Looks well formatted. I just get a godaddy parking page when I click the link you provided though.

Will not happen.

I still can't believe SOPA and PIPA will pass (god I hope I'm right).
Call me a silly optimistic, but I believe the world is moving towards a better, more free place.

Everyone should just support Bitcoin...

(my apologies for posting, since I'm not a Bitcoin leader)


In a way, everyone in that pool HAS now been asked that question, and current pool hashing power should reflect their answer.

I WISH I had so many choices in phone companies as miners have in pools!

Somehow, an act that caused no economic harm to anyone has everyone in a tremendous uproar. We need a picture of a cat and a car analogy to go with it.

The dark pool or pools have been operational since roughly 10 days after the release of Litecoin.  Historically, almost all the LTC mined by the dark pool appears to be immediately released to the market at BTC-e for sale.

The dark pool provides a major advantage to LTC, which is that is is extremely difficult to attack (unless the dark pool chooses to).

On the flip side, there is the inherent problem of, aside from an unlikely 51% attack, these two scenarios:
- The dark pool is being mined by computers infected with trojans (botnet).  The release of virus definitions for these trojans would result in the rapid collapse of the hash rate by 80%, requiring weeks to lower the difficulty.  This is a likely scenario, as the hash rate here does not vary with the price of LTC (as you might expect for someone who has to worry about the costs of electricity).
- The dark pool decides to contract the supply by not bringing any LTC to the market for a long time, hence manipulating the market.  The possibility remains that the dark pool is attempting to assemble as large a mining network as possible before heavily constricting the supply, resulting in only a tiny amount of new coins being mined per day by others.  The result would be massive deflation.

The strange thing is that so far, the dark pool appears to have decided to sell as much as their LTC as possible.  With 80-90% of the mining capacity, the dark pool can act as a "central bank" for LTC; so why are they inflating it so intensely?

See the present dark pool size here: http://pool-x.eu/net

And historic network hash rates here: http://www.litecoinpool.org/charts

<offended>Who the hell is calling me a whitehat?</offended>
On a more serious note, if you're going to put a hat on me, it'd be some shade of grey, but sure as fuck not white.

No it isn't.  Despite all your obfuscate by extracting keys it is no different then this.

Take wallet which has 1 BTC.

Make a copy and install it on another machine = 1 BTC.

Wow I just doubled my money right?  Of course not.  As soon as you spend the 1 BTC from one wallet the value of the other will go to zero.  If you try to spend from both wallets the network will reject one as a double spend.

Your "attacks" are nonsense.

Soildcoin 2.0
I am writing this for the crypto-currency newbie who may be looking for information on Solidcoin 2.0. If you are searching Google and researching information on Solidcoin 2.0 and found this I commend you on taking that all important first move.

I also urge you to research this forum for Solidcoin 2.0 and decide if this is something any sane person would delve into once they know the facts.

Issues to research

13,000,000 Solidcoins Pre-Mined

Solidcoin 2.0 has over 13,000,000 pre-mined coins controlled by the lead Solidcoin 2.0 developer Coinhunter. Those pre-mined coins are distributed to 12 "Trusted Nodes" and according to Coinhunter cannot be spent on the open market. Yes Coinhunter's word is all we have. In reality at anytime of his choosing he could simply transfer a bulk of coins to his wallet and trade. Here is a scenario that will scare any exchange of any real volume away. Let's say Solidcoin 2.0 gains parity with the USD or about 0.2 BTC at this posting combined with an exchange that cultivated a market depth of $500,000 to $1 Million USD. This is actually not a very far stretch of possibilities if SC 2.0 would take off.

In this scenario Coinhunter could simply deposit any number of coins and make millions for himself very rapidly. It would cause a huge financial loss for the exchange, as well as crash the market and de-value every Solidcoin (yours) left in existence. But why would he care, he just banked several million USD. Coinhunter has gone to extreme measures to cover his real identity, no one knows who he is or where he really resides. A ruined reputation is meaningless in this situation.

It has puzzled quite a few people as to why Coinhunter would design this built in handicap to adoption, GREED is the only apparent answer. It truly serves no other purpose than for personal enrichment. Solidcoin 2.0 has been rejected by all the credible exchanges including this one for that very reason. 13 million pre-mine is a huge risk and a bogus payout liability that is unacceptable.

