litebrix stay up to jump on this minute 1, or is BCE telling the truth about 400 EC instances + other cluster? Keep in mind he's pulled off 51% attacks in the past, and people are getting a bit burned out on the various scamcoin releases... Would you rather listen to a known liar or the developer? SC2.0 is 51% protected, wouldn't matter if he had 99.99% of the mining power, he cannot rewrite the chain. Considering he is a known liar I wouldn't even believe he has 400 EC instances. But even if he did, there is nothing he can do except generate blocks like any other valid user. Once the algorithm behind SC2.0 is released people will realize how stupid this troll is if they don't already. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 04:52:05 AM SC2.0 is 51% protected You have provided no evidence to back this assertion. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:52:44 AM Would you rather listen to a known liar or the developer? I can't see a difference in the options you provided. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 04:52:49 AM A known liar or a known liar? Tough choice.
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 04:53:02 AM Well, one thing's for sure. This bad boy has more CPUs on it than the Tenebrix network, no denying it. So, the question is -- did all the people who didn't accept tenebrix or litebrix stay up to jump on this minute 1, or is BCE telling the truth about 400 EC instances + other cluster? Keep in mind he's pulled off 51% attacks in the past, and people are getting a bit burned out on the various scamcoin releases... Would you rather listen to a known liar or the developer? SC2.0 is 51% protected, wouldn't matter if he had 99.99% of the mining power, he cannot rewrite the chain. Considering he is a known liar I wouldn't even believe he has 400 EC instances. But even if he did, there is nothing he can do except generate blocks like any other valid user. Once the algorithm behind SC2.0 is released people will realize how stupid this troll is if they don't already. Well done man. Block generation is actually much smoother now with more difficulty. Nice ! Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 04:53:08 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill? His employer... No cost, no loss besides I'm leaving soon anyway. Don't try coming back here again. Title: Re: delete Post by: Snapman on October 11, 2011, 04:54:17 AM Just in case anyone with a brain doesn't know, BCE is lying, pretty much everytime he mentions SolidCoin. If he understood how the 51% protection worked he would realize how stupid him saying "generated 2 blocks really fast" is. It's quite hilarious to those that know the new SC2.0 algorithm. But if you want to believe SC2 is hacked and bitcoinexpress is all powerful. Go ahead, it gives us some laughs :) BTW SC2.0 in 2 hours has already tripled the size of TBX network. And is gaining on Bitcoin. Welcome to the future. Don't even bother with these low lives CH. I tried but it just makes me angry. Leave them be. Your time is not worth their stupidity. You done choking on that dick? Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:54:26 AM SC2.0 is 51% protected You have provided no evidence to back this assertion. Not publicly no, all will be revealed soon in regards to the new algorithm and network. However this clown hasn't proved anything and people want to jump to conclusions, so people should be asking him for proof right? How this troll can just create lie after lie with no evidence and people eat it up like its christmas pudding I have no idea. Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 04:54:55 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill? His employer... No cost, no loss besides I'm leaving soon anyway. Don't try coming back here again. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:55:25 AM Would you rather listen to a known liar or the developer? I can't see a difference in the options you provided. Care to provide the "lie" or "lies" you think I've told? Another baseless claim from a troll. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:55:46 AM How this troll can just create lie after lie with no evidence and people eat it up like its christmas pudding I have no idea. Oh, the irony is astounding. I feel privileged to witness such an intense moment. Thank you CH. For that alone my time here on the forums has been worth it. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:56:25 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill? His employer... No cost, no loss besides I'm leaving soon anyway. Don't try coming back here again. Thank you, once SC2 algorithm is released it will be proved beyond a doubt this clown is lying yet again. I'm surprised he hasn't been removed earlier. Title: Re: delete Post by: BurtW on October 11, 2011, 04:57:57 AM Is he really gone? Is it really over? :'(
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:05:05 AM I'm downloading the block chain now, it's at 4000 and counting, difficulty of 21. Is the target rate still 3.5 minutes per block? If so, shouldn't the chain be somewhere around 100 blocks long right now?
Just passed 5000. 5000 / 328 minutes since launch (10th October 23:35 UTC) =~ 15 blocks/minute. Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 05:05:10 AM BitcoinEXpress will go out as the winner! HA! Always trying to leave that last bit of doubt. I knew you were bullshiting with Namecoin, and I know that you're bullshitting now. If you could have done anything, you would have already done it. SC2's launch was a perfect opportunity to take it out and make them look bad. You missed it.At this moment I have right at 2000 blocks and if CH manages to pull this off and keep this going, BCX will have the largest amount of Solidcoin next to Coinhunter's 1 million pre-mined coins. Either way it works for me. Title: Re: delete Post by: xzion on October 11, 2011, 05:07:38 AM BCX permanently out cheers for the good times! Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:08:27 AM BitcoinEXpress will go out as the winner! HA! Always trying to leave that last bit of doubt. I knew you were bullshiting with Namecoin, and I know that you're bullshitting now. If you could have done anything, you would have already done it. SC2's launch was a perfect opportunity to take it out and make them look bad. You missed it.At this moment I have right at 2000 blocks and if CH manages to pull this off and keep this going, BCX will have the largest amount of Solidcoin next to Coinhunter's 1 million pre-mined coins. Either way it works for me. May I ask how you are convinced that he's bullshitting? Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 05:08:56 AM Looking at coinotron it looks like they're getting 95% invalid blocks. Something is def. up.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 05:10:22 AM As of this post, 7225 blocks and difficulty 68.
Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:11:37 AM I'm downloading the block chain now, it's at 4000 and counting, difficulty of 21. Is the target rate still 3.5 minutes per block? If so, shouldn't the chain be somewhere around 100 blocks long right now? Just passed 5000. 5000 / 328 minutes since launch (10th October 23:35 UTC) =~ 15 blocks/minute. As of this post, 7225 blocks and difficulty 68. Looking at the post timestamps ,that's a difference of 2225 blocks in 5 minutes. Edit: Ahh, thanks bobnova. I knew I was missing something ;) Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 05:12:07 AM He hadn't fully downloaded the chain.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 05:12:36 AM Sidenote, still 68 diff, now 7285 blocks.
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:14:06 AM Sidenote, still 68 diff, now 7285 blocks. I'm stuck on block 6826. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:15:08 AM Mine hasn't advanced past block 6826 for a few minutes.
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 05:17:06 AM So simple question. The network has generated roughly 1 block per second since inception.
Is it suppose to do that? Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 05:18:47 AM It could be worse. mine-for.us is reporting 67.5% stales. Holy crap. I don't think a single pool is stable. I don't know WHAT the problem is, but something is certainly up.
Looks like 2 hours into the thing we're all late adopters. =) Title: Re: delete Post by: tacotime on October 11, 2011, 05:20:18 AM i think bcx is manipulating the block chain by progressively increasing hash rate over the network in increments, and is now mining the majority of the blocks... Maybe it has something to do with circumventing ch's magical new 51% protection algorithm.
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 05:21:48 AM Too bad you banned BCX. He will return and I will again have fun seeing his skewed characters and puppets spewing BS about anything random. We had fun. See you sometime soon, mr. maddox.
Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:23:49 AM Though TBX may have been a smaller release, it took ~4hrs to reach block 500. That's just my personal experience with brand-new CPU blockchains.
Title: Re: delete Post by: FlipPro on October 11, 2011, 05:27:08 AM I work with EC2 myself, and know how much it can cost. They charge based upon CPU cycles. Just a quick question, how much will the 400 EC2 server instances cost, and who is going to be footing the bill? His employer... No cost, no loss besides I'm leaving soon anyway. Don't try coming back here again. how is it quite clear, are you suggesting that coinhunter designed 2-3 blocks per sec? serious question hope you dont ban me for it. You moron. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 05:28:27 AM how is it quite clear, are you suggesting that coinhunter designed 2-3 blocks per sec? serious question hope you dont ban me for it. Looks like you don't have a clue how diff and max-diff-inc-limits work... Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 05:30:05 AM And considering 95% of blocks on coinotron are invalid and 67.5% on mine-for are stale we're looking at what, 1000x as many people joining SC the very first minute it's out of the gate compared to tenebrix and 4000x as many for fairbrix? So the first two hours we've got somewhere around 30,000 cpus boiling along on solidcoin?
I'm having a pretty hard time believing it myself. Forked chain is a much simpler and easier to believe explanation. Up to block 7739. Looks like blocks per second is still accelerating. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 05:31:01 AM Seems like some people are just ban-happy.
"I disagree with you so you should be banned. Unless you fill gullible new investors/suckers with anything other than dreams of unicorns that shit skittles you are banned." So sad really. I mean does the Federal Reserve feel the need to ban anyone who talks (even falsely) about the dollar? If you need to ban someone you disagree with then you have already lost. Period. Seriously though the network has produced one block every 2 seconds. Is it suppose to do that? 400 Amazon Instances costs = $32 per hour. Should $32 per hour investment be able to push block generation speed that high? Shouldn't difficulty be slowing the rate of block generation? Why after difficulty rising to 68 is block generation still this fast? I mean @ difficulty 68 to sustain 2 blocks per second would require 68x the computational power. Are we to believe that the network grew 6800% from block 1 till now. Wouldn't that be like 20,000 CPU? Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 05:33:03 AM And considering 95% of blocks on coinotron are invalid and 67.5% on mine-for are stale we're looking at what, 1000x as many people joining SC the very first minute it's out of the gate compared to tenebrix and 4000x as many for fairbrix? So the first two hours we've got somewhere around 30,000 cpus boiling along on solidcoin? I'm having a pretty hard time believing it myself. Forked chain is a much simpler and easier to believe explanation. Up to block 7739. Looks like blocks per second is still accelerating. Seems like you are the new BitcoinExpress. Welcome back. We missed you :P NOT. It only seems like block generation is increasing BUT it actually is constant ( but in theory it is going down because diff is going up ) because of such a small diff. So you cannot perceive the block generation slowing down but it actually is slowing down. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:34:25 AM So you cannot perceive the block generation slowing down but it actually is slowing down. If you cannot perceive it, how do you know that it's happening? Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 05:34:30 AM Were it slowing down, it would be going at half the speed now that it was at ~37 difficulty.
It isn't. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:40:44 AM I for one would have appreciated if 'banning' (and other implications) wasn't thrown around so easily by a Mod, especially with just minutes of room for explanation. Seeing as how there are numerous other reports of the blockchain growing peculiarly fast, I imagine it'd be beneficial to discovery for the alleged perpetrator to be active in this discussion.
Though I can see dealing with a personality like BCX could be tricky for a Mod, I think Maged dropped the ball on this one. No big deal really in the grand scheme of things (no one bats 1.0), just my opinion. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 05:44:44 AM I doubt CH got banned. He is part of the "in" crowd. The fact that he isn't here triumphantly likely points to a problem.
Like for current block speed to still be 2 blocks per second would require tens of thousands of CPU and hundreds being added every minute to avoid block speed slowing down. Title: Re: delete Post by: doublec on October 11, 2011, 05:45:42 AM not a programmer but i do understand higher math and the calculation that 30,000 cpus joined in the first two hours is conservative and impossible. multi forks is the reason You must be using a definition of fork that I'm familiar with. BCX claimed to be mining a fork and followed with "Some of you are on my fork I suspect.". The only way they could be on that fork and not the main chain is if there was a break in the network somewhere. Peers share their blocks so the fork will become the main chain if it has a greater sum of work. For BCX to have a fork with a greater sum of work than the main chain he'd have to someone stop that from being distributed to the other peers. In which case the "Some of you are on my fork" can't be true.It's certainly possible for blocks to be solved faster even while difficulty is increasing. All it requires is hash rate to increase faster than difficulty. This is happening on namecoin at the moment as merged miners come on board, drastically increasing the hash rate while difficulty increases are capped at 4x. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 05:53:36 AM Blockrate is now about 1 block every 2 seconds...
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 05:53:52 AM For BCX to have a fork with a greater sum of work than the main chain he'd have to someone stop that from being distributed to the other peers. In which case the "Some of you are on my fork" can't be true. No he wouldn't. If "his block" chain isn't being received by 100% of nodes then there is a fork and some people would be on his fork and some wouldn't. As to how the chain could be split. If we had the source code we could look. Idle speculation follows: Possible that the bitcoind equivelent couldn't properly handle the massive increase in blocks which would be compounded if their are forks and failed to replicate them to other nodes fast enough. In other words each fragment of the chain was producing blocks faster than it was getting blocks from other fragments. If each fragment stayed ahead of the blocks it received from other fragments then each fragment would believe it was "the longest chain". If true then that problem will be self correcting as block rate slows down and parts of the chain catch up with work done by other parts. Bad news is all but one of those chains end up being worthless. Luck of the draw. Well luck favored the person with most computing resources. For others it would just be luck that they ended up on the "true" longest chain. Given we have no source code to look at this is just idle speculation. [/quote] Title: Re: delete Post by: TheLaundryMan on October 11, 2011, 05:54:53 AM Herp derp there certainly are a lot of tards on here. Thinking that 30000 cpus joining at the start is completely logical. Ever heard of a botnet? The more they hear about it the more will mine, including them. I have personally generated plenty of blocks, although there is a very large amount of stales what do you expect with so many cpus and little difficulty.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 05:56:05 AM Blockrate is now about 1 block every 2 seconds... still getting a steady 1 per sec, but im sure when it slows down we will see the CH here roaring like a lion. Block number 8305. Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 05:59:39 AM the rate is not slowing down. still over 1 block per sec at diff 92, actually same as when diff 48 Not sure where you are getting your info but as of right now the diff just went up from 88 to 100 If different people are seeing different difficulties and block rates, that would be a fork then wouldn't it? Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 06:01:16 AM If different people are seeing different difficulties and block rates, that would be a fork then wouldn't it? If people could post numbers? Block 8413 Diff 100. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 06:01:26 AM Herp derp there certainly are a lot of tards on here. Thinking that 30000 cpus joining at the start is completely logical. Ever heard of a botnet? The more they hear about it the more will mine, including them. I have personally generated plenty of blocks, although there is a very large amount of stales what do you expect with so many cpus and little difficulty. Why would a botnet mine a brand new nearly worthless cryptocurrency? Botnets generally have more profitable things to do with their computing power. 30,000+ nodes is illogical. Even more illogical is that as difficulty rises the speed of blocks has remained constant between 1 & 2 blocks per second. That would mean not only do you have 30,000 nodes but you are picking up 100+ nodes a minute to avoid block times slowing down (hashing power falling behind difficulty). Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 06:07:10 AM So how are you diff 101 @ block 8297 and the person above you is diff 100 @ 8413?
Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 06:07:34 AM Is the exchange open? I'm not seeing any new trades.
Seems like the perfect time for double spends. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:09:44 AM the rate is not slowing down. still over 1 block per sec at diff 92, actually same as when diff 48 Not sure where you are getting your info but as of right now the diff just went up from 88 to 100 Edit: And for proof of my statements instead of just baseless garbage: 661 8297 2011-10-11 05:55:40 0:0:17 101 660 8291 2011-10-11 05:55:23 0:1:60 101 659 8251 2011-10-11 05:53:23 0:0:10 88 658 8249 2011-10-11 05:53:13 0:1:4 0 88 Blocks on coinotron.... see no 92... So, seconds to minutes between blocks many of which are invalid. Here's what I'm seeing coming in... Code: timestamp (seconds since last block) Where's all that hashing power coming from!? If anyone wants this script... Code: tail -f debug.log | gawk ' BEGIN{ last=systime() } /SetBestChain/ { now=systime(); print now ": " $3 " " $4 " (" now-last ")"; last=now }'Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 06:10:01 AM Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 06:10:12 AM Difficulty 100 at block 8592 over here. This is the good chain right here folks.
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 06:11:27 AM So how are you diff 101 @ block 8297 and the person above you is diff 100 @ 8413? I was showing the blocks around the jump up from 88 diff to 100 not the current rate.... The current now that I see is: 8565 @ 100 Title: Re: delete Post by: Artamir on October 11, 2011, 06:12:24 AM *wondering if his "i am out" has anything to to with his innitial statement that he has his computing "power" outside bussiness time.
