Given CoinHunter's egotistical behavior on the forums and on IRC, I can't fault ArtForz for attacking SolidCoin to try to put CoinHunter in his place. That is such a shit argument for defending Art. I think it is safe to say that there are just two wrongs that have been made and so people don't have to pick sides. Art got shit on by CoinHunter, and instead of being a bigger person went on and fucked over other people based on one persons actions. Now tell me how he "fucked over other people". It slowed down node processing of blocks. It wasn't even that slow. I remember CH/RS even boasted (don't remember forum or IRC) that even with this slow down, solidcoin is still confirming much faster than bitcoins. Sure, it crashed a few nodes due to the unintended transaction log growth. But this problem was quickly worked around by deleting the log files. All ArtForz did was to prove his point. Remember, his action did not cause the price of solidcoin to plummet. The price of solidcoin plummeted because CH/RS made a dick move to change the open source license. That was what "fucked over other people". So ArtForz got shit on by CH/RS, and he performed a small attack to prove his point. Then CH/RS retaliated and pissed off everyone. I think what I heard recently on IRC summed this up perfectly: "don't piss on the heads of the giants whose shoulders you stand on" |
|
|
|
The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even. Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility. He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin). Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville.... says a lot about this community.....
I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it. Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn. I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt. I actually take that back about ArtForz hurting a lot of people. He really didn't. His attack was pretty mild. It slowed down processing of blocks. It yielded an unintended side effect (that ArtForz was not previously aware of) of causing the transaction logs to grow too big. This caused some nodes to crash if they were running low on disk space. What hurt solidcoin more was CH/RS's half-ass buggy fix that did more damage than it fixed AND his other half-ass fix to fix his first fix. And according to ArtForz, the latest fix introduced yet another vulnerability of the blockchain growing uncontrollably. CH/RS's incompetence is hurting solidcoin more than ArtForz's attack. And in the end, none of this hurt the price of solidcoins much at all. So no one was materially hurt by any of this until CH/RS decided to change the open source license. Was that a revenge move? This pissed off doublec enough to shutdown the largest exchange and it pissed off eleuthria enough to shutdown the largest pool. THAT was what caused the price to plummet, which hurt people. So I would argue that CH/RS hurt his own solidcoin supporters by making this dumbass move. Maybe we should investigate if he sold all his coins before the move, and bought them back cheap! |
|
|
|
So what is the whole story? Please do tell. And please be specific about who you are talking about, because to me "King Douche Bag" is synonymous with CoinHunter.
The whole story is ArtForz found weaknesses, CoinHunter ignored them, I actually went to CoinHunter privately and asked if he'd like me to help him go over them to see if it was a real problem and what the solutions might be, he flipped out on me, I walked off and laughed my ass off when ArtForz decided to prove the attack was real when CoinHunter was trying to pretend it was just "bitcoin attacking solidcoin", which of course he was paranoid about since he'd spread a bunch of lies about bitcoin when he released solidcoin. What weakness did he actually claim to find? On the public forum it alluded to 51% attacks not micro-transaction DDOSing... How much time between even making that claim and making that attack (less than a day from what I recall)? Am I wrong? It doesn't matter how much time was between the claim and the attack. If CoinHunter had listened and worked with ArtForz, ArtForz would likely not have attacked the chain to prove the issue. And they could have taken weeks to put in a real fix that actually works. On the forum, I think only the 51% attack was posted. He discussed the DDoS attack on the i0coin chatroom. Only ArtForz and CoinHunter know what exactly they discussed in private. But ArtForz said that he brought up the vulnerabilities to CoinHunter and was ignored. Given CoinHunter's egotistical behavior on the forums and on IRC, I can't fault ArtForz for attacking SolidCoin to try to put CoinHunter in his place. He's really too full of himself. Can's argue with that, right? |
|
|
|
I agree that CoinHunter's behavior is immature and not professional (I guess his age is under 25 and very likely under 20) but I don't suppose ArtForz is a good guy. If CoinHunter didn't admit SolidCoin's weekness, ArtForz should post his argument here to show how stupid and arrogant CoinHunter is instead of attacking SolidCoin.
ArtForz actually tried that and got nowhere. Even if you were telling the 100% truth, King Douche Bag still shouldn't have done what he did.... the additional problem is you're not telling the whole story, you're cherry picking a piece of the story to fit your agenda. So what is the whole story? Please do tell. And please be specific about who you are talking about, because to me "King Douche Bag" is synonymous with CoinHunter. |
|
|
|
CH/RS should really learn from Gavin instead of criticizing him for being a hacker supporter. When ArtForz approached CH/RS with the vulnerabilities in SolidCoin, he was basically told to get lost. So ArtForz got upset and did a fairly nice attack on the SolidCoin chain to prove his point. He sent these large transactions one at a time, which slowed down the network and actually showed another vulnerability in both Bitcoin and SolidCoin. He could have done a lot worse if he released a ton of these huge transactions at the same time. If he did that, it would have likely killed all the clients.
