Rob Thomas (aka xrobau aka X-Rob), Gladstone, QLD, Australia, You wanted it that way:
You claim to have successfully attacked Unattainium with 7% net hash rate.
I attacked, and mined, more than 50% of the UNAT blocks, with 7% of the hashrate, over 10 minutes.
This is a lie.
I showed You days ago, that You didn't mine more than 50%In fact You mined exacly 18.87% (10 blocks You found / 53 found during Your "attack")
Your answer was:
Hrm. I saw more than that, but, I'm kinda over caring about it now.
After I provided a clear and undeniable proof, You still speak of a successfull attack.
Now everyone's alarm bells should ring, since we know, it's impossible to attack a block chain with obtaining just 18.87% of the blocks!
This proven nonsense is still part of Your inflammatory pamphlet on Google Docs. Everyone interested should take a look at that
toilet paper! Most of it is true (he copy pasted most parts), it's describing >50% attacks, but when it's comming to Unattainium the air is becomming thin.
So let's continiue:
I commented his paper at Google docs about 50 hours ago:
An attack never took place. Author copied 95% from wikis, without knowing what he copied.
He claims having mined 50% of the coin to a time which issn't true. You can check the block explorer of UNAT from block 34221 to 34273. In this range this guy mined 10 blocks.
Even most newcomers in crypto world know, that this was far far away from beeing a successful attack. Author got no idea what he copied and is a newbie himself, or a troll. I hope for the latter.
His answer was:
The block explorer doesn't show the attack because the attack caused hundreds of orphans, and the explorer only shows blocks that made it to the longest chain.. The PROOF of the attack is in the difficulty in those blocks dropping like a stone, which IS visible in the explorer.
We got two outright
lies in here and a wrong assumption.
To the wrong assumption:
the explorer only shows blocks that made it to the longest chain
Well, this shows You don't even know the basics how coins work. This is probably the most exposing statement You made, since You brought FUD to Unattainium.
The
lies:
The block explorer doesn't show the attack because the attack caused hundreds of orphans
First part is true, a block explorer won't show orphans, at least here is something You know, not much, but for You quite a lot.
Second part is a
lie.
Proof (I know, You like proofs, though You never delivered):
To that time there were two pools online. Your "attack" covered blocks 34221-34273 (53 blocks), as You said in the paper. Your address is
19pavgAuCh4Jr48XgpJEqggkUiFgMe3A97.
So let's check the pools for orphans (We remember, You said there were hundreds):
Surprise, surprise, not a single orphan. You
lied again. (Status: proven)
Before You accuse me of having manipulated the image, check Yourself (tho You know the truth):
coin-miners.info,
hardcoreminers.comI count 16 blocks at coin-miners.com and 21 at hardcoreminers.com plus Your 10. Makes 47 blocks out of 53. So we got most of them, rest were probably mined by the dev on localhost.
It might sound weird to You, but I think he had no thousands of orphans.
More
lies? Here we go:
The PROOF of the attack is in the difficulty in those blocks dropping like a stone, which IS visible in the explorer
Hmpf, a drop in the diff is showing an attack? Interesting thought, but we continiue with the
lie.
As You can see in the picture, the diff went up as You threw in some hash. My eyes ain't the best, admitting I should cosider getting glasses, but I see an increased hash rate. Sorry Rob.
Just in case someone got doubts, that Rob said this in the comments, I made a
screenshot.
There are many more things Rob said that are just plain stupid in this thread, that google doc or on Unat's IRC channel,
hard impossible to list them all.
E. g. he asked the dev about 10 times, if he's allowed to attack Unattainium and if dev "fixes" the coin in case he's successful. Dev agreed about 5 times. Then he stopped communication for obvious reasons.
What did Rob?
He claimed that the dev won't fix his coin after a successful attack. That's Rob.
Rob won't even accept, that his "attack" failed, even after this post. That's Rob, a full-time troll.
But all the FUD mentioned above is nothing what pisses me off that much.
What pisses me off is this:This is all a plan to rip off exchanges
In other words: He says the developer of Unattainium is a criminal planing a double spend attack! WOW!!
If I were the dev, I'd think about a legal action against Rob Thomas now.
This is the shit Unattainium has do deal with lately, but Rob, don't You think You went a bit too far?
Rob Thomas, broken by design. (Status: Proven broken) scr
Show Posts