So people are back at work and need their computer time now, so he can't keep on mining for some hours ? Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 06:14:15 AM So how are you diff 101 @ block 8297 and the person above you is diff 100 @ 8413? I was showing the blocks around the jump up from 88 diff to 100 not the current rate.... The current now that I see is: 8565 @ 100 Difficulty is rounded to nearest whole number for pool statistics eg. if current diff. in client is 100.6 the SC client shows it as being 100 and rounds it down instead of up like pools do to 101 etc. Come on this is basic stuff folks. Get a grip. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 06:15:41 AM It's currently at
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:17:15 AM Word problem:
SolidCoin has been generating blocks at a rate of ~22 per minute. At 8800 blocks, how long before SolidCoin's chain length surpasses Bitcoin's? Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:17:40 AM It's currently at ~3 blk/s. What's the target? 3 minutes? Still a ways to go. You mean 1 block/3 seconds? Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 06:21:00 AM It's currently at ~3 blk/s. What's the target? 3 minutes? Still a ways to go. You mean 1 block/3 seconds? Yes. Thanks for catching that. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 06:21:33 AM the fact that coinhunter has been completely absent and his fan base only putting up an anemic response is proof positive there are issues related to an attack. bcx or not, solidcoin was hailed as attack proof. also should note, only a few hours in an the small miner is completely out of the picture. nothing different from other chains at this point. Ah now I understand, you want to bring people to stop mining SC2, so that you get more coinz ;D Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 06:36:09 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =)
Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 06:37:48 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) So, BCX come with his double spend and what you gonna do about it?! Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 06:41:30 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) Actually its less than 150,000 and solidcoin24 is open for business now. If it's still at 32 sc/blk, 9000*32=288k. Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 06:41:49 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) This exchange seems to be trading https://solidcoin24.com/p/main/market_data.msc?c=BTC&tz=-5.0&tf=m/d%20g:i:sa Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:43:03 AM Updated script:
Code: tail -f debug.log | gawk ' BEGIN{ last=systime(); start=1318289700 } /SetBestChain/ { now=systime(); block=substr($4,index($4,"=")+1); print now ": block# " block " - " now-last "s (" block/(now-start) " block/s)"; last=now }'start should be the time at which SolidCoin went live. block/s is calculated over the entire life of SolidCoin. Data: Code: 1318315012: block# 9151 - 1s (0.361528 block/s) Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 06:43:17 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) If you are planning to dump then don't bother. This is bound to reach parity with BTC. BTC is really dying. Price is decreasing. Blocks are found rarely and transactions are ground to a complete halt. Difficulty is decreasing and the miners ( only users there are at all ) are leaving too. Solidcoin is the onlychain that is 51% proof and also has fast transactions amongst a boatload of other features. Believe what you want but I think it is the future and will reach parity sooner or later. You may not believe it or may not want to believe it but it really is the truth. The BTC economics are not working properly. It started the cryptocurrency revolution but a better alternative is bound to emerge. Sell you SC for BTC and you will be left holding the BTC bag when prices drop to <$1 as the early adopters of BTC holding 100 000s of coins decide to cash out now when they can buy a car with their stash rather than wait till they can only buy a laptop with it. Sad but true. Bitcoin has had its time. Maybe SC2 will or will not replace it but I have lost faith in BTC long time ago. SC2 looks pretty orangey ATM. I'm holding. Title: Re: delete Post by: grod on October 11, 2011, 06:45:26 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) Actually its less than 150,000 and solidcoin24 is open for business now. The difficulty 141 blockchain on squidnet is showing 9189 blocks (but going up fast). It's what, 32 (31.48 is the coinotron post donation --edit) SC per block? That gives us over 290k, up 11 grand from my last post. As far as that exchange -- yeah, a whole 4 bitcoins are up for grabs. Go to it, botnetters! Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:46:03 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) If you are planning to dump then don't bother. This is bound to reach parity with BTC. BTC is really dying. Price is decreasing. Blocks are found rarely and transactions are ground to a complete halt. Difficulty is decreasing and the miners ( only users there are at all ) are leaving too. Solidcoin is the onlychain that is 51% proof and also has fast transactions amongst a boatload of other features. Believe what you want but I think it is the future and will reach parity sooner or later. You may not believe it or may not want to believe it but it really is the truth. The BTC economics are not working properly. It started the cryptocurrency revolution but a better alternative is bound to emerge. Sell you SC for BTC and you will be left holding the BTC bag when prices drop to <$1 as the early adopters of BTC holding 100 000s of coins decide to cash out now when they can buy a car with their stash rather than wait till they can only buy a laptop with it. Sad but true. Bitcoin has had its time. Maybe SC2 will or will not replace it but I have lost faith in BTC long time ago. SC2 looks pretty orangey ATM. I'm holding. Lol. This account seriously has to be an an anti-SolidCoin troll. Has to be. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 06:52:25 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) If you are planning to dump then don't bother. This is bound to reach parity with BTC. BTC is really dying. Price is decreasing. Blocks are found rarely and transactions are ground to a complete halt. Difficulty is decreasing and the miners ( only users there are at all ) are leaving too. Solidcoin is the onlychain that is 51% proof and also has fast transactions amongst a boatload of other features. Believe what you want but I think it is the future and will reach parity sooner or later. You may not believe it or may not want to believe it but it really is the truth. The BTC economics are not working properly. It started the cryptocurrency revolution but a better alternative is bound to emerge. Sell you SC for BTC and you will be left holding the BTC bag when prices drop to <$1 as the early adopters of BTC holding 100 000s of coins decide to cash out now when they can buy a car with their stash rather than wait till they can only buy a laptop with it. Sad but true. Bitcoin has had its time. Maybe SC2 will or will not replace it but I have lost faith in BTC long time ago. SC2 looks pretty orangey ATM. I'm holding. Bitcoin transactions are INCREASING!! "...The graph of overall bitcoin days destroyed is believed to show that the genuine level of activity in the Bitcoin economy is continually increasing..." http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/845/what-are-bitcoin-days-destroyed (http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/845/what-are-bitcoin-days-destroyed) Sorry, but you are too lame. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:58:05 AM The hash rate is in fact decreasing, but very slowly. I'm thinking that BCE is still mining away, just starting to be affected by the difficulty increases.
Code: 1318315376: block# 9271 - 2s (0.361076 block/s) CoinHunter, where is that promised 51% invulnerability? Title: Re: delete Post by: Deprived on October 11, 2011, 07:04:42 AM For those keeping score, roughly 279,000 solidcoins have been generated in the last few hours. I'm so hoping an exchange will open before I head to bed. =) The real thing you need to hope for is that there are people dumb enough to buy your coins. An exchange is no use without buyers - and hard to see anyone buying at a price that will cover your power-costs (or the opportunity cost) until block generation is somewhere around where it's meant to be and there's some confidence SC won't close the chain and reopen a new one with more premined coins and a higher tax rate. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 07:06:06 AM The hash rate is in fact decreasing, but very slowly. I'm thinking that BCE is still mining away, just starting to be affected by the difficulty increases. CoinHunter, where is that promised 51% protection? Considering that coinotron alone is reporting about the same MH/s rate as it was in beta, whet the hash rates were showing up considerably larger than they are now.... it's easy to understand there are considerably more miners mining. Considering BTX couldn't offer any evidence of what he did, even under duress of being banned yet you all still think he is still attacking the network must hint at something about you all.... but mamma always said if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. If Coinotron is finding all of those blocks, why are most of theirs Invalid? edit... An additional point: why hasn't the difficulty caught up to the hash rate yet? Does it not increase by up to 4x as in Bitcoin? Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 07:08:29 AM The hash rate is in fact decreasing, but very slowly. I'm thinking that BCE is still mining away, just starting to be affected by the difficulty increases. CoinHunter, where is that promised 51% protection? Considering that coinotron alone is reporting about the same MH/s rate as it was in beta, whet the hash rates were showing up considerably larger than they are now.... it's easy to understand there are considerably more miners mining. Considering BTX couldn't offer any evidence of what he did, even under duress of being banned yet you all still think he is still attacking the network must hint at something about you all.... but mamma always said if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all. If Coinotron is finding all of those blocks, why are most of theirs Invalid? Maybe because the sc network is some kind of flooded?! I have no idea... lol Just curious too... Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 07:08:54 AM So it took ~300 blocks for average block time to increase 0.3% from 2.76950005s to 2.778510996s
At that rate it would take ~385,000 blocks to reach proper block time (3 minutes). Another way to look at it is 10 million solidcoins will flood the market in the next 9 days. If BCE has a significant fraction of the hashing power that is millions of solidcoins he can dump ;D Wonder how long BCE can keep it up? Is anyone naive enough to think a 0.3% block time increase over 300 blocks is normal? Difficulty has increased by a factor of 130x and block times are STILL sub 3 seconds (1/60th of normal). For block time to remain relatively constant that means hashing power is growing at the same rate as difficulty and that seems to unlikely to be a coincidence. There isn't a max # of solidcoins are there? If not then good thing because if SC had same 21 million cap as bitcoin it would exhaust it's own coin supply in less than 19 days! Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 07:16:25 AM So it took ~300 blocks for average block time to increase 0.3% from 2.76950005s to 2.778510996s There's no max # of coins. Block discovery speed seems pretty messed up indeed, makes all previously mined coins kind of worthless imo. It's a restart that doesn't tell its name. Apparently SC took care to protect the network against "pump and dump", but not against "dump and pump" or "pump pump pump" like we see now. It seems that I can't even catch up with the chain... no chance to mine a valid thing in these conditions...At that rate it would take roughly 385,000 blocks to reach proper block time (3 minutes). That would also mean 10 million solidcoins will flood the market in the next 9 days. ;D Wonder how long BCE can keep it up? Is anyone naive enough to think a 0.3% block time increase over 300 blocks is normal.... when actual block time is 1/100th of where it should be? Difficulty has increased by a factor of 130x and block times are still sub 3 seconds. There isn't a max # of solidcoins are there? Because if there were only 21 million every single coin would be mined in less than a month! anyone know who bcx really is. Who cares? I'm pragmatic, all I see is that SC2 is a mess at the moment, and that it's because the difficulty isn't being adjusted properly.Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 07:19:27 AM In case anyone's curious... I'm going to bed now.
Code: tail -f debug.log | gawk ' BEGIN{ last=systime(); start=1318289700 } /SetBestChain/ { now=systime(); block=substr($4,index($4,"=")+1); blockrate=(now-start)/60/block; toofast=3.5/blockrate; print now ": block# " block " - " now-last "s (" blockrate " minutes/block, " toofast " x)"; last=now }'Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 07:31:12 AM Another 600 blocks and it looks like average block time is faster.
Block 8900 = avg block time from block 0 to 8900 - 2.7695 s Block 9200 = avg block time from block 0 to 9200 - 2.7785 s (0.3% decrease over 300 blocks) Block 9900 = avg block time from block 0 to 9900 - 2.7405 s (1.3% increase over 600 blocks) So network isn't even slowing anymore. 9900 blocks = 316,800 blocks already mined. Hell good news is that in ~16 hours total blocks mined will exceed CH 1 mil pre-mine stash. In a week SC will pass Bitcoin in number of coins mined. In 3 weeks it will have more coins that bitcoin will ever have! What is the value of a solid coin if there are 21 million on the market in the first month? How much are all the solid coins from SC 1.0 worth collectively? Less than a bit penny? Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 07:31:52 AM Maged banned him before he could really post anything. the ban was not in line with actions of any thing i have seen on these boards. as far as proof, the proof is clear. do you seriously think people believe that coinhunter designed a rate of 3-4 blocks per second at peak and increasing block rate following increasing difficulty. is it normal for people still reporting huge gap in block count and diff and anthing other than two forks?? You really don't get it? Max factor per diff up retargeting is +13%. Looks like you completely missed all the other alternative chains and their beginnings, and still you post shit about "3-4 blocks per second" and design decision... Show us the huuuuuge gap in block count and diff. All the previous posts show the exact same chain... Title: Re: delete Post by: Artamir on October 11, 2011, 07:33:52 AM edit... An additional point: why hasn't the difficulty caught up to the hash rate yet? Does it not increase by up to 4x as in Bitcoin? No it does not. Solidcoin is designed to raise the difficuly slow (+ max 10% [Diff*1,1]) and lower it fast (- 75% [Diff/4]). The main design purpose in the beginning of SC was to make it "miner friendly". Or in other words: to get coins faster. So if hash rate increases the difficulty will adapt slowly. And if hash rate decreases the difficulty will adapt faster. And that is what happens now, difficulty started at very low (1). But the calculation power from start on was that high that with a difficulty of 1 the blocks are not generated evey 3 minutes but way faster. But instead of jumping to the correct difficulty (lets asume 2.500 [just an excample value]) it increases 10% step wise. So it will take a very long time till it reaches it's appropriate difficulty. And till then those people with high computing power / many CPUs will be able to get a lot of bitcoins in a short amount of time. There is no hacking or anything like that, it is just the design of starting at difficulty 1 with a max increase of 10% each 240 Blocks (correct me if it was another number), coliding with a starting hash rate that is equivalent to a MUCH higher difficulty. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 07:34:08 AM Another 600 blocks and it looks like average block time is faster. Block 8900 = avg block time 2.7695 s Block 9200 = avg block time 2.7785 s (0.3% decrease over 300 blocks) Block 9900 = avg block time 2.7405 s (1.3% increase over 600 blocks) So network isn't even slowing anymore. 9900 blocks = 316,800 blocks already mined. Hell good news is that in ~16 hours total blocks mined will exceed CH 1 mil pre-mine stash. In a week SC will pass Bitcoin in number of coins mined. In 3 weeks it will have more coins that bitcoin will ever have! With higher diff the stale rate decreases, that means more effective hashing power... You really can't argument with blocktimes of 2-3 seconds... wait some hours until diff is much higher and blocktime longer... Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 07:42:13 AM With higher diff the stale rate decreases, that means more effective hashing power... You really can't argument with blocktimes of 2-3 seconds... wait some hours until diff is much higher and blocktime longer... The damage is already done. Over 300K coins have been mined in hours. Even w/ max difficulty adjustment well over 1 million coins will be mined in first two days. Difficulty is 1/70th of where it should be so in effect early miners are being paid 70x the value of future miners. Now I am not talking about future miners a decade from now I am talking about future miners like next week. Miners with same hardware, same electrical costs, same efficiency will net 1/70th the reward. Worse an enemy of the network has likely ammased hundreds of thousands of coins which can be dumped on the market. So much for fair distribution. The Solid Coin 1 coin holders just saw their coins devalue into nothing. There coins which took weeks to mine have been debased by block of coins pumped out every couple seconds. It would be better if it was an attack because if it was by design well the design was garbage. Title: Re: delete Post by: Artamir on October 11, 2011, 07:42:33 AM I would like to show you the over all hash rate increasing, since more and more people are installing the solidcoin client and start mining, but since i don't have a graph of it to do so, i just have to hope you can imagine it.
Just keep in mind the number of people / computers mining SC may have increased over the last hours, not only the difficulty. Title: Re: delete Post by: Ahimoth on October 11, 2011, 08:26:43 AM Most of you are trying to pick apart something you don't understand and making poor assumptions in the process. Has anyone ever considered that their immense Bitcoin knowledge may not apply to Solidcoin2?
Title: Re: delete Post by: JasonWoods on October 11, 2011, 08:33:48 AM So the battle is still going on...
So I guess betting on the outcome is pretty safe from now on http://webetcoins.com/rounds/41 Title: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 08:36:14 AM It appears that CoinHunter decided to rip off Geist...or perhaps even top it in terms of block speed
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/will-troll.gif Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 11, 2011, 08:37:29 AM At the current rate over 1 million coins will have been mined in the first day. What do you think that just did to the value of Solid Coin 1.0 coins? C) crushing attack that EXploited a design flaw.I see what you did there. :) Title: Re: delete Post by: 3phase on October 11, 2011, 08:48:49 AM For me, the only viable explanation about the stable block production rate with difficulty increasing by 2 orders of magnitude is that there is some bug in the retargeting algorithm and the hash validation code which effectively cancels out the difficulty number with some operations.