I assume ArtForz approached Gavin with this out of space vulnerability in Bitcoin. And instead of telling ArtForz to get lost, Gavin worked with him to fix the vulnerability. That's how a mature and competent lead on a big open source project is supposed to act. If someone is nice enough to come to you to tell you about a potential vulnerability, you work with him to fix it instead of pissing him off so that he would actually try to attack your chain with that vulnerability.
The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even. Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility. He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin). Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville.... says a lot about this community..... I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it. Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn. I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt. |
|
|
|
Y'all probably want this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491However, I don't think you can fix all the problems that a fixed transaction fee cause; the real problem is that basic economics says that you need to let the price of a scare resource change, ideally in a market, to match the underlying real costs. (bitcoin's fee structure isn't right either, and fixing it to create a market between miners and clients is high on the TODO list) CH/RS should really learn from Gavin instead of criticizing him for being a hacker supporter. When ArtForz approached CH/RS with the vulnerabilities in SolidCoin, he was basically told to get lost. So ArtForz got upset and did a fairly nice attack on the SolidCoin chain to prove his point. He sent these large transactions one at a time, which slowed down the network and actually showed another vulnerability in both Bitcoin and SolidCoin. He could have done a lot worse if he released a ton of these huge transactions at the same time. If he did that, it would have likely killed all the clients. I assume ArtForz approached Gavin with this out of space vulnerability in Bitcoin. And instead of telling ArtForz to get lost, Gavin worked with him to fix the vulnerability. That's how a mature and competent lead on a big open source project is supposed to act. If someone is nice enough to come to you to tell you about a potential vulnerability, you work with him to fix it instead of pissing him off so that he would actually try to attack your chain with that vulnerability. |
|
|
|
... but I do feel the lead developer of Bitcoin shouldn't be ignorant about what is going on in his own "scene".
Gavin is busy actually working on Bitcoin development. Count how many threads there are about SolidCoin on the forum. Do you really expect Gavin to have the time to read all that? He probably just heard from someone that you found some bugs in Bitcoin but are not willing to share the fix upstream. So he just logged in to your IRC chatroom to ask you why. Why does have to know all the history of your coin? You treat him like an ass and call him a hacker supporter. There's really no room in the bitcoin "scene" for your immature childish behavior. See ya and good luck with your closed source dying fork. |
|
|
|
I can't wait for the hacker to come to bitcoin, release virus signatures into the block chain and when the majority of consumers have disabled virus scanning of bitcoin they release a real virus into the network. That would be f'ing great at this point.
It seems like we still have a SolidCoin supported left! lol Do you even know how viruses work? Now tell me how to add viruses to the block chain. If anything, I'd expect the next SC release from RealSolid to contain a bitcoin wallet stealing trojan. Be careful... |
|
|
|
SC is pretty much dead. The bitparking exchange and pool just shut down with this message: The latest release of SolidCoin, v1.04, has a licence change that requires permission from the SolidCoin developers to use any changes they've made. The text can be seen in my analysis of the changes on github. The SolidCoin developers response to queries about this is "If you don't like it, don't use the source code, simple really".
For my projects I'm often custom building variants of SolidCoin and Bitcoin. I don't want to have to ask permission to use code and prefer to use open source licensed projects. For that reason I've decided to close this SolidCoin Exchange. Withdrawals will be enabled for a period of time to enable you to get your funds of the site.
|
|
|
|
The license has been changed for a few reasons, so we can be updated in advance of the source being used in other projects and to advise others on precautions they need to take. SolidCoin has now fixed multiple vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin client and they need important consideration before being added to other chains. Furthermore to the bitcoin developers which suggest SolidCoin has done nothing it will require them to have a turn around in their public statements to date.
We are not necessarily going to restrict who can use the source code, however this change is mostly brought on by the developers and trolls of Bitcoin. If you don't like it, don't use the source code, simple really.
You are so full of yourself. Let me get this straight. Your changes to the Bitcoin code is so advanced, that unless the Bitcoin developers talk to you first, they may not understand the full implications of the change and may hurt themselves. Did I get it right? Is that really what you are implying? |
|
|
|
Don't forget the new license text: Copyright (c) 2011 SolidCoin Developers
All changes made by SolidCoin developers require express permission to be used
in other projects, including original the Bitcoin project.