Bait & Switch Maneuver
In the days and weeks prior to the Solidcoin launch Coinhunter had disclosed there were 1 Million Pre-Mined coins for something he called a "Coin Protection Fee" earmarked for Solidcoin marketing, support and maintenance. This caused a lot of grumbling in the Solidcoin community when it was learned that Coinhunter would be the fund manager and only after much debate he decided he would after launch remit control to a committee of some sort. It was also learned that 10% of all blocks mined by anyone would in fact be taxed and transferred to the CPF.

The Bait and Switch occurred when several hours after launch Coinhunter revealed it was 12 Million premined in addition to nearly 1.128 Million SC1 coins being incorporated into the block chain. This was not something done on the fly post launch and had to be designed into the system days and/or weeks before launch. It was never mentioned pre-release or during the beta test phase just prior to launch. This is a classic Bait and switch. It doesn't bode well for a guy insisting people simply need to trust him.

Closed Source
All crypto-currencies except for Solidcoin 2.0 are Open Source. Solidcoin 2.0 is a closed source product and Coinhunter refuses to release the code for independent audit by neutral third parties. An audit by an independent third party could easily certifiy Solidcoin as being Malware free, Virus free, Backdoor free and whole host of other "nasty trcks" free.

Coinhunter has a demonstrated interest in Botnets and Central Control. Instead of releasing his code he says people need to simply trust him. Without the source code being released, any code certification and validation of Solidcoin 2.0 is impossible. Solidcoin 2.0 could have anything hidden in the program.

Central Control
All crypto-currencies except for Solidcoin use Peer <--> Peer architecture or P2P. This type of operation is very decentralized and is very hard to nearly impossible to control. Think Bit-torrent, Piratebay,.... unstoppable, irreversible, anonymous.

Solidcoin uses Peer <--> Trusted Node <--> Peer architecture. This type of architecture lends itself to a high degree of control. Think Paypal, Dwolla and those types. Payments can be easily intercepted, tracked and reversed as well as stolen. This is Paypal on steroids without all the good.

It should be noted that the Solidcoin Dev have denied this but refuse to release the code. There have been reported instances where this interception of transactions have occurred. Releasing the code would 100% either prove this false or prove it true. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the source.

Conclusion

I'm glad you are looking into Crypto-Currencies. You are taking part in the bleeding edge development of the digital payment future. As always before you invest any amount of time or money in anything worthwhile, do some thorough research. This forum BitcoinTalk.org is an excellent repository for all things Crypto-Currency.

They did not have such requirement. As I said on the other topic, it was more on the line of "most people must not be crooks".

For the feature of merged mining to be a vulnerability, these both things must verify:

• There must be one or more rogue, ill-intended pool operator out there.
• Most of the miners of such rogue pool operator must be willing to support a criminal act with their resources.

It's particularly the verification of the second hypothesis, at least so far, that shocks me. I wouldn't assume such a thing as likely before such event as well.


Oh please, think twice about what you wrote there. Just think how this logic can be extended to pretty much every aggression. "Oh, I feel sorry for that woman, but my head thinks that possibly the guy that broke into her house and raped her did her a favor by showing all those blatant flaws in her personal security."

No.
The parent post is borderline-gibberish that betrays fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin on several levels.

Yes, using editing tools you can make your wallet display crazy stuff. No, the crazy stuff has no influence on the outside world.

No, it's not a "security issue"— if you don't want your software displaying crazy stuff don't use recovery tools to twiddle with the non-user-serviceable parts. It's actually unlikely that the crazy values can will actually cause the loss of bitcoin, but not impossible (e.g. if you delete the private keys).

Any negative numbers are meaningless in the context of the whole system Bitcoin tracks coins (transactions) not balances, and it certainly doesn't track bitcoind _account_ balanaces which are a purely local book-keeping function.

As far as the rest goes— Yes, you can remove coins from Bitcoin forever but you don't need his elaborate series of steps.

Just send coins to a wallet which has no backups and destroy the wallet data and the coins are lost.  Yippie! more scarcity for everyone else.

And what's the point of you being able to do anything with Bitcoin code?

What do you want to do? If you want to do anything non malicious you have free right to use SolidCoin code provided it's a SolidCoin orientated project (ie not a chain fork).

Revoking a source license for "no reason" wouldn't be very good PR would it.

Revoking a malicious project would be what 99.999% of people want. That's democracy.

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license.

It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.