Thus the client reports difficulty increasing, but the hash validation does not take into account. Whatever attackers might do, it can't hold for so long and with such a difficulty increase. If it is so, and if the source code was released on time, such a bug would have certainly been located by now. Unfortunately, testosterone does not help in code development and cooperation. BTW, Coinotron works unbelievably slow. It's like they're sending bytes manually. Title: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 09:00:09 AM Or maybe CH should rip off Geist and claim the newfound turbo-charged blockrate as a feature ? :D
Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 11, 2011, 09:14:35 AM At the current rate over 1 million coins will have been mined in the first day. What do you think that just did to the value of Solid Coin 1.0 coins? C) crushing attack that EXploited a design flaw.I see what you did there. :) my tribute since they banned him because maged get mad at him that he was actually winning. Yeah, I thought the ban was unwarranted. If Maged wanted to ban someone, there's a much better target that's trolling all these threads. Title: Re: delete Post by: Frozenace on October 11, 2011, 09:32:03 AM BCX is like a child with too much candy who doesn't want to share.
Title: Re: delete Post by: stryker on October 11, 2011, 10:30:57 AM I must admit I've got my interest in SC, even encouraged it, you see I'm here because I'm interested in crypto currencies....
But reading what you knob-heads are saying here all I feel is my confidence in my much loved BTC slipping away.... who is going to take it seriously with stupid little trolls like you? Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 11, 2011, 10:36:50 AM I must admit I've got my interest in SC, even encouraged it, you see I'm here because I'm interested in crypto currencies.... But reading what you knob-heads are saying here all I feel is my confidence in my much loved BTC slipping away.... who is going to take it seriously with stupid little trolls like you? Who is going to take paper cash seriously when there are so many scammers and trolls trying to rob you of it? Seriously - Who is your comment directed at? The Pro-Solidcoin people, The Anti-Solidcoin people, or both? Title: Re: delete Post by: stryker on October 11, 2011, 11:33:38 AM both to be honest....
good point on the paper cash comment tho, although there are no alternatives to paper cash / bank currencies in every day life.... BTC/SC/whatever is still fledgling and needs some help.... I cant see any way that all this tit-for-tat thats going on is helping anything. Title: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 11:35:46 AM This incident teaches us that pig-to-peer networks are bad and their designers should feel bad about them.
An important lesson. Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 11:52:56 AM both to be honest.... The lesson is simple: stick to Bitcoin and trust no fork until they are a least a bit adopted/established... So for the moment just trust no fork. :DTitle: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 11:54:09 AM Oh come on, Namecoin is ossom, at the very least.
Also TBX is ossom too ^__^ Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 12:16:59 PM So it seems SC2.0 is still around 5s/blk, is that correct? Can anyone else confirm...?
Title: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 12:18:27 PM three second blocks here, reporting.
Title: Re: delete Post by: makomk on October 11, 2011, 12:22:50 PM You must be using a definition of fork that I'm familiar with. BCX claimed to be mining a fork and followed with "Some of you are on my fork I suspect.". The only way they could be on that fork and not the main chain is if there was a break in the network somewhere. Peers share their blocks so the fork will become the main chain if it has a greater sum of work. For BCX to have a fork with a greater sum of work than the main chain he'd have to someone stop that from being distributed to the other peers. In which case the "Some of you are on my fork" can't be true. You forgot that SolidCoin 2.0 is meant to have some kind of 51% attack protection, which by its nature means that under some circumstances the client has to reject a chain with a greater sum of work in favour of a chain with a lesser sum ofr work. Depending on how exactly CoinHunter implemented it, it'd be trivial for someone with a decent amount of hashing power to persistently fork the network in a way that would never get healed automatically. Unfortunately he's refused to say publicly how it works and the source isn't available.Maged: I have a feeling that BitcoinEXpress wasn't kidding. I've no idea if he was bluffing about the namecoin attack because it was quite thoroughly forestalled (I submitted a patch with a really paranoid set of block lockins designed to stop any attack I'd heard of or could think of, including the obvious-but-impractical checkpoint bypass), but this isn't looking good. Edit: I should really set up a couple of isolated VMs and test this, but effort... Title: Re: delete Post by: Balthazar on October 11, 2011, 12:37:34 PM TrollCoin 2.0 ;D
Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 12:38:02 PM Woke up to a working network with stales out at coinotron heading toward disappearance and the blocks per second rate falling as expected. Very nice. How's the "attacking" going? Depends on how long it takes for the chain to hit target. With 5s blocks still, not looking so well. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 12:39:03 PM Woke up to a working network with stales out at coinotron heading toward disappearance and the blocks per second rate falling as expected. Very nice. How's the "attacking" going? "Falling as expected"? Over a blocks every 3 second after 12,000+ blocks? On pace to dump 1 million coins on the market within 24 hours of genesis block? Yup exactly as expected. Title: Re: delete Post by: makomk on October 11, 2011, 01:41:23 PM Woke up to a working network with stales out at coinotron heading toward disappearance and the blocks per second rate falling as expected. Very nice. Hard to tell; as far as I know there's no block explorer for Solidcoin 2.0 yet and RealSolid hasn't released the information needed to write one, so it's quite tricky to see what's going on. Probably the only person that knows is BitcoinEXpress and I don't think we're going to be hearing from him any time soon. It does look like we're going to see a really substantial increase in the total number of solidcoins in existence during the first 24-48 hours of 2.0 though; if my maths is right then a third of all SolidCoin 2.0 coins existing right now were mined on 2.0 since it was opened and it's only going to get worse.How's the "attacking" going? Title: Re: delete Post by: Lolcust on October 11, 2011, 01:48:30 PM Does your math account for the "compensation million" ?
Title: Re: delete Post by: makomk on October 11, 2011, 01:52:05 PM Does your math account for the "compensation million" ? Nope, because I'm still not clear on what exactly CoinHunter has done with premining; it only counts the number of coins that were mined normally on 1.0 and 2.0 combined. Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 01:58:51 PM Does your math account for the "compensation million" ? The worst part is, this BTC forum is the first (and only) place where I've heard about premining in SC 2.0. AFAIK no visible communication has been made about this on the SC forums...... The only positive thing is that I mined in SC 2 in 6 hours on crappy hadware about half as much as I mined in SC 1 in 2 weeks on better hardware. Can't wait to try Litecoin...Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 02:01:53 PM Does your math account for the "compensation million" ? The worst part is, this BTC forum is the first (and only) place where I've heard about premining in SC 2.0. AFAIK no visible communication has been made about this on the SC forums...... The only positive thing is that I mined in SC 2 in 6 hours on crappy hadware about half as much as I mined in SC 1 in 2 weeks on better hardware. Can't wait to try Litecoin...How is that a positive? It essentially means any wealth (store of value) holders of SC 1.0 had has been wiped out by rampant monetary expansion. Their coins which took significant time and electrical energy are worth next to nothing. Which in turn doesn't bode well for the value of the "easy" coins. If you made more in 6 hours on crappy hardware how many coins do you think someone w/ 400 EC2 instances made? Title: Re: delete Post by: 3phase on October 11, 2011, 02:10:18 PM Something seems to be wrong. Due to the lack of a blockexplorer:
Coinotron shows the last ~300 blocks found within ~35 minutes which is almost one block every 7 seconds. Difficulty however remains the same. No retargeting? Wasn't it supposed to be every 240 blocks (which is actually 120 blocks because every other block is mined with diff. 1 by the supernode)? Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 02:11:00 PM How is that a positive? It essentially means any wealth (store of value) holders of SC 1.0 had has been wiped out by rampant monetary expansion. I was being sarcastic. ;) That's why I added I was waiting for Litecoin.Title: Re: delete Post by: atticus on October 11, 2011, 02:11:12 PM Does your math account for the "compensation million" ? The worst part is, this BTC forum is the first (and only) place where I've heard about premining in SC 2.0. AFAIK no visible communication has been made about this on the SC forums...... The only positive thing is that I mined in SC 2 in 6 hours on crappy hadware about half as much as I mined in SC 1 in 2 weeks on better hardware. Can't wait to try Litecoin...How is that a positive? It essentially means any wealth (store of value) holders of SC 1.0 had has been wiped out by rampant monetary expansion. Their coins which took significant time and electrical energy are worth next to nothing. Which in turn doesn't bode well for the value of the "easy" coins. If you made more in 6 hours on crappy hardware how many coins do you think someone w/ 400 EC2 instances made? Still haven't seen any proof that anyone mined this with 400 EC2 instances. ~ 250k coins have been generated since launch. Looking at the number of coins I've mined with a couple of Phenom X6's, I seriously doubt any one person had that kind of hash power. I would have earned next to nothing if that were true. The fact that SC2 has no upper limit on coin generation should concern SC1 owners more than a few hundred thousand coins mined. Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 02:11:58 PM If you made more in 6 hours on crappy hardware how many coins do you think someone w/ 400 EC2 instances made? NONE! Tits or GTFO.. err... i mean, pics or it didn't happen ::) Title: Re: delete Post by: btc-e.com on October 11, 2011, 02:16:43 PM Start trading
https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 02:20:40 PM Start trading https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Reeeally?!?!?! LOL Title: Re: delete Post by: btc-e.com on October 11, 2011, 02:22:36 PM Start trading SolidCoin 2
https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 02:24:22 PM Start trading https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Reeeally?!?!?! LOL You know something: Your snarky remarks would bear a lot more value if you didn't have the venus project on your sig... Venus Project? Reeeally?!?!?! LOL Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 02:46:05 PM Start trading https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Reeeally?!?!?! LOL You know something: Your snarky remarks would bear a lot more value if you didn't have the venus project on your sig... Venus Project? Reeeally?!?!?! LOL SURE! A Resource-Based Economy proposed by The Venus Project is far more efficient than "the economy" wich we have today... Don't you see it?! Close to a RBE, even the Bitcoin is pure crap... But close to a fiat currency (dollar, euro, etc), Bitcoins are AWESOME! So, I see the Bitcoin as a transition to a RBE. That's because I'm here today. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 02:48:08 PM Everyone can look at the blocks using the new code in SolidCoin v2.0. It features an internal blockexplorer (GUI version coming soon).
Run Solidcoin then type on cmdline "Solidcoin sc_getblockbynumber <blocknumber>" Eh presto, all the information. Surprised our little reverse engineerer, hacker, apple employee and google deindexer in BTXexpress didn't tell everyone about it? Now everyone can pretend they know what it means. :P And some more information. :- http://solidcointalk.org/topic/265-about-1-million-sc-mined-public-at-the-first-official-day/page__view__findpost__p__2644 (http://solidcointalk.org/topic/265-about-1-million-sc-mined-public-at-the-first-official-day/page__view__findpost__p__2644) There's only been about 220K coins generated since going live. To be honest I didn't expect us to reach 1200+ nodes within 18 hours of operation, seems SolidCoin is outpacing my own expectations. With hindsight I would have started the chain at a higher difficulty. I should have time tomorrow to upload the new algorithm to the website, so stay tuned to our forum or site if you're interested. Believe what trolls/fearmongers say at your own risk I guess, they're only stopping you from trying the next biggest thing. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 02:53:29 PM they're only stopping you from trying the next biggest thing. I thought SC 1.0 was 'the next big thing'. Now it's SC 2.0. Or maybe youre just talking about your already massive blockchain. I can't wait 3.0... it's the next big thing, dontcha know! Title: Re: delete Post by: WiseOldOwl on October 11, 2011, 02:55:05 PM I have to say it kinda sucks how many solidcoins are being generated,
I bought in early and now they are being given away... I like SC, but that kinda sux is all Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 02:58:23 PM At ~50 diff, blk generation was ~3s/blk.
At ~100 diff, roughly the same. Now it's at 1500 diff @ 6s/blk And this is supposed to be 'normal'? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 02:59:32 PM So it looks like the "trusted nodes" are awarded 3.2 coins for a difficulty 1 hash.
So far in 14 hours that is 24K coins. Who are the trusted nodes? Why are they awarded coins for such a computationally easy block? Code: {With increasing difficulty the "advantage" the trusted nodes gain increases. For example right now difficulty is 1500 so regular nodes need to work 1500x harder to gain 10x the reward. A 150x disadvantage. However block times are still 6s so difficulty should be 30x higher. When difficulty is 450,000 regular nodes will need to work 450,000 times harder to gain 10x the reward a 45,000x disadvantage. Who/what determines who gets the highly advantageous position of being a trusted node? Why are they overcompensated for their workload? What happens to the network if the trusted nodes fail (DDOS)? Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:01:23 PM I have to say it kinda sucks how many solidcoins are being generated, I bought in early and now they are being given away... I like SC, but that kinda sux is all Why does it suck "so many" coins are generated and a few thousand more people are now into SolidCoin? If you think it's bad sell them. Only time will tell what decision is right when it comes to which currency to support or which investment paid off. Do you know how many coins were "given away" when SC1 started to people like you? Do you know why it has had the fastest node growth of any chain? There are reasons for these things and if you can't see them then maybe you should educate yourself like others are doing. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:02:22 PM There's only been about 220K coins generated since going live. Can you explain the math that generates this answer? To be honest I didn't expect us to reach 1200+ nodes within 18 hours of operation, seems SolidCoin is outpacing my own expectations. Where are you getting these node counts from? How do you know that some of those nodes aren't attacker(s)? With hindsight I would have started the chain at a higher difficulty. I should have time tomorrow to upload the new algorithm to the website, so stay tuned to our forum or site if you're interested. What new algorithm? Are you saying that the difficulty adjustment algorithm is inadequate? You're going to fork your block chain by changing it? I don't normally use image macros, but this totally reeks of https://i.imgur.com/nOS2b.jpg Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:03:07 PM So it looks like the "trusted nodes" are awarded 3.2 coins for a difficulty 1 hash. So far in 14 hours that is 24K coins. Who are the trusted nodes? Why are they awarded coins for such a computationally easy block? That is poor analysis. The CPF is awarded those coins (5% created, 5% from node). The "Trusted nodes" lose money supporting the network and anyone can become a trusted node provided they match the network requirements. It's pure decentralized trust. If it sounds interesting to you then you'll have to wait until tomorrow when all will be revealed. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:03:58 PM At ~50 diff, blk generation was ~3s/blk. At ~100 diff, roughly the same. Now it's at 1500 diff @ 6s/blk And this is supposed to be 'normal'? this Why aren't difficulty increases actually making it much more difficult? Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 03:05:14 PM I have to say it kinda sucks how many solidcoins are being generated, I bought in early and now they are being given away... I like SC, but that kinda sux is all Why does it suck "so many" coins are generated and a few thousand more people are now into SolidCoin? If you think it's bad sell them. Only time will tell what decision is right when it comes to which currency to support or which investment paid off. Do you know how many coins were "given away" when SC1 started to people like you? Do you know why it has had the fastest node growth of any chain? There are reasons for these things and if you can't see them then maybe you should educate yourself like others are doing. Are you the new FED?!?!?! LOL Title: Re: delete Post by: Remember remember the 5th of November on October 11, 2011, 03:06:07 PM And what is the current block count?
Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 03:07:48 PM So it looks like the "trusted nodes" are awarded 3.2 coins for a difficulty 1 hash. So far in 14 hours that is 24K coins. Who are the trusted nodes? Why are they awarded coins for such a computationally easy block? That is poor analysis. The CPF is awarded those coins (5% created, 5% from node). The "Trusted nodes" lose money supporting the network and anyone can become a trusted node provided they match the network requirements. It's pure decentralized trust. If it sounds interesting to you then you'll have to wait until tomorrow when all will be revealed. What are the requirements? Also, I love the link saying 1 million in the url and you saying 220k. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:07:54 PM At ~50 diff, blk generation was ~3s/blk. At ~100 diff, roughly the same. Now it's at 1500 diff @ 6s/blk And this is supposed to be 'normal'? this Why aren't difficulty increases actually making it much more difficult? Does this really need explaining? The SC2.0 network is currently _growing_, like I said it's outpaced all other chains in growth and we've seen the worst block conditions for any cryptochain to this point. The SC2.0 network has handled it fine. If a network is growing then block speed at increasing diffs will also grow. It's simple maths. I expect it to hit 50000 -> 100000 diff before we get close to the maximum desired blocktime in 120s, at current speeds. If we see another 1000 people join today then who knows. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:09:38 PM Does this really need explaining? The SC2.0 network is currently _growing_, like I said it's outpaced all other chains in growth and we've seen the worst block conditions for any cryptochain to this point. The SC2.0 network has handled it fine. If a network is growing then block speed at increasing diffs will also grow. It's simple maths. I expect it to hit 50000 -> 100000 diff before we get close to the maximum desired blocktime in 120s, at current speeds. If we see another 1000 people join today then who knows. So we should just take your word that everything is fine and dandy? Do you have any raw data to back up your claims? Again, how do you know that the growth is benevolent (users), not malevolent (attackers)? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 03:10:06 PM 16040 I believe. 624 blocks in last 69 minutes (6.6s avg block time).