Nice, real nice. Way to fork an open-source project and turn it to something that's no longer open source. Is that even allowed? I have to agree with smoothie, this guy is a douche. |
|
|
|
|
And if you are talking about the vulnerability of log files getting too large that caused clients to crash... ArtForz did not know about it before he attempted sending those large transactions. It was just an unforeseen issue due to these large transaction. So don't spread misinformation by saying that "ArtForz took advantage of to crash clients."
|
|
|
|
So the idea is to blame problems on Bitcoin and downplay your incompetence, huh? -Fixed vulnerability in original Bitcoin code that hacker ArtForz took advantage of to crash clients
Uh, the vulnerability is due to your fixed transaction cost that you changed in your fork of Bitcoin. It's not in the original Bitcoin code. The original Bitcoin code had variable transaction fees which would cause a similar attack on Bitcoin to cost about 80 BTC in fees. And nice to label ArtForz a hacker. What exactly did he hack? He just showed you a vulnerability in SolidCoin that you introduced and refused to acknowledge until he proved it to you. -Fixed small issue with calculating transaction size that made transactions appear bigger than they were from the clients perspective
So your untested fix in version 1.03 caused a huge problem for exchanges. Exchanges even had to stop withdrawal/deposits due to it. And you're just going to call it a "small issue"? If it's such a small issue, why are you in such a hurry to release a fix so soon. Are you sure you tested this release enough? |
|
|
|
How did they acquire so many SC's? (in response to both) I am 99.99% sure they didn't mine them, **citation (I was actively watching Ruxum and Bitparking at the same time and near instantaneously almost all the market sell orders got swept off the market, twice actually. So the fee may not have cost them much but buying all those SCs cost a lot of BTCs. That was where it cost more than 1SC
It's not really costing anything because he could just sell them back for BTC after he's done. The only cost is the transaction fees that he has to pay for this attack. Of course, if SC dies due to his attack, he may be left with a bunch of worthless SC. That's probably still not a lot of money, if that's all it takes to kill SC. 2000 times 0.01 SC? That's only 20 SC (or $2). He can reuse the same coins for the next large transactions, right? Even if not, I can't imagine he needed more than $20 in SC to perform this attack. |
|
|
|
The attack would be infeasible on BitCoin due to the expense involved.
Whether you mean it or not you are agreeing with me here, the only limiting factor is the expense, you have to remember that these attackers paid a great deal of money in BTC to do this [...] Can you cite a source for this assertion? It looks to me as if the attack cost less than 1SC in transaction fees and exchange fees. A transaction (2cd9782cc39ab8b55...) took a 50sc input and divided it into 2,000 0.01sc and one 29.99sc outputs plus a 0.01 fee. Later, a few dozen transactions moved about 2,000 inputs to 2,000 outputs, each of 0.01sc, and a 0.01 fee per transaction. Am I missing something? Abe query for large transactions: http://john-edwin-tobey.org/scbig.txtYeah, because SC transactions are fixed at .01 SC, this attack cost about 1 SC in total fees, which is about $0.10. lol There's a reason why Bitcoin has variable fees, which makes it expensive for DDoS attacks like these. You don't just go about changing Bitcoin without truly understanding why things are the way they are. And then CoinHunter goes ahead and criticizes the Bitcoin developers for being slow. Well with so much at stake, I'm glad the Bitcoin developers spend a lot of time testing their changes before releasing them. Look what happened when CoinHunter tried to fix this "0.1 SC fixed transaction fee" feature/bug in a hurry. He broke SC even more. Look who's laughing now. |
|
|
|
CoinHunter/RealSolid made some changes that made the SC chain more susceptible to transaction DDOS attacks and mining cartel attacks. So I thought it was surprising that Ruxum would start trading on a currency that's not even a month old... being all untested and such. Well, guess what, they just stopped: http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/articles/147455-solidcoin-faqSeems like the transaction DDOS attacks has caused them a lot of pain and they've thought twice about it. So who still thinks solidcoin is going to kill bitcoin in a matter of weeks? :p |
|
|
|
|
smoothie, you are pissing up as many people as coinhunter. Maybe you should start your own coin... SmoothCoin?
|
|
|
|
SC goes slowly down. what happend?
What happened? Well RealSolid/CoinHunter went around pissing off everyone. Even a lot of the early SC supporters are no longer that gung ho about SC. So people start dumping their coins and the price tanks. And speculators come back in at the low price to give it a dead cat bounce. I'm with smoothie on this. The way things are going, SC is going to 0 pretty soon. |
|
|
|
I just find when people start saying subjective things they usually don't have any substance to whatever they are trying to get across.... that's one of my values. If you find something factual to say I'm all ears.
"subjective"? Like nearly everything you post, including this http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php article? Very little subjective in there. Where things aren't certain they are written that way. Like I said, as long as you don't fail at reading comprehension, you will see it. Wow, can you possibly be more condescending? How can anyone have faith in SC when it's lead by this guy. |
|
|
|
Any ideas if the mining scripts will run on a mac?
Nope, because none of the usual FPGA tools support Macs. (Someone I vaguely know was complaining about this on Twitter the other day.) It's possible someone will write an alternative that doesn't need them and works on Macs at some point but I wouldn't hold your breath... With the X6000/X6500, you don't need to program the FPGA chip, right? So we just need the mining script to work on the Mac. Does that script support the Mac? Anyone know? I'd love to be able to plug this into my iMac and start mining. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