Title: Re: delete Post by: WiseOldOwl on October 11, 2011, 03:10:43 PM I have to say it kinda sucks how many solidcoins are being generated, I bought in early and now they are being given away... I like SC, but that kinda sux is all Why does it suck "so many" coins are generated and a few thousand more people are now into SolidCoin? If you think it's bad sell them. Only time will tell what decision is right when it comes to which currency to support or which investment paid off. Do you know how many coins were "given away" when SC1 started to people like you? Do you know why it has had the fastest node growth of any chain? There are reasons for these things and if you can't see them then maybe you should educate yourself like others are doing. First off, I dont care about the nitpickings and I want to thank you for all your hard work :) The fact that you are using your time to build something rather than destroy something says a lot. It did not dawn on me that the total number of users would increase by much or any. Thank you for stating what should have been obvious. I hope things settle favorably in the end. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:13:01 PM Are you the new FED?!?!?! LOL No, though currently I hold the wallet for those CPF coins. If you read our forum you will see a non for profit organization is going to be created in a "fair country" to handle this fund going forward. Personally I don't want the stress of having to deal with handing out bounties, market measures and things like this. Along with the accusations you're skimming or a scammer. I understand why people say this and it's why I want a "constitution" and a NPO to take over. I'd rather just do some code for the project and not be involved in any leadership aspects of it. If you think having a tiny bit (5%) of centralization like this fund is bad then that's fine, it's an opinion. People who don't mind spending a little bit in supporting a central organization who will protect their assets have SolidCoin, those who want wild west, no one does anything for anyone have things like BTC and so forth. We'll see what has greater efficiency I guess over the coming months. Personally I am anti-bank, anti-current-system and generally want a world where most people make the decisions for themselves. So that's just where I'm coming from and why I'm working on SC. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 03:15:18 PM What are the requirements that have to be met to be a trusted node?
Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 03:19:06 PM Are you the new FED?!?!?! LOL No, though currently I hold the wallet for those CPF coins. If you read our forum you will see a non for profit organization is going to be created in a "fair country" to handle this fund going forward. Personally I don't want the stress of having to deal with handing out bounties, market measures and things like this. Along with the accusations you're skimming or a scammer. I understand why people say this and it's why I want a "constitution" and a NPO to take over. I'd rather just do some code for the project and not be involved in any leadership aspects of it. If you think having a tiny bit (5%) of centralization like this fund is bad then that's fine, it's an opinion. People who don't mind spending a little bit in supporting a central organization who will protect their assets have SolidCoin, those who want wild west, no one does anything for anyone have things like BTC and so forth. We'll see what has greater efficiency I guess over the coming months. Sorry but, no centralization can be good. Look around you man!!! Anyway, good luck for you! I think anything that attacks our current monetary system is a awesome thing! Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 03:19:11 PM No, though currently I hold the wallet for those CPF coins. 10% of all coins generated go into your wallet. Crypto-currencies are based on the concept of exchange without trust however there is nothing every user of solidcoin can do but TRUST that you will do the right thing. Pure blind trust because if you don't there is no recourse, no checks & balances, no failsafe. Centrally controlled currency without oversight which requires trust in major stakeholders. Congrats you just (re)invented fiat currency. Title: Re: delete Post by: worldinacoin on October 11, 2011, 03:20:36 PM But one strange thing was that when the network just started and the difficulty was the least, I generate nothing until when the difficulty was about 400 then the coins start to appear. I now have 5 block of coins.
Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 03:22:46 PM No, though currently I hold the wallet for those CPF coins. 10% of all coins generated go into your wallet. Crypto-currencies are based on the concept of exchange without trust however there is nothing but all users of solid coin need to trust that you will do the right thing. Pure blind trust because if you don't there is no recourse, no checks & balances, no failsafe. Centrally controlled currency without oversight which requires trust in major stakeholders. Congrats you just (re)invented fiat currency. Exactly!! lol Title: Re: delete Post by: Remember remember the 5th of November on October 11, 2011, 03:25:16 PM But one strange thing was that when the network just started and the difficulty was the least, I generate nothing until when the difficulty was about 400 then the coins start to appear. I now have 5 block of coins. At the massively reduced difficulties it was a crap shoot on who got the blocks and had very little to do with real difficulty now that we are more in realistic realms of difficulty stales etc. will be dropping, you can additionally double check this behavior on the pools where you can see their stale rate has fallen off tremendously. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:26:46 PM No, though currently I hold the wallet for those CPF coins. 10% of all coins generated go into your wallet. Crypto-currencies are based on the concept of exchange without trust however there is nothing but all users of solid coin need to trust that you will do the right thing. Pure blind trust because if you don't there is no recourse, no checks & balances, no failsafe. Centrally controlled currency without oversight which requires trust in major stakeholders. Congrats you just (re)invented fiat currency. Again, your analysis is flawed. 5% is created out of "nowhere" like a block generate is. 5% is taken from these "Trusted nodes". If 5% is taken from a trusted node it's not "created" it's being re-spent. You are right that in some ways it comes down to trust, trust that the 5% will be spent appropriately. If you can't trust me (or eventually the NPO) to spend that 5% in ways which strengthen SolidCoin then you shouldn't support or invest in it. The way I see it is it's better to try to have that central organization as it offers so many benefits than just saying "but you have to trust them so let's not do it". Not every person walking on the planet is an evil person looking to scam you. Some want better things for this world. I want SolidCoin to be able to hunt down and prosecute criminals. I want SolidCoin to be able to stabilize price so that the world can use it as a currency, I want SolidCoin to protect itself against governments and banks by using their own systems against them. If you can't see that a completely decentralized system leads to a case of "well I don't really know them so f%ck them" then you perhaps don't understand human psychology as well as some. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 03:29:15 PM If you can't trust me (or eventually the NPO) to spend that 5% in ways which strengthen SolidCoin then you shouldn't support or invest in it. This is the soundest advice I've ever heard CH give. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:32:12 PM If you can't trust me (or eventually the NPO) to spend that 5% in ways which strengthen SolidCoin then you shouldn't support or invest in it. This is the soundest advice I've ever heard CH give. It's not the first time I've given it either. :) You can't expect to have values that everyone shares, I realize this, and I don't want to convert anyone that doesn't see why the decisions made for SolidCoin are worthwhile. Up to each person to educate themselves and decide without people pushing them into it. Don't you agree? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 03:32:40 PM You are right that in some ways it comes down to trust, trust that the 5% will be spent appropriately. If you can't trust me (or eventually the NPO) to spend that 5% in ways which strengthen SolidCoin then you shouldn't support or invest in it. The way I see it is it's better to try to have that central organization as it offers so many benefits than just saying "but you have to trust them so let's not do it". Not every person walking on the planet is an evil person looking to scam you. Some want better things for this world. Meh don't couple trust of you with trust of valid NPO. That is a logical fallacy. The NPO doesn't exist yet. If you defraud the community it could occur prior to any NPO taking over thus trust isn't in some mythical future NPO it is trust in YOU. Today the wallets are completely under your control and they will hold 10% of all SC minted. 10% of all SC minted in the world becomes your personal wealth without you spending your own hardware and electricity to produce it. SC2 is backed only by your word, trust in a central authority to engage in monetary policy that would be beneficial to the community (as determined solely by you). Maybe you will feel the need to "control" the SC economy. You could destroy coins from the wallets or sell them on the exchange thus engaging in monetary policy similar to the Fed. It isn't like you earned those coins so you aren't constrained by your personal finances like a mere speculator. You have just made yourself the central back and engaged in a weird sort of fraction reserve minting (ever coin minted produces another fractional coin under your direct control). As I said congratulation you just reinvention of fiat currency. SC2 is not a crypto-currency. It is failed 20th century thinking in a shiny new digital shell. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:38:07 PM You are right that in some ways it comes down to trust, trust that the 5% will be spent appropriately. If you can't trust me (or eventually the NPO) to spend that 5% in ways which strengthen SolidCoin then you shouldn't support or invest in it. The way I see it is it's better to try to have that central organization as it offers so many benefits than just saying "but you have to trust them so let's not do it". Not every person walking on the planet is an evil person looking to scam you. Some want better things for this world. Meh don't couple trust of you with trust of valid NPO. The NPO doesn't exist yet. If you defraud the community it could occur prior to any NPO taking over. Today the wallets are completely under your control and they will hold 10% of all SC minted. 10% of all SC minted in the world becomes your personal wealth without you spending your own hardware and electricity to produce it. SC2 is backed only by your word, trust in a central authority to engage in monetary policy that would be beneficial to the community (as determined solely by you). As I said congratulation you just reinvention of fiat currency. Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:39:48 PM Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? This would all be a lot simpler if you released code, you know. Can you blame us for our ignorance of SC's workings, when the only information we have is that which you have given us? Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 03:41:13 PM Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? This would all be a lot simpler if you released code, you know. Can you blame us for our ignorance of SC, when the only information we have is that which you have given us? Yeah CH... RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! What you afraid of?!?! RELEASE THE CODE!! RELEASE THE CODE!! Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 03:46:16 PM Up to each person to educate themselves and decide without people pushing them into it. Don't you agree? Hard to 'educate themselves' when the sole programmer hasn't released the source/documentation. Also, funny, this coming from the same guy who paid spammers to spam an article written solely to deceive. Also, care to address this?: https://i.imgur.com/BZTau.png Difficulty goes up, but now there are more invalid blocks? Certainly you aren't still claiming that SC has continued to grow exponentially since launch? I mean, there are only certain number of people active in mining cryptocurrencies, much less alt-chains. ---NONE OF THAT ADDS UP Occam's razor says its more likely you fucked up your code than SC is experiencing unprecedented popularity. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 03:47:04 PM Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? It is 10%. Sad you can't understand your own code. Per your description. Your wallet is paid 5% from by the trusted nodes. Your wallet is paid another 5% minted out of thin air. Thus .... drumroll ... 5% + 5% = 10% of total coins minted end up in your personally and irreversible wallet. Quote If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. That isn't the point. The point is it requires trust in a central authority. If the central authority is flawless it doesn't negate the need for trust in a central authority. If the Fed does a good job then the Fed isn't bad right? Wrong I say. Having the Fed (even doing a good job) requires trust in that central authority. They may be doing good today but won't in the future. The issue is trust not current performance. Lastly having a family (and assets) is hardly a prohibition against fraud. Lots of family man, asset owning fraudsters in jail (and more not in jail). The point isn't that you WILL commit fraud (maybe you won't) but rather you have developed a system which requires absolute trust in a single fallible entity. Sometimes people engage in fraud even when that wasn't the initial plan. If you lost your job and your family was facing eviction and unable to put food on the table you would sacrifice them for the good of the SC2 community? Or given you have complete and unlimited access to 10% of all SC mined maybe you dip into that fund for the sake of your family? Crypto-currency shouldn't rely on trusting a central authority no matter how good the intentions of that authority. Title: Re: delete Post by: Sannyasi on October 11, 2011, 03:48:22 PM wow- this thread requires popcorn and soda.... time to run to the store before i finish reading up to this post..... and after..... this is what i call useful entertainment
Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:49:14 PM Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? This would all be a lot simpler if you released code, you know. Can you blame us for our ignorance of SC's workings, when the only information we have is that which you have given us? What does source code do ? If you could understand all I've written why haven't you written it? Why have I discovered many vulnerabilities in Bitcoin over my course of refactoring the source? It proves beyond a doubt that people do not read the source code, or at least, do not understand it, and the Bitcoin code has been out there for a while. In the end if you're not an advanced programmer you'll be relying on experts to "break it down" for you, right? 99% of End users couldn't care less about how SolidCoin or Bitcoin works. They want simple things. Things like fast transactions, secure networking, easy to use developer environments and many even want a small central organization to help protect the more vulnerable members in the community. I spent 3 hours today waiting for 3 confirmations in bitcoin. 3 hours. So whilst I understand some will never be happy unless there is "source" I also understand 99% of people couldn't care less. All this said source will be released when ready. :) Title: Re: delete Post by: michaelmclees on October 11, 2011, 03:52:52 PM The thing is, when someone makes a claim that Bitcoin is secure, it is believable because we know that people, you included, are able to see the source code and make sense of it, even if we can't.
With SC2, no one is even able to make that claim, let alone verify it. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:53:24 PM Sorry but, no centralization can be good. Look around you man!!! Look around me? Sure I look around me and see how centralization helps in some ways and hinders in many other ways. If you're of the belief that ANY centralization at all is bad/evil/etc then we'll have to disagree. I know there are people out there with strong values on such things and there is no amount of arguing one way or the other that way change the mindset. It's good we live in a world where you can have something to support like BTC which has your values whilst others can support something else. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 03:54:48 PM Start trading SolidCoin 2 https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD Spamming your exchange makes me want to use it less. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 03:55:17 PM The thing is, when someone makes a claim that Bitcoin is secure, it is believable because we know that people, you included, are able to see the source code and make sense of it, even if we can't. With SC2, no one is even able to make that claim, let alone verify it. That's not entirely true, good programmers also understand ASM and can reverse engineer from that. Might make it a little harder than having source but it's possible. Look at Microsoft for instance and their vulns. If you think Bitcoin is secure you haven't read or understood the source code. I think you'll even find gavin say he's not sure on things like this. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 03:56:15 PM Seriously, are you that brain dead? It is 5% of SC minted. If you think I'm the type of person to defraud thousands of people whilst I have assets and a family then it shows you don't know me and are making stupid decisions. Coupled with your inability to tell 10% from 5% it completes the puzzle doesn't it? This would all be a lot simpler if you released code, you know. Can you blame us for our ignorance of SC's workings, when the only information we have is that which you have given us? What does source code do ? If you could understand all I've written why haven't you written it? Why have I discovered many vulnerabilities in Bitcoin over my course of refactoring the source? It proves beyond a doubt that people do not read the source code, or at least, do not understand it, and the Bitcoin code has been out there for a while. In the end if you're not an advanced programmer you'll be relying on experts to "break it down" for you, right? 99% of End users couldn't care less about how SolidCoin or Bitcoin works. They want simple things. Things like fast transactions, secure networking, easy to use developer environments and many even want a small central organization to help protect the more vulnerable members in the community. I spent 3 hours today waiting for 3 confirmations in bitcoin. 3 hours. So whilst I understand some will never be happy unless there is "source" I also understand 99% of people couldn't care less. All this said source will be released when ready. :) fast transactions, secure networking, blah blah... Can be done without any kind of centralization... Please... What are your intentions!!! Tell us the truth, RELEASE THE CODE!! Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 03:57:31 PM What does source code do ? You realize that almost everything we know about the functioning of Bitcoin comes from the source code, right? If you could understand all I've written why haven't you written it? Why have I discovered many vulnerabilities in Bitcoin over my course of refactoring the source? If you could understand Bitcoin so well, why did you not write it? *facepalm* It proves beyond a doubt that people do not read the source code, or at least, do not understand it, and the Bitcoin code has been out there for a while. In the end if you're not an advanced programmer you'll be relying on experts to "break it down" for you, right? I am a programmer. Maybe not advanced enough to write Bitcoin, but enough to get a general idea of what it's doing. 99% of End users couldn't care less about how SolidCoin or Bitcoin works. They want simple things. Things like fast transactions, secure networking, easy to use developer environments and many even want a small central organization to help protect the more vulnerable members in the community. I spent 3 hours today waiting for 3 confirmations in bitcoin. 3 hours. "Blah blah blah, my target audience is the ignorant, blah blah blah" So whilst I understand some will never be happy unless there is "source" I also understand 99% of people couldn't care less. All this said source will be released when ready. :) How can the code not be ready if it's running a production system? That doesn't inspire confidence. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:07:07 PM How can the code not be ready if it's running a production system? That doesn't inspire confidence. I see you live in lala open source world where everyone is writing source for the utopia project. In case you're unaware there are many trolls abound with no skills who like to copy things. It's mainly to annoy them so they can't start their little "I have 51% protected chain tooo like SolidCoiiiiiiin" before we've established SC as the only chain with said security features. That is what I mean by "Ready". The thousands of people who have downloaded the client didn't need source to run it. How many wouldn't run it unless it had source? 5? 10? 100? Not very many is it. I'm not like most people who contribute in the open source industry, my background is closed source, high end applications which were and still are run by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. I'm more of a realist I guess you can say and look at ways to maximize user acceptance more than elitist open source developers. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:12:36 PM How can the code not be ready if it's running a production system? That doesn't inspire confidence. I see you live in lala open source world where everyone is writing source for the utopia project. In case you're unaware there are many trolls abound with no skills who like to copy things. It's mainly to annoy them so they can't start their little "I have 51% protected chain tooo like SolidCoiiiiiiin" before we've established SC as the only chain with said security features. That is what I mean by "Ready". Wait, So you copy most of the Bitcoin code to gain your own SC audience And refuse to release your code, to prevent others from doing the same. You're right about one thing though, Quote In case you're unaware there are many trolls abound with no skills who like to copy things. Title: Re: delete Post by: MaGNeT on October 11, 2011, 04:13:59 PM Start trading SolidCoin 2 https://btc-e.com/sc_exchanger SC / BTC https://btc-e.com/sc_usd_exchanger SC / USD I like your exchange and I use it for some coins. But you can't expect people to buy coins while one person has mined 10,000 US$ worth of coins (250k SC) in 24 hours. I don't think people like to trade a coin from a chain that will be restarted sooner or later. This chain is dead, I advice not to buy/sell until the restart... Hmm, maybe better to stop this nonsense completely... SC2 will never be safe without programmers who know what they do (people like ArtForz). Source is not open, we can't even tell what more unknown vulnerabilities are in this client / network / chain. And as long as the creator has a button to stop this all, I wouldn't invest a single 0.01$ in it. You can loose it all... If CuntHunter really wants to save this coin, he releases the sourcecode and let some pro's fix it for him. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 04:18:56 PM So CoinHunter, what are the requirements to become a trusted node?
Title: Re: delete Post by: WiseOldOwl on October 11, 2011, 04:19:11 PM My 2 cents.
CH can do whatever he wants, and so can you. Why do people care if he does one thing or another? All that should do is maybe change your decision to get involved or not. Title: Re: delete Post by: Matoking on October 11, 2011, 04:20:35 PM This has to be one of the funniest events I've had the chance to observe. I wish I had bought some popcorn.
Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:22:08 PM So you copy most of the Bitcoin code to gain your own SC audience And refuse to release your code, to prevent others from doing the same. You're right about one thing though, In case you're unaware this is exactly what Satoshi wanted. People to be able to take his Bitcoin source and make something like SolidCoin. That is why he put it under the license he did. So you're in denial if you don't realize this is exactly what he wanted going forward and why he dropped out of his project. Just because Bitcoin was built like it was doesn't mean SolidCoin has to be. GPL is the license you are 'thinking' of and Satoshi had every opportunity to put it under that, I'm sure many pressured him too, but he didn't, and for good reason. Bitcoin isn't good enough, he knew it, everyone else is starting to realize it (BTC price) and at this stage SolidCoin is leading the pack of cryptocurrencies when it comes to features and security. You may not want to believe it for various reasons, but deep down you probably know it. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:29:16 PM My 2 cents. CH can do whatever he wants, and so can you. Why do people care if he does one thing or another? All that should do is maybe change your decision to get involved or not. If one makes claims about their alt-chain, they're going to be asked to substantiate his claims. If they cant/refuses, that's a red-flag that other potential users should be informed of. It is no suprise that many people on these forums will persist until all the evidence comes to light. What you're asking "Why do you care what he does" could also be applied to the Marketplace forums: "Why care if someone is a scammer? Why go through all that fuss to let others know? All that should do is maybe change your decision to get involved or not." While I wouldn't call CH a scammer in the traditional sense, he is advocating people spend their resources (time/electricity) mining his chain (of which he gets a direct 5%) by making grand, as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims. I would hope this forum never loses an aggressive pursuit of full-disclosure. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 04:29:25 PM So you copy most of the Bitcoin code to gain your own SC audience And refuse to release your code, to prevent others from doing the same. You're right about one thing though, In case you're unaware this is exactly what Satoshi wanted. People to be able to take his Bitcoin source and make something like SolidCoin. That is why he put it under the license he did. So you're in denial if you don't realize this is exactly what he wanted going forward and why he dropped out of his project. Just because Bitcoin was built like it was doesn't mean SolidCoin has to be. GPL is the license you are 'thinking' of and Satoshi had every opportunity to put it under that, I'm sure many pressured him too, but he didn't, and for good reason. Bitcoin isn't good enough, he knew it, everyone else is starting to realize it (BTC price) and at this stage SolidCoin is leading the pack of cryptocurrencies when it comes to features and security. You may not want to believe it for various reasons, but deep down you probably know it. So, if Solidcoin is based on Bitcoin code, WHY YOU BLAME SO HARD BITCOIN IN FIRST PLACE?!?!? Even when Bitcoin is running really fine...?? Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 11, 2011, 04:29:56 PM ...my background is closed source, high end applications which were and still are run by hundreds of thousands of people around the world... Most likely you are an OK programmer as part of a team, but you have to be fed tasks by a project lead to get anything worthwhile done. It doesn't take the same mindset or aptitude to be a good designer. Few people can do both, you are not one of them. Designing a new BitCoin isn't going to be something you are good at, it's not something most people would be good at either so don't feel too bad. Give up and do something more worthwhile as SolidCoin just isn't going to work. Go spend some time with your friends or family and give up on this nonsense. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:34:07 PM So, if Solidcoin is based on Bitcoin code, WHY YOU BLAME SO HARD BITCOIN IN FIRST PLACE?!?!? Even when Bitcoin is running really fine...?? I really like the Bitcoin idea, don't get me wrong. When I first heard about it I was excited. It was only when I started to develop sites using it, then read the source code that i realized I could never do anything serious with it. After talking to some BTC people and having all my suggestions thrown out I realized there was only one way to realize that goal. And here we are. Title: Re: delete Post by: CoinHunter on October 11, 2011, 04:36:06 PM ...my background is closed source, high end applications which were and still are run by hundreds of thousands of people around the world... Most likely you are an OK programmer as part of a team, but you have to be fed tasks by a project lead to get anything worthwhile done. It doesn't take the same mindset or aptitude to be a good designer. Few people can do both, you are not one of them. Designing a new BitCoin isn't going to be something you are good at, it's not something most people would be good at either so don't feel too bad. Give up and do something more worthwhile as SolidCoin just isn't going to work. Go spend some time with your friends or family and give up on this nonsense. If you are serious what are you basing this on? SC2.0 is the leader of the pack now, and the gap will only get wider. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 04:37:34 PM So you copy most of the Bitcoin code to gain your own SC audience And refuse to release your code, to prevent others from doing the same. You're right about one thing though, ...this is exactly what Satoshi wanted... why he put it under the license he did... what he wanted ..why he dropped out... ...but he didn't, and for good reason ... he knew it Wow, you know a whole lot about what Satoshi was thinking. Infact you seem infatuated with gaining his endorsement somehow. In case your unaware, no amount of propaganda on your part will turn your idea of an alt-chain into a success. Beside any technical details, you're too polarizing of an individual to gather majority acceptance. And remember, that's beside the technical details. Deep down you probably know that SC 2.0 is fubar and your last-ditch effort is to spin it as "working as intended... it's not a bug, it's a feature". Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 11, 2011, 04:41:56 PM If you are serious what are you basing this on? SC2.0 is the leader of the pack now, and the gap will only get wider. Either pride is causing you refuse to back down or you are actually delusional. SC2 was mined to hell at low difficulty and that devalued the mining work of the poor SC1 users to practically nothing. You attempted a really difficult task with way too much confidence and screwed up. We are all human and do really dumb things from time to time. Refusing to learn and move on turns 1 stupid thing into 2 stupid things. Title: Re: delete Post by: fivebells on October 11, 2011, 04:45:05 PM 300 posts in 13 hours!!!
The troll is strong in this one. Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 11, 2011, 04:54:19 PM There is no bugs causing this to not work as intended, never has been so far just as there has been no "attacks" (that succeeded at least). So my amazement is what level of comprehension ineptitude do you really have? Or are you just wearing your Leather Doosh-hat that gives +20 to trolling? Lemon Party man, Blocks a few seconds apart are wrong. The difficulty adjustment routine is Broken As Designed and that breakage devalued the work the SC1 miners put in to nearly worthless. No attacks? Pah! It self destructed and you are looking at the wreckage and claiming there is no problem. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:01:38 PM My next question is this:
If SC 2.0 handles rising difficulty so poorly, how is it going to handle falling difficulty? Didn't SC 1.0 suffer 2week blocks after the Title: Re: delete Post by: caish5 on October 11, 2011, 05:08:05 PM My next question is this: The MAIN FEATURE of SC1 was the fast responding difficulty. That continues in SC2.If SC 2.0 handles rising difficulty so poorly, how is it going to handle falling difficulty? Didn't SC 1.0 suffer 2week blocks after the Obviously the slow rising difficulty continues too. So in answer to your question......Just Fine Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:13:30 PM My next question is this: The MAIN FEATURE of SC1 was the fast responding difficulty. That continues in SC2.If SC 2.0 handles rising difficulty so poorly, how is it going to handle falling difficulty? Didn't SC 1.0 suffer 2week blocks after the Obviously the slow rising difficulty continues too. So in answer to your question......Just Fine 12hrs in, 17k blocks found, and it's still at 6s/blk? If it's retargeting every 240 blocks, that's 70 'adjustments' it's had, and still can't break 10s/blk. My question remains. Title: Re: delete Post by: norulezapply on October 11, 2011, 05:15:17 PM Bitcoin isn't good enough, he knew it, everyone else is starting to realize it (BTC price) and at this stage SolidCoin is leading the pack of cryptocurrencies when it comes to features and security. HAHAHAHA. "SolidCoin is leading the pack of cryptocurrencies". Open your fucking eyes buddy. This is hilarious. No-one is taking your shit-coin seriously any time soon. Also, you mention BTC price. By that logic, shit-coin is about 400x less respected than bitcoin. Good job buddy. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 05:15:28 PM Block rate is what it should be for the amount of mining being thrown at the network for the difficulty. Difficulty adjust not broken, working as expected and is slowing the block rate as it should, no more or less broken than any other cryptocurrency. "Devalued" the work the SC1 miners put in.... really? now that's rich since they would have gotten nothing had it not been for the steps coinhunter took to bootstrap the 2 chains together so devalued? I think not, at least not today, but let's reevaluate that FUD in a year when it means more. http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 05:18:48 PM Block rate is what it should be for the amount of mining being thrown at the network for the difficulty. Difficulty adjust not broken, working as expected and is slowing the block rate as it should, no more or less broken than any other cryptocurrency. "Devalued" the work the SC1 miners put in.... really? now that's rich since they would have gotten nothing had it not been for the steps coinhunter took to bootstrap the 2 chains together so devalued? I think not, at least not today, but let's reevaluate that FUD in a year when it means more. http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg Rofl. Perfect. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:30:44 PM Now let's finish the math... at a 10 to 15% capped increase.... the first many adjustments were up by single digit values.... now we are in the double digit increases. Go back home and pull out your math book and turn to the section on percentages again johny For reference, Bitcoin difficulty increased by 1800% (~100k ->1.8m) between April-August, which took ~15 difficulty adjustments, while still maintaining rough target block generation. SC 2.0 has yet to even reach target block generation after 70 adjustments - it's still only 1/17th of where it should be. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 05:34:02 PM Why do you insist on providing proof that you don't understand basic simple % calculations? You talking to me, or to SC 2.0? ;D Title: Re: delete Post by: Mousepotato on October 11, 2011, 05:46:38 PM It's funny watching everybody fight while the Titanic sinks.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 05:56:27 PM There seems to be a flaw in the difficulty logic. (At least it seems like it to me.)
If as CoinHunter said, the difficult increases slowly in response to increases in MHash/s, and the difficulty decreases quickly in response to decreases in MHash/s. Then you have a different kind of 51% attack that people are not used to. If one were to "strobe" massive hashing power based upon difficulty increment periods. You could effectively reduce difficulty drastically, for a given fixed hashing power. So in period A, the attacker goes full blast driving up difficulty 2X. Then in period B, the attacker stops hashing totally. If difficulty falls more than the previous 2X rise, the new current difficulty will be lower than before the attack began. Wash, rinse, repeat. Title: Re: delete Post by: makomk on October 11, 2011, 06:40:38 PM There's only been about 220K coins generated since going live. To be honest I didn't expect us to reach 1200+ nodes within 18 hours of operation, seems SolidCoin is outpacing my own expectations. With hindsight I would have started the chain at a higher difficulty. I should have time tomorrow to upload the new algorithm to the website, so stay tuned to our forum or site if you're interested. Ah, I see. For those wanting to do their own calculations, it would appear that only odd-numbered blocks are actually mined. Even-numbered blocks are created by some kind of trusted node or something and pay 3.2 SC to RealSolid's CPF in place of the usual generation payout. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 06:43:16 PM The trusted nodes are where the "51% proof" comes from. Another name for them would be the central authority.
In theory anyone can be one if they meet the networks requirements, but CH/RS has ducked every time anyone asked what those are. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 11, 2011, 06:50:00 PM The trusted nodes are where the "51% proof" comes from. Another name for them would be the central authority. In theory anyone can be one if they meet the networks requirements, but CH/RS has ducked every time anyone asked what those are. The sources will be published, just some more patience... Title: Re: delete Post by: magik on October 11, 2011, 06:54:25 PM Now let's finish the math... at a 10 to 15% capped increase.... the first many adjustments were up by single digit values.... now we are in the double digit increases. Go back home and pull out your math book and turn to the section on percentages again johny For reference, Bitcoin difficulty increased by 1800% (~100k ->1.8m) between April-August, which took ~15 difficulty adjustments, while still maintaining rough target block generation. SC 2.0 has yet to even reach target block generation after 70 adjustments - it's still only 1/17th of where it should be. Why do you insist on providing proof that you don't understand basic simple % calculations? My next question is this: The MAIN FEATURE of SC1 was the fast responding difficulty. That continues in SC2.If SC 2.0 handles rising difficulty so poorly, how is it going to handle falling difficulty? Didn't SC 1.0 suffer 2week blocks after the Obviously the slow rising difficulty continues too. So in answer to your question......Just Fine 12hrs in, 17k blocks found, and it's still at 6s/blk? If it's retargeting every 240 blocks, that's 70 'adjustments' it's had, and still can't break 10s/blk. My question remains. So hold on, let me get this straight, I'd like you to show me how % increase is working right now? What's the difficulty right now? Here's my calculation of 70 max adjustments starting from difficulty 1: http://www.google.com/search?q=1*1.15^70 1 * 1.15^70 = 17735.72 so using max % adjustments for difficulty, difficulty should currently be at 17k difficulty.... what is it at right now? So let's use the "max" as 10% instead: 1 * (1.10^70) = 789.746957 hrm... still 789 there... what's the difficulty right now? unless someone is doing a massive strobing of hash power at each retarget, then I just don't see how the difficulty is correctly increasing... someone correct my calculations, I don't know the exact state of things, just read through this thread Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 06:54:38 PM The sources will be published, just some more patience... Do you mind if I ask what reason you have to place so much trust in CoinHunter/RealSolid? Satoshi did not ask nor want that any trust be placed in him, the code was open from day one. Title: Re: delete Post by: magik on October 11, 2011, 06:57:29 PM The sources will be published, just some more patience... Do you mind if I ask what reason you have to place so much trust in CoinHunter/RealSolid? Satoshi did not ask nor want that any trust be placed in him, the code was open from day one. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 06:59:06 PM The trusted nodes are where the "51% proof" comes from. Another name for them would be the central authority. In theory anyone can be one if they meet the networks requirements, but CH/RS has ducked every time anyone asked what those are. Yup. In related news the US treasury is immune to 51% attack. Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 07:01:12 PM Diff is at 2791 now... indicating somewhere between your 10% and 15%.... try 13%, I think I read that somewhere as the "official" number. Yup, the only thing broken in diff adjustment is its design. But otherwise it "works" as intended.Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 07:04:58 PM Ah, I see. For those wanting to do their own calculations, it would appear that only odd-numbered blocks are actually mined. Even-numbered blocks are created by some kind of trusted node or something and pay 3.2 SC to RealSolid's CPF in place of the usual generation payout. That's actually pretty darn clever! He has created a trivial implementation of a vector clock. Basically the "trusted nodes" are really time keepers marking what happened in what order. I'm assuming they are known in number and non-anonymous nodes. In the case of a network partitioning (intensional or otherwise) the known trusted nodes have to be partitioned as well. In this case, since you know the total number of trusted nodes, you have an additional piece of information to use in reconciling chain forks. The number of trusted nodes marking time on each fork. This defines the center of the SolidCoin universe. If 90% of the trusted nodes are marking time on one fork, and you are hammering a fork with 10% of trusted nodes marking time, you will probably lose when the partitioned networks recombine. But fortunately, for you, that should become apparent as you see timekeepers drop off your chain. Title: Re: delete Post by: Caesium on October 11, 2011, 07:14:23 PM Diff is at 2791 now... indicating somewhere between your 10% and 15%.... try 13%, I think I read that somewhere as the "official" number. And I have repeatedly said to johny that it is between 10 and 15 % Max adjustment upwards is 13%. Retarget occurs every 360 blocks. Difficulty started at 8 but the first retarget was actually down, to 6.03 if I remember rightly (due to the genesis block being generated quite far into the past). Title: Re: delete Post by: magik on October 11, 2011, 07:15:50 PM Diff is at 2791 now... indicating somewhere between your 10% and 15%.... try 13%, I think I read that somewhere as the "official" number. Yup, the only thing broken in diff adjustment is its design. But otherwise it "works" as intended.If the initial difficulty was 10, the difficulty right now would be 10x what it is now. If it started at 100 it would be 100x what is now. This was probably an unplanned problem due to the variables stated above. The only problem I see with having the hard 10-15% difficulty increase cap is the chain does not adjust well to large amounts of processing power being added. That coupled with the uneven % increases in the negative direction, and the "attack" mentioned a few posts back of strobing/throttling a large botnet onto the chain seem like it could become a problem. Not so much a huge problem, just that a large amount of processing power could be used on the chain for a longer amount of time due to the retargetting scheme - which would mean potential attackers could "harvest" more out of the chain without affecting the difficulty as much. I also don't think the huge # of stales at the start was an attack. It more sounds like the extremely low difficulty of 1 coupled with a huge influx of unexpected miners caused a lot more problems than expected. If you are generating a block every 1s - it's going to be real hard to keep the whole network on the same chain. Propogation time alone of the blocks would probably take longer than generating a new block - and that was more the main issue it seems at the start of this chain. As for central authority and % skimming of generated blocks that's a whole other issue not related to security, and more related to trust and design. As people have been posting, that really is an issue with trust and with who controls that wallet. Claims of 51% attack preventions - I don't believe there is enough evidence or proof here to refute or back up those claims. But I'd be wary of assuming this is true without proof. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to say it's not there.... There is no proof for either side to be true, just claims that their side is true.... Show me a 51% network control double spend and I'll believe it doesn't have protection, or show us/explain to us the code of how a 51% attack couldn't succeed. But without proof on either side my bias would be to assume it isn't true because there's no gain, only potential loss by assuming it is true without proof. edit: difficulty started at 8? or you could think of it as difficulty starting at 6.03 after first retarget? 6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688 Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 11, 2011, 07:20:30 PM The trusted nodes are where the "51% proof" comes from. Another name for them would be the central authority. In theory anyone can be one if they meet the networks requirements, but CH/RS has ducked every time anyone asked what those are. My guess is the 'network requirements' are that every second block has to be signed by some king of magic private key. Of course that would be terrible design as the key will leak sooner or later but I can't think of any other way of getting trusted super nodes to contribute to the block chain in the way SC2 seems to have done. Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 07:26:34 PM And why start difficulty at 8 instead of, say, 1000? Well, gifts for all fanboys 24/7 on IRC ready to start mining from second 0.
You can't at the same time say you're spreading early coins amongst "thousands" of early adopters and be surprised that a difficulty of 8 gives super fast blocks. Title: Re: delete Post by: Caesium on October 11, 2011, 07:27:53 PM And why start difficulty at 8 instead of, say, 1000? Well, gifts for all fanboys 24/7 on IRC ready to start mining from second 0. You can't at the same time say you're spreading early coins amongst "thousands" of early adopters and be surprised that a difficulty of 8 gives super fast blocks. Yeah great gift. 99% of all generations were invalid for the first hours anyway. I think the difficulty was started too low. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 07:28:47 PM Someone must be gaming the difficulty. Maybe the "pulsing attack" others have mentioned.
Difficulty adjusts ever 240 blocks (2 per day, 3 minute target block = 240 blocks per 12 hours). I am showing 17873 blocks and difficulty of 2791 Initial difficulty was 8. 17873 / 240 = 74 adjustments (truncating the fraction) The network has continually been behind the 3 minute target so every adjustment should be max upward. If max adjust is 10%. 8 * 1.10^74 = 9205 If max adjust is 13%. 8 * 1.13^74 = 67,747 If max adjust is 15%. 8 * 1.15^74 = 248,159 Actual difficulty after 17873 blocks (74 adjustments) is 2791 (a mere 348x original difficulty). What gives? Title: Re: delete Post by: Caesium on October 11, 2011, 07:30:19 PM Difficulty adjusts ever 240 blocks (2 per day, 3 minute target block = 240 blocks per 12 hours). 360. The target is 2-3 minutes (no I'm not sure what this means either, but anyone running the sc2 client can plainly see the difficulty change every 360 blocks). Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 11, 2011, 07:32:36 PM Yeah great gift. 99% of all generations were invalid for the first hours anyway. There were lots of invalid blocks, but only because valid blocks (thus valid SCs) were being created so fast.I think the difficulty was started too low. On this we agree.Title: Re: delete Post by: Red on October 11, 2011, 07:42:34 PM My guess is the 'network requirements' are that every second block has to be signed by some king of magic private key. Of course that would be terrible design as the key will leak sooner or later but I can't think of any other way of getting trusted super nodes to contribute to the block chain in the way SC2 seems to have done. I don't think it requires a common key. It does seem to require making a donation to the central fund though. Assuming anyone could participate as a trusted peer if they wanted, then you have the following dynamic.Fork A: One hundred independent trusted peers interspersing donations between 1000 generated blocks, means 10 donations each. Fork B: One clandestine group interspersing donations between 1000 generated blocks, means 1000 donations. Perhaps that is the disincentive? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 07:49:33 PM You've been brewing over this all day with no break through, yet Magik here does the work and figures it out independently and you still fail to see the obvious? And I don't think Magik has been spending hours wrestling with the concept.... heck I discovered the every other block thing that you all are up in arms about in beta through empirical observation... didn't even need the block explorer or the source code to do it.... so what really is your problem? This answer? 6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688 I give a Magik a +1 for remember the first difficulty drop and working off that 6 w/ one less transition. Only one small problem.... Difficulty isn't 27,578 right now. Other than that small glitch your right, it makes perfect sense. Speaking of that difficulty drop.... WHY DID IT HAPPEN? The first 360 blocks occured w/ average time of 2.2 seconds per block vs target of 360 seconds yet difficulty went down. Got an answer for that one? Since it is so easy and nobody needs source code anyways. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 07:56:22 PM You've been brewing over this all day with no break through, yet Magik here does the work and figures it out independently and you still fail to see the obvious? And I don't think Magik has been spending hours wrestling with the concept.... heck I discovered the every other block thing that you all are up in arms about in beta through empirical observation... didn't even need the block explorer or the source code to do it.... so what really is your problem? This answer? 6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688 Only one small problem.... Difficulty isn't 27,578 right now. Other than that small glitch your right, it makes perfect sense. In case he refutes that's the answer Magik came up with... edit: difficulty started at 8? or you could think of it as difficulty starting at 6.03 after first retarget? 6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688 Title: Re: delete Post by: Caesium on October 11, 2011, 08:01:54 PM Speaking of that difficulty drop.... WHY DID IT HAPPEN? The first 360 blocks occured w/ average time of 2.2 seconds per block vs target of 360 seconds yet difficulty went down. Got an answer for that one? Since it is so easy and nobody needs source code anyways. You actually going to read any of my posts? The answer is above. Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 11, 2011, 08:20:11 PM If you could understand all I've written why haven't you written it? If you can understand English, why haven't you written the complete works of Shakespeare and Chaucer? Nice try, mongo. It's funny watching everybody fight while the Titanic sinks. The titanic isn't a good analogy. This is more like a 12' aluminum fishing boat sinking in the middle of a lake while the two drunk hillbillies in it wrestle each other over the last beer, both drowning in the process. ...you want to help, but you can't stop laughing long enough to catch your breath and swim out there. Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation. Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 08:42:01 PM Diff is at 2791 now... indicating somewhere between your 10% and 15%.... try 13%, I think I read that somewhere as the "official" number. Yup, the only thing broken in diff adjustment is its design. But otherwise it "works" as intended.What is worse: 1) A possibility of a 51% attack OR: 2) CoinHunter being the POLICE of your entire economy??! (and earning 10% of all coins to himself!!) LOL Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 09:03:35 PM Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation. As you can see, it was good moderation. BitcoinEXpress never attacked anything. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.It is ok to warn people of an attack. It's ok to disclose details about the attack before, during, or after the attack has been done. It is not ok lie about an attack. That's just trolling. At the current rate over 1 million coins will have been mined in the first day. What do you think that just did to the value of Solid Coin 1.0 coins? C) crushing attack that EXploited a design flaw.I see what you did there. :) my tribute since they banned him because maged get mad at him that he was actually winning. Yeah, I thought the ban was unwarranted. If Maged wanted to ban someone, there's a much better target that's trolling all these threads. Yeah totally unfair, i hope i don't get banned for civil disagreement with maged. From what i can tell maged got angry and magically somehow knew that bcx couldnt be responsible for what he said he was going to do, even he said before he did it. maged said no way bcx had that many server machines, maybe maged dont understand EC2 is not physical machines but instances in the cloud and some companies have unlimited access. yes bcx was not being abusive to anyone especially maged. dont understand it. anyway, its clear what the conclusion is. I understand EC2 just fine. I also understand that his company would have been charged about $100/hour for 400 instances, even on a contract (I don't know the exact amounts because he didn't say the types of instances). If I was just basing my opinion off of this thread, I would not have done anything. However, there's also the namecoin threat. The simple reality is that his statements didn't add up. I for one would have appreciated if 'banning' (and other implications) wasn't thrown around so easily by a Mod, especially with just minutes of room for explanation. Seeing as how there are numerous other reports of the blockchain growing peculiarly fast, I imagine it'd be beneficial to discovery for the alleged perpetrator to be active in this discussion. All he needed to do was disclose his attack. He didn't. Even now there's no evidence that an attack ever happened.Though I can see dealing with a personality like BCX could be tricky for a Mod, I think Maged dropped the ball on this one. No big deal really in the grand scheme of things (no one bats 1.0), just my opinion. Finally, I'm not even sure if he's banned. Only theymos can ban people, and he hasn't gotten back to me yet on his decision. If you look at his profile, he was at least still able to post for a hour or two after you guys started claiming that the attack was real. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 09:08:06 PM I understand EC2 just fine. I also understand that his company would have been charged about $100/hour for 400 instances, even on a contract (I don't know the exact amounts because he didn't say the types of instances). Last night price of small instance was $0.08 per hour. 400 instances would be only $32. Amazon offers free computing time to repeat customers (I have 8000 hours of small instance time and I doubt I am what they consider a big spender). They also offer volume discounts for major company buys. Spot pricing was $0.025 per hour and looks like EC2 had almost 120 instances at that price (possible they could have had more earlier). 400 instances @ spot would have been $10 per hour. Not sure where you are getting $100 per hour from? He may not have had 400 instances but one could easily run 400 instances for <$32 possibly even free. Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 11, 2011, 09:14:29 PM Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation. As you can see, it was good moderation. BitcoinEXpress never attacked anything. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.It is ok to warn people of an attack. It's ok to disclose details about the attack before, during, or after the attack has been done. It is not ok lie about an attack. That's just trolling. He didn't attack anything? I really don't know, and after reading this whole thread, I still don't know. No one has proven anything one way or the other, at least not clearly enough for poor ole' me to get it. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 09:41:09 PM Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation. As you can see, it was good moderation. BitcoinEXpress never attacked anything. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.It is ok to warn people of an attack. It's ok to disclose details about the attack before, during, or after the attack has been done. It is not ok lie about an attack. That's just trolling. Finally, I'm not even sure if he's banned. Only theymos can ban people, and he hasn't gotten back to me yet on his decision. If you look at his profile, he was at least still able to post for a hour or two after you guys started claiming that the attack was real. @Maged Solidcoin 2.0 uses a variable block generation time (really stupid) I just found a way to crank it up at will. Having the resouces I do I was able to take the beta client and put in a test environment. I discovered if you hit Sc 2.0 at the onset hard it cannot readjust block rate regardless of difficulty LOL So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D Dumbass coding supreme. It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 09:56:49 PM Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !?
Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 11, 2011, 10:00:12 PM Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !? Holy shit, now there are nine japanese conspirators? Title: Re: delete Post by: ThiagoCMC on October 11, 2011, 10:01:07 PM Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !? Comedy is this new centralized cryptocurrency called Solidcoin!!! LOL Impossible to trust this. It isn't even P2P anymore!!! Anyway, go 4 it! Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 10:02:42 PM Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !? Holy shit, now there are nine japanese conspirators? Soon there might be 10 ;) ;D Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 11, 2011, 10:04:48 PM It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases. The argument from the SolidCoin camp is that this is due to a continuous increase in the number of legitimate users, as SolidCoin continues on its trajectory to replace Bitcoin! Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 11, 2011, 10:17:52 PM Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !? Holy shit, now there are nine japanese conspirators? Soon there might be 10 ;) ;D Ask too many questions and you just might make the list... Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 10:54:58 PM blah blah blah You certainly come across as someone who is jealous and I advise you to take your own advice, if you can put up "Proof" that BCX was lying, in spite of the fact A LOT of very knowledgeable including ArtForz has said he has the ability, blah blah blah I also have the ability to break some knee caps with my baseball bat, but that doesn't mean I broke any... Yes, it was outright bullshiting and Maged was spot on. Title: Re: delete Post by: magik on October 11, 2011, 10:57:44 PM If you can prove, like you said, Then STFU and quit bullying people with your MOD status. Yes it was out right bullying and RandyFolds is spot on. Personally I believe that BCX has the ability to do this. Has he actually done anything? That I'm unsure about. If BCX can successfully do a 51% double spend - then I'd love to see the transaction history of that occurring. Personally I don't think the onus is on Maged to proove that he didn't attack... I think the onus is on BCX to proove that he did do an attack. Or that whoever made SC needs to proove that no attack has taken place... Unless I'm wrong in assuming that Maged has nothing to do officially with SC? And all of this attack vector stuff - if SC was as big as BTC, then would a 51% attack really be feasible? I think it's a bit of apples to oranges to compare BTC to SC at the usage/acceptance rates they are experiencing is vastly different. I really don't think what I've heard of SC describes something that I would "invest" in or follow, the solutions to the problems that SC has offered doesn't really solve the problems in an acceptable fashion. One of the key points of BTC is it's decentralized nature - and this is one of the things SC has had to compromise to protect against a 51% attack. That compromise alone in my mind defeats the very nature of BTC. As a cryptocurrency SC may be very valid and may have a use, but as a decentralized cryptocurrency it does not. Who controls these "trusted nodes"? Why do they have trusts? Why should I trust this unknown anonymous central authority? I still havn't seen a single alternative BTC chain that has something useful, actually useful to offer. BTC is hardly useful in itself right now, and yet it seems everyone is spending their energy trying to beat BTC.... I think what people need to do first is get BTC to a more generally accepted place. If design considerations are a problem holding BTC from gaining that widespread usage, then I may try to hop on some alternative chain. But the only reason to do that would be that chain has some sort of feature that would allow more widespread usage. Maybe there are uses for side-by-side alt chains, but in my mind the usage cases for these things is much smaller and much more focused and niche-like. Things like faster block generation in my mind are good for things like confirmations - near-instant confirmations. What is it that SC has to offer feature wise that makes it so much better than BTC? And at what cost? Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 11:00:37 PM Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation. As you can see, it was good moderation. BitcoinEXpress never attacked anything. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.It is ok to warn people of an attack. It's ok to disclose details about the attack before, during, or after the attack has been done. It is not ok lie about an attack. That's just trolling. Finally, I'm not even sure if he's banned. Only theymos can ban people, and he hasn't gotten back to me yet on his decision. If you look at his profile, he was at least still able to post for a hour or two after you guys started claiming that the attack was real. @Maged Solidcoin 2.0 uses a variable block generation time (really stupid) I just found a way to crank it up at will. Having the resouces I do I was able to take the beta client and put in a test environment. I discovered if you hit Sc 2.0 at the onset hard it cannot readjust block rate regardless of difficulty LOL So as long as I keep cloning EC2 instances and pouring it on, cha-ching! ;D ;D ;D Dumbass coding supreme. It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases. The reason for this misunderstanding is simple: CH is a dumbass. Not just a regular dumbass, but a retarded one. BCX made it seem like there was more to his attack than he let on, but really his whole "attack" was simply mining normally at a smart time. It was really stupid of me not to recognize that. Luckily, my earlier reaction holds true: See, that makes no logical sense. Thus, either the code was made by a dumbass (which, I admit, isn't out of the question), or you're lying through your teeth. I apologize for letting the SolidCoin supporters sway my opinion and even make me do something quite wrong. Trust me, that will NEVER happen again. I don't care what family issues CH has, he doesn't deserve to call himself a software developer. I hope the community can forgive me for this lapse. Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 11, 2011, 11:04:34 PM I'm responding to Maged the user and hope you don't retaliate with as a mod. BitcoinEXpress made it clear he had free usgae of EC2 for months now, this isn't new and his use of them isnt new either. Just ask Lolcust or Coblee who runs Fairbrix. BCX made it clear before he did what he did, what was going to happen and it did. You certainly come across as someone who is jealous and I advise you to take your own advice, if you can put up "Proof" that BCX was lying, in spite of the fact A LOT of very knowledgeable including ArtForz has said he has the ability, If you can prove, like you said, Then STFU and quit bullying people with your MOD status. Yes it was out right bullying and RandyFolds is spot on. According to BCX, he was the one that attacked Fairbrix. It was a very effective attack. It took him minutes to generates the same number of blocks that the network generated in hours. And his chain wiped out and orphaned the network chain. So if it was really him (no one else has stepped up), he does have a lot of power in his control. And he also told me that his attack was just to test out an attack that he would do on SC2. I can't prove if anything he said was true, but I believe him. I think the banning of BCX was a bit premature. Why does he have to prove that he attacked SC2? And how do you expect him to prove that? Show you a screenshot of a massive amount of solidcoins? Any proof can be faked, right? Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 11:07:10 PM I hope the community can forgive me for this lapse. Like I said, no one bats 1.0, in my eyes you've gained credibility by stepping up and acknowledging a misunderstanding. Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 11, 2011, 11:10:04 PM I keep seeing threads popping up about this guy "threatening" alternate cryptocurrencies. Seen a thread he threatened and then he changed his mind not to.
Has any of these threats come through? As the title says "Solidcoin 2.0 Target Acquired and Terminated". If it is terminated, why is it still being spoke of, that the chain is not doing fine/is doing fine? If it's not terminated, then this guy is full of it? Don't know what to think of this thread. :/. Only cryptocurrency I support is BTC. If you're gonna promise a threat, fulfill it. Otherwise this is just retarded. I haven't seen one thread stating anyone freaking out e.g."I Can't produce SC, OMG what happened?" Please enlighten me. So what the fuck is going on here? Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 11:15:21 PM LOL this thread is too epic. I bet he will be back. It does not matter if you ban him or not etc. He is above the law. He is too busy being 1337 and using his employer's resources to commit crimes on the internet to impress others.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 11:19:58 PM LOL this thread is too epic. I bet he will be back. It does not matter if you ban him or not etc. He is above the law. I hope he will come back. I just emailed and PMed a personal apology to him. Additionally, I have also told him that I will no longer moderate any of his posts or threads. Instead, I'll hit the "report to moderator" button like the rest of you.Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 11, 2011, 11:20:36 PM This forum has the strangest moderation policy I've ever seen...
In most forums one would be banned just by asking why someone else was banned. Why? cause it's a moderator/administrator decision and it's none of your bizwax. To the ones who say that they have more respect for Maged by steping back on his decision and publicly admit it: YOU ARE LYING! All that's gonna happen is, next time he takes another moderation decision you'll just make his life miserable and question him about it, thus showing your complete disrespect for his decisions as a moderator. Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 11, 2011, 11:25:42 PM To the ones who say that they have more respect for Maged by steping back on his decision and publicly admit it: YOU ARE LYING! All that's gonna happen is, next time he takes another moderation decision you'll just make his life miserable and question him about it, thus showing your complete disrespect for acceptance of moderation policies. I sincerely hope they do question my moderation decisions, especially after this. That being said, I would prefer it if you PM me instead of posting publicly, but either is fine with me. As always, theymos is the final arbiter.Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 11, 2011, 11:26:58 PM BEX still hasn't actually proven a damn thing, and has claimed an awful lot.
It wouldn't be hard for him to shift some coins around and show us that he has them. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 11:30:09 PM BEX still hasn't actually proven a damn thing, and has claimed an awful lot. It wouldn't be hard for him to shift some coins around and show us that he has them. He made the assertion that the block generation would never sync up with the difficulty - so far that's been accurate. Either he did it, or he made such a lucky guess he should stop mining and go buy lottery tickets. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 11:35:15 PM I keep seeing threads popping up about this guy "threatening" alternate cryptocurrencies. Seen a thread he threatened and then he changed his mind not to. Has any of these threats come through? As the title says "Solidcoin 2.0 Target Acquired and Terminated". If it is terminated, why is it still being spoke of, that the chain is not doing fine/is doing fine? If it's not terminated, then this guy is full of it? Don't know what to think of this thread. :/. Only cryptocurrency I support is BTC. If you're gonna promise a threat, fulfill it. Otherwise this is just retarded. I haven't seen one thread stating anyone freaking out e.g."I Can't produce SC, OMG what happened?" Please enlighten me. So what the fuck is going on here? Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual. Geist Geld - Two successful attacks Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks. Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit. I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there. This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another. His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry. He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it. Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there. Doesn't sound like BS to me. I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 11, 2011, 11:36:02 PM I manage a very successful forum, and despite sometimes I don't agree with some moderation decisions and I could have the last word on the subject I would never take back on my own a decision a moderator took just because users don't like it , even if the moderator was completely wrong. I would be better just removing moderation powers from the moderator if that was to happen. I for one am thankful the mods here have more humility than to enforce poor decisions. Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 11, 2011, 11:36:39 PM I hope the community can forgive me for this lapse. Like I said, no one bats 1.0, in my eyes you've gained credibility by stepping up and acknowledging a misunderstanding. Agreed. I wasn't trying to be a dick with my comment about it, he just interrupted my soap opera when it was getting really good. To the ones who say that they have more respect for Maged by steping back on his decision and publicly admit it: YOU ARE LYING! All that's gonna happen is, next time he takes another moderation decision you'll just make his life miserable and question him about it, thus showing your complete disrespect for his decisions as a moderator. No, not at all. I don't think people should risk a ban just for disagreeing with a mod. A little oversight never hurt anyone. Title: Re: delete Post by: Deprived on October 11, 2011, 11:36:45 PM BEX still hasn't actually proven a damn thing, and has claimed an awful lot. It wouldn't be hard for him to shift some coins around and show us that he has them. If making a claim without providing proof is reason to be banned, then surely SC should be banned for claiming SC2 is 51% attack-proof but not not offering proof (e.g. the source-code). Note: I DON'T believe making a claim without substantiating it is a reason for banning. I'm not even sure why SC is on here tbh. Bitcoin is an open-source, decentralised, peer-to-peer currency. SC2 is a closed-source, centralised, peer-to-trusted node (which may as well be servers for the non-existent disclosure about them), currency. I guess that it uses cryptography is the only pont of relevance - but when it's not even disclosed what the cryptograph(s) used are then there's really little that can be usefully discussed. In effect it's a commercial product (you can't get much more commercial than taxing currency at creation - irrespective of vague assertions of "good intent" with the taxed proceeds) using this forum for free advertising - with the stated intent of harming the product this forum was designed to support. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 11:38:50 PM I manage a very successful forum, and despite sometimes I don't agree with some moderation decisions and I could have the last word on the subject I would never take back on my own a decision a moderator took just because users don't like it , even if the moderator was completely wrong. I would be better just removing moderation powers from the moderator if that was to happen. I for one am thankful the mods here have more humility than to enforce poor decisions. Me too ;D. Moderation is very good on this forum. Not too strict and not too loose. I for one have taken the role of comic relief in the alternate cryptocurrency subsection and have not got slammed for it ;) Just loving the hate between the SC and BTC people. It really is fun to watch and contribute to this "battle" against the "glorious leader". Good work forum people. Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 11, 2011, 11:44:09 PM BEX still hasn't actually proven a damn thing, and has claimed an awful lot. It wouldn't be hard for him to shift some coins around and show us that he has them. If making a claim without providing proof is reason to be banned, then surely SC should be banned for claiming SC2 is 51% attack-proof but not not offering proof (e.g. the source-code). Note: I DON'T believe making a claim without substantiating it is a reason for banning. I'm not even sure why SC is on here tbh. Bitcoin is an open-source, decentralised, peer-to-peer currency. SC2 is a closed-source, centralised, peer-to-trusted node (which may as well be servers for the non-existent disclosure about them), currency. I guess that it uses cryptography is the only pont of relevance - but when it's not even disclosed what the cryptograph(s) used are then there's really little that can be usefully discussed. In effect it's a commercial product (you can't get much more commercial than taxing currency at creation - irrespective of vague assertions of "good intent" with the taxed proceeds) using this forum for free advertising - with the stated intent of harming the product this forum was designed to support. +1 Well said. Title: Re: delete Post by: Syke on October 11, 2011, 11:46:20 PM If the SolidCoin sources are actually released, then we'll see the real attacks.
Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 11, 2011, 11:47:20 PM If the SolidCoin sources are actually released, then we'll see the real attacks. Sounds plausible. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 11, 2011, 11:57:14 PM I hope the community can forgive me for this lapse. Like I said, no one bats 1.0, in my eyes you've gained credibility by stepping up and acknowledging a misunderstanding. +1. Far more than I expected. Lets face it BCE is a drama queen however his action IMHO are useful in showing the vulnerabilities of crypto-currency. If crypto-currency every handles a non-trivial amount of transactions it will be subject to larger and more sophisticated attacks likely without warning or admission. I respect the fact that Maged took a second look at the issue. BCE pushes many people's "buttons" so an over-reaction regarding him is not unexcepted. A reasonable dialog after the fact was unexpected and most refreshing. Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 12, 2011, 12:08:14 AM Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual. Geist Geld - Two successful attacks Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks. Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit. I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there. This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another. His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry. He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it. Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there. Doesn't sound like BS to me. Thanks for the detailed info and enlightening me. I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. Cool. Nice to see someone not talking out their ass for once. -- On to another few question, if it could be answered by you guys or BitcoinEXpress. Is BitcoinEXpress and his team trying to protect Bitcoin? And is he trying to protect users from being scammed by these alternatives? If so, he and his team has my support. If the above is true, this question here is irrelevant. Wouldn't we all want less miners in Bitcoin to bring the difficulty down? Bringing down these alternative cryptocurrencies are most likely gonna bring/attract these alternative cryptocurrencies users back to Bitcoin mining, driving the difficulty up. I seen he is a huge supporter for Bitcoin, then why bring the alternative cryptocurrencies down, and drive the difficulty up in Bitcoin and why not just let the alternative cryptocurrencies users dig their own grave instead of using his "BitcoinEXpress" resources? If this /\ makes sense. Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 12, 2011, 12:13:29 AM Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual. Geist Geld - Two successful attacks Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks. Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit. I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there. This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another. His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry. He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it. Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there. Doesn't sound like BS to me. Thanks for the detailed info and enlightening me. I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. Cool. Nice to see someone not talking out their ass for once. -- On to another few question, if it could be answered by you guys or BitcoinEXpress. Is BitcoinEXpress and his team trying to protect Bitcoin? And is he trying to protect users from being scammed by these alternatives? If so, he and his team has my support. If the above is true, this question here is irrelevant. Wouldn't we all want less miners in Bitcoin to bring the difficulty down? Bringing down these alternative cryptocurrencies are most likely gonna bring/attract these alternative cryptocurrencies users back to Bitcoin mining, driving the difficulty up. I seen he is a huge supporter for Bitcoin, then why bring the alternative cryptocurrencies down, and drive the difficulty up in Bitcoin and why not just let the alternative cryptocurrencies users dig their own grave instead of using his "BitcoinEXpress" resources? If this /\ makes sense. I don't know...before he started his attacking them phase, he was shilling the hell out of it for them, and going on endlessly about how much btc he made from each. Way back in the ixcoin days, I think we agreed that alt-chains are bullshit, but I spent a lot of time telling him he was a douche for participating in them and that he was just as scummy as the creators for profiting off them. He said he was only in it for the profits, and didn't give a rat's ass about bitcoin. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 12, 2011, 12:14:18 AM On to another few question, if it could be answered by you guys or BitcoinEXpress. Is BitcoinEXpress and his team trying to protect Bitcoin? And is he trying to protect users from being scammed by these alternatives? If so, he and his team has my support. If the above is true, this question here is irrelevant. Wouldn't we all want less miners in Bitcoin to bring the difficulty down? Bringing down these alternative cryptocurrencies are most likely gonna bring/attract these alternative cryptocurrencies users back to Bitcoin mining, driving the difficulty up. I seen he is a huge supporter for Bitcoin, then why bring the alternative cryptocurrencies down, and drive the difficulty up in Bitcoin and why not just let the alternative cryptocurrencies users dig their own grave instead of using his "BitcoinEXpress" resources? If this /\ makes sense. From what I can tell, BTX isn't on any kind of 'mission', he just enjoys playing around with alt-chains. He has demonstrated he's willing to work with the chains he attacks (to strengthen them), but that's only if the devs are receptive. I believe the only reasons he's been so hard on SC is due to the arrogance of CH and other SC supporters. Plus, many of these new alt-chains are CPU based, thus having no impact on BTC difficulty. Title: Re: delete Post by: Raoul Duke on October 12, 2011, 12:15:38 AM The simplest answer:
He just likes to brag, nothing more. Title: Re: delete Post by: Maged on October 12, 2011, 12:16:25 AM I manage a very successful forum, and despite sometimes I don't agree with some moderation decisions and I could have the last word on the subject I would never take back on my own a decision a moderator took just because users don't like it , even if the moderator was completely wrong. I would be better just removing moderation powers from the moderator if that was to happen. I for one am thankful the mods here have more humility than to enforce poor decisions. Me too ;D. Moderation is very good on this forum. Not too strict and not too loose. I for one have taken the role of comic relief in the alternate cryptocurrency subsection and have not got slammed for it ;) Just loving the hate between the SC and BTC people. It really is fun to watch and contribute to this "battle" against the "glorious leader". Good work forum people. On to another few question, if it could be answered by you guys or BitcoinEXpress. Is BitcoinEXpress and his team trying to protect Bitcoin? And is he trying to protect users from being scammed by these alternatives? If so, he and his team has my support. If the above is true, this question here is irrelevant. Wouldn't we all want less miners in Bitcoin to bring the difficulty down? Bringing down these alternative cryptocurrencies are most likely gonna bring/attract these alternative cryptocurrencies users back to Bitcoin mining, driving the difficulty up. I seen he is a huge supporter for Bitcoin, then why bring the alternative cryptocurrencies down, and drive the difficulty up in Bitcoin and why not just let the alternative cryptocurrencies users dig their own grave instead of using his "BitcoinEXpress" resources? If this /\ makes sense. From what I can tell, BTX isn't on any kind of 'mission', he just enjoys playing around with alt-chains. He has demonstrated he's willing to work with the chains he attacks (to strengthen them), but that's only if the devs are receptive. I believe the only reasons he's been so hard on SC is due to the arrogance of CH and other SC supporters. Plus, many of these new alt-chains are CPU based, thus having no impact on BTC difficulty. Title: Re: delete Post by: johnj on October 12, 2011, 12:24:44 AM I believe that, in the past, he said that he just sees these alt-currencies as a testing ground for Bitcoin. I can't remember if it was him who actually said it, though. Found it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47199.msg562507#msg562507 Quote 3) All Alt Chains are nothing more than test subjects to me except for TBX, I like TBX. Title: Re: delete Post by: PatrickHarnett on October 12, 2011, 12:29:36 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. Following the debate with interest. The above post catches the eye. Nice compliment in a round about sort of way. Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 12, 2011, 12:30:22 AM Alright, thank you all for taking the time answering my questions with the best information to/of your knowledge. I'll keep lurking here for now.
Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 01:40:59 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 12, 2011, 01:47:32 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. That is the impression I got. Guy owns like 30k of namecoins and 100 000 of Bitcoins etc. He is like ArtForz guy but more black hat type etc. Early adopter and made a fortune. Now he can afford to kill any chain he pleases etc. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bobnova on October 12, 2011, 01:58:10 AM Guy hasn't proven he owns any of anything at all.
He says he does, but then again I say I made 50m bitcoins off the SC2 launch. Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 12, 2011, 02:03:02 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. That is the impression I got. Guy owns like 30k of namecoins and 100 000 of Bitcoins etc. He is like ArtForz guy but more black hat type etc. Early adopter and made a fortune. Now he can afford to kill any chain he pleases etc. like artforz? I thought he was artforz... Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 12, 2011, 02:04:54 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. That is the impression I got. Guy owns like 30k of namecoins and 100 000 of Bitcoins etc. He is like ArtForz guy but more black hat type etc. Early adopter and made a fortune. Now he can afford to kill any chain he pleases etc. like artforz? I thought he was artforz... Maybe he is. We can never be sure. Title: Re: delete Post by: Snapman on October 12, 2011, 03:03:52 AM I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air. How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it. That is the impression I got. Guy owns like 30k of namecoins and 100 000 of Bitcoins etc. He is like ArtForz guy but more black hat type etc. Early adopter and made a fortune. Now he can afford to kill any chain he pleases etc. like artforz? I thought he was artforz... Maybe he is. We can never be sure. O gawd, dont start this crap again. Title: Re: delete Post by: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 03:19:38 AM Do us a favor and stfu till you cough up some source code. We've heard an awful lot of "if you saw the code you'd piss yourself" out of you, but you seem to be afraid to actually show us the code. If you want to champion a retards cause . That's what solidcoin.info is for. Title: Re: delete Post by: simonk83 on October 12, 2011, 03:22:48 AM I stayed up all night BUT IT WAS WORTH IT :) Tenebrix is shit. 7.7 million pregenerated scam => GTFO. Uhhhh, SC2 - 13 million pregenerated... ::) Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 03:10:47 PM Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual. Geist Geld - Two successful attacks Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks. Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit. I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there. This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another. His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry. He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it. Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there. Doesn't sound like BS to me. Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism? Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist? Patriot? What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network? If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 03:31:59 PM Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism? Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist? Patriot? What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network? If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live. Exploits often are overlooked and not fixed unless they are first exploited. He has been very open about his attacks, so I don't see a problem. If he openly attacked Bitcoin, I would feel the same way. If it cannot withstand an attack by one individual who does so openly, it is not worth protecting. Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 12, 2011, 03:33:42 PM Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism? Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist? Patriot? What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network? If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live. Cyber terrorism? ROFL. There is no security through obscurity. If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions. An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked. If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing. If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency. " he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. " Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem. People use to point flaws out to Microsoft. Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications. Microsoft promptly ignored them. Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster. Think of it as software evolution. Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked. Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 12, 2011, 03:46:37 PM Why do some people repeat that BTX hacked or exploited SC2 in any way? He failed with 51% attack. He says he bought a lot of EC2 instances to drive blockrate up. Eh yeah, usual behavior if global blockrate is high, diff is low and retargeting algo has a raise limit. The only thing that could be true is, that he mined some SC2, he said some hundreds of thousands, but hasn't shown any proof yet. So everything was working as the protocol intended.
Title: Re: delete Post by: localhost on October 12, 2011, 03:58:50 PM Why do some people repeat that BTX hacked or exploited SC2 in any way? He failed with 51% attack. He says he bought a lot of EC2 instances to drive blockrate up. Eh yeah, usual behavior if global blockrate is high, diff is low and retargeting algo has a raise limit. The only thing that could be true is, that he mined some SC2, he said some hundreds of thousands, but hasn't shown any proof yet. So everything was working as the protocol intended. I think another explanation is that the mining looked so screwed up at the beginning that he thought he messed it up. While it was in fact a design. Designed to be screwed up during the first day. Who could have guessed?Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 04:03:29 PM Cyber terrorism? ROFL. There is no security through obscurity. If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions. An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked. If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing. If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency. " he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. " Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem. People use to point flaws out to Microsoft. Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications. Microsoft promptly ignored them. Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster. Think of it as software evolution. Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked. Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with. Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source. We have to rely on them to fix bugs. BTC is open source. We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code. I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 04:08:58 PM Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source. We have to rely on them to fix bugs. BTC is open source. We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code. I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code. SolidCoin is closed source too... I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code. Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck. Title: Re: delete Post by: Spacy on October 12, 2011, 04:15:26 PM If you want proof of SC2 failure, simply look at the exchanges. Tennebrix had an 1800 BTC market depth at point, SC2 peaked at 40 BTC (ROFL) and is less than 25BTC at the moment. SC2 first 24 hour volume is less than 20,000 compared to IXcoin that 385,000 volume first 24 hours. Yes Viperjbm FAILURE is the right word. Buy orders: BTC-E: SC2 total BTC: 294, TBX total BTC 238. SC24: 230 BTC It's the trend that counts. Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 04:58:14 PM SolidCoin is closed source too... Ok. What does that have to do with BCX's tactics? That's what I'm talking about. Quote I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code. Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck. I don't think that word means what you think it means. noun 1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Do you have a better word? Cyber Assault? Extortion? Cyber Bullying? It certainly isn't ethical hacking. Title: Re: delete Post by: sd on October 12, 2011, 05:07:42 PM I don't think that word means what you think it means. Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror. Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense. Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 05:13:06 PM I don't think that word means what you think it means. Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror. Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense. Ah, the internet. Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word. God forbid I should misspell something as well. Then the gloves would be off. The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 05:55:20 PM Ah, the internet. Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word. God forbid I should misspell something as well. Then the gloves would be off. The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo. If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying. In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show. If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress. Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 07:43:14 PM If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying. In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show. If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress. Since when does support require money? Defending his actions is supporting him. I really have no idea whether you personally have or not as I'm not going to go review all of your posts. Hell, I don't know who I'm replying to with half of these because the second I said something negative about BCX people came out of the woodwork to defend his actions. The word is as close to accurate as I could get to what he has done. But because it's a scary word, people got all worked up and made it all about the word. Short attention spans I guess. Yes, I know what I am saying. He's walking around with a big stick picking winners and losers, and for some odd reason most people here want to be his friend. Do we support and defend thieves because their actions have lead to better security systems? Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs? No! Feel free to acknowledge that the nefarious actions led to improvements, but those actions should at the same time be condemned. We should work towards fixing problems in a more mature and productive way. You bring politics into this discussion? Why? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 12, 2011, 07:45:42 PM Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs? And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts. Not exactly a record but nice confirmation! http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/1/1d/GodwinsLaw_CatPoster.jpg Via the Corollary you automatically lose. Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument. Title: Re: delete Post by: BitterTea on October 12, 2011, 07:47:48 PM Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs? Did the Jews say to Hitler: "our race is extermination-proof, go a head and try!"? As for "support", which definition are you using? Quote sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt) tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports 1. To bear the weight of, especially from below. 2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. 3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare). 4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief. 5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. 6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story. 7. a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes. 8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson). 9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer). Title: Re: delete Post by: MaGNeT on October 12, 2011, 08:05:45 PM There seemed to be quite a few that were upset he was banned including me. Has he been unbanned yet? Is BitCoinEXpress banned? Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 08:13:02 PM And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts. Not exactly a record but nice confirmation! Via the Corollary you automatically lose. Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument. Thank you for adding to the conversation. You are truly a visionary. Title: Re: delete Post by: grndzero on October 12, 2011, 08:13:52 PM It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases. The argument from the SolidCoin camp is that this is due to a continuous increase in the number of legitimate users, as SolidCoin continues on its trajectory to replace Bitcoin! It'll be much more fun to watch when the reality that people are only in it to mine and dump sets in on his delusions of grandeur. He'll probably be left with slightly less people on his bandwagon as he goes off to code SC 3.0, probably before opening the source to SC 2.0. Title: Re: delete Post by: Yahkin on October 12, 2011, 08:17:14 PM Did the Jews say to Hitler: "our race is extermination-proof, go a head and try!"? Nope. And neither did GG, IX, I0, or Bitparking. What is your point? Quote As for "support", which definition are you using? Quote sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt) tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports 1. To bear the weight of, especially from below. 2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping. 3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare). 4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief. 5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities. 6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story. 7. a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes. 8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson). 9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer). I've seen 6, 7a, 7b, 8, and even some of 9 on here. Are you Bill Clinton? Depends on what the definition of "is" is? Again, what is your point? Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 12, 2011, 11:00:09 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users?
Title: Re: delete Post by: teek on October 12, 2011, 11:01:40 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? all 4 of em? Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 12, 2011, 11:02:21 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? The operator of BTC Guild think it is because he pissed a botnet off. I don't think it is something you did. Slush indicates his pool is under attack and deep bit users are indcating connectivity issues. I'm referring to the fact that this all happened a few minutes after I posted that I had submitted a giant list of IPs that I had been collecting from the botnet miners the last few days. Could very easily be the childish mentality of these "hackers": "Oh yeah, well I'm going to take my ball and go home, but first I'm going to pop your ball." Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 12, 2011, 11:06:40 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? The operator of BTC Guild think it is because he pissed a botnet off. Oboy, someone else said, this may in fact last for a long period of time. Title: Re: delete Post by: worldinacoin on October 12, 2011, 11:12:19 PM Not fair to accuse anyone unless you have evidence.
Title: Re: delete Post by: DeathAndTaxes on October 12, 2011, 11:15:32 PM Yeah Slush is back under seige again. Interesting thing is this shifts balance towards smaller pools and solo miners. Ok I will stop derailing this thread now.
Title: Re: delete Post by: RandyFolds on October 12, 2011, 11:21:37 PM Yeah Slush is back under seige again. Interesting thing is this shifts balance towards smaller pools and solo miners. Ok I will stop derailing this thread now. Speaking of derailment, did anyone hear about that train carrying ethanol that crashed outside Chicago...I guess it was a pretty gnarly fire. Title: Re: delete Post by: Bitcoin Oz on October 12, 2011, 11:36:06 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... Title: Re: delete Post by: pekv2 on October 12, 2011, 11:49:46 PM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... What, that makes no sense, they could mine with their asshole, that doesn't change the fact of them retaliating because bitcoinexpress & his team allegedly took SC down. See what I'm getting at? Title: Re: delete Post by: zillagod on October 13, 2011, 12:05:13 AM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... ...and CPUs do a great job at DDoS don't they? I wonder if any Windows software that could have a hidden botnet has been introduced recently? Title: Re: delete Post by: Bitcoin Oz on October 13, 2011, 12:08:09 AM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... ...and CPUs do a great job at DDoS don't they? I wonder if any Windows software that could have a hidden botnet has been introduced recently? It could explain the drop in hashrate experienced by everyone. The missing power could charge a loic. I highly doubt this scenario. Title: Re: delete Post by: zillagod on October 13, 2011, 12:36:37 AM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... ...and CPUs do a great job at DDoS don't they? I wonder if any Windows software that could have a hidden botnet has been introduced recently? It could explain the drop in hashrate experienced by everyone. The missing power could charge a loic. I highly doubt this scenario. No, I don't really think so either. But then again, it's not something I would put past CH/RS. He does seem to have something against Deepbit in particular. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 13, 2011, 12:46:02 AM I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users? SC users mine with cpu's unless of course sc has lazors in it.... What, that makes sense, they could mine with their asshole, that doesn't change the fact of them retaliating because bitcoinexpress & his team allegedly took SC down. See what I'm getting at? WOW the comedy in this is too much to bear. I think this is just BCX getting revenge on everybody just cuz he can etc. He's a douche Title: Re: delete Post by: Frozenace on October 13, 2011, 02:49:59 PM On a separate note: BCX, why do you have to buy apple stuff..
Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 13, 2011, 08:01:54 PM On a separate note: BCX, why do you have to buy apple stuff.. I like Apple! Apple has been very very good to me ;D Here's another reason you should support Litecoin then: https://github.com/coblee/litecoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1502 Steve Jobs will forever be remembered in the genesis of Litecoin. Title: Re: delete Post by: Mousepotato on October 13, 2011, 10:27:26 PM Wait, how is balnuala = smoothie? I thought Balnaalsjdfjadf (however you spell it) was pro-SC but Smoothie was one of SCs biggest critics.
Title: Re: delete Post by: Mousepotato on October 13, 2011, 10:30:46 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while.
Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 13, 2011, 10:33:29 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. Title: Re: delete Post by: pbj sammich on October 13, 2011, 10:35:16 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. now that was funny - well done sir Title: Re: delete Post by: Mousepotato on October 13, 2011, 10:38:10 PM He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. Now that you mention it, a lot of the regulars that used to post here are MIA :( Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 13, 2011, 10:38:59 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. now that was funny - well done sir It was a joke, and then I searched for their last post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25960;sa=showPosts https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18639;sa=showPosts Their last posts were 9/9 and 9/11... interesting. :) Title: Re: delete Post by: kano on October 13, 2011, 10:43:24 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. It's quite obvious when you look at how he writes and the fact that we haven't seen OldMiner around (though I have "Ignore" on OldMiner forever, I haven't seen anything even with his name next to it) Title: Re: delete Post by: coblee on October 13, 2011, 10:54:48 PM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. It's quite obvious when you look at how he writes and the fact that we haven't seen OldMiner around (though I have "Ignore" on OldMiner forever, I haven't seen anything even with his name next to it) OldMiner stopped posting on 9/9: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18639;sa=showPosts bulanula started posting on 9/8 when his last post before that was 7/17: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11905;sa=showPosts;start=500 So possible, but they were both posting before 7/17. So if it's true, either he has a serious case of multiple personality disorder or he took over someone else's account. Title: Re: delete Post by: Frozenace on October 13, 2011, 11:44:19 PM With the amount of money you earn at Apple, you probably wouldn't have to hack ixcoin to buy an iPad 2.
With regards to SC2, I know that you don't really feel so optimistic about the people behind the project. I believe that the crypto-currency landscape isn't a zero-sum game, where one currency has to lose while the other gains. At the moment, bitcoin still fails to bridge the gap between technical and non technical people. I've been experimenting with this for 2 months now, and apart from turning btc into cash, I haven't really bought anything with them. Title: Re: delete Post by: kano on October 14, 2011, 03:41:40 AM Oh. Hmm. Where is Smoothie anyway? I haven't seen him post in a while. He met up with OldMiner in real life and no one has seen them since. It's quite obvious when you look at how he writes and the fact that we haven't seen OldMiner around (though I have "Ignore" on OldMiner forever, I haven't seen anything even with his name next to it) OldMiner stopped posting on 9/9: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=18639;sa=showPosts bulanula started posting on 9/8 when his last post before that was 7/17: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11905;sa=showPosts;start=500 So possible, but they were both posting before 7/17. So if it's true, either he has a serious case of multiple personality disorder or he took over someone else's account. Title: Re: delete Post by: bulanula on October 14, 2011, 05:06:27 AM Believe all you want. I am not going to be involved in this stupidity anymore. I am passive from now on.
|
