Your coin aside (which is flawed and doomed, whether you choose to ignore the facts or not), you've completely ruined any chance of wide adoption purely by being a gigantic dick this past year or so. The name is tarnished, your name is tarnished, and only the foolish would get involved with you (and that's WITHOUT understanding the fundamental flaws of your design).
Act superior all you like, I know for a fact your coin will fail and "we" will have the last laugh. Nothing you say will convince me otherwise.
Essentially, you've dug your own grave. Haha ok. Just keep caring about SolidCoin like you are then. Thanks for caring about something you think is so doomed, make sure you go out and spread your message so what you think can happen will happen.  Without you "keeping it real" then maybe SolidCoin will indeed take over! Funny person you are. this is viper. Anonymous Soiledcoin "developers" flee the light of day like cockroaches but insist they won't spend the pre-mined coins and beg that we trust them. They share sockpuppet accounts for astroturfing and link spam the forums. When one of the puppets gets outed, they delete all their online accounts and start over with a new identity. This is not how honest coders operate. This is how scammers operate. They have to beg for our trust because their code and conduct inspire none. |
|
|
|
The protocol isn't changing so they are still needed, v3.0 of SolidCoin is still compatible with v2.04.
Since those trust accounts can't be spent (can easily be verified in source code in block.cpp and transactions.cpp) it's not really an issue if they ever become unneeded for protecting the network. They'll just simply sit there , forever unused in that case.
Have you changed your mind? Source: www.solidtools.net Last block: 215896 Rank Trusted + CPF Addresses Balance In Tx Out Tx Info 1. saFSHmQpjMphNPLwYkvg6pHPKHw8Hd6ZmG 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 2. saPGvDYAyxHR752xTC3sAzDbwRadJUZejb 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 3. sMKPLcuyKwF3u361XPndShxeatuBBfa6CS 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 4. sNHmZetxRMWPgz3JXJPeJcYNF4631bWZcc 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 5. sNsCpY56BGpE7LjFo8BSK32xNxLeC1JeYK 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 6. sUmoku7s24FJCoRbYyyPJQ9tzuTVRX1kRx 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 7. sVeMy8QTDmmGiE2Uonu7As9i7ij8ZBBKc6 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 8. sWCmX11EDahCmqBgrEGWUjafHpp8BWVQgA 1200000.0000 1 0 Trusted Address 9. sTcMHFiviET9ZSNBsMkNBwnfUsCMUX3Xo8 1187004.5729 25716 25715 Trusted Address
10. sR24466tcHbW7yhsU5TpQst5H6Kw8vDNSj 1146437.0769 82234 82233 Trusted Address12. sNvkB6KTsTyv5xPRo9Y4aq8D4AhnZZSEJE 131741.3636 107948 0 CPF I AM SHOCKED! SHOCKED TO FIND OUT THERE IS GAMBLING GOING ON IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT! |
|
|
|
Not possible. We have his word those coins cannot be spent!
Words. I prefer math.  |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a secure server.
Based on this statement, you should exit the internet business. Too many people punt the security aspect just because it is hard. So who do you think is worthy to stay in the Internet business? People who can. |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as a secure server.
Based on this statement, you should exit the internet business. Too many people punt the security aspect just because it is hard. |
|
|
|
I don't think a sticky is a good idea. All it does is give validity to people spamming new chains that really don't do much. A chain with a good idea that actually improves upon something will stand out on it's own.
I don't understand. This is the alt-currency forum ... where people are encouraged to think of innovations in the form of alternative currencies (that's what I gathered, at least). If this is not made sticky, odds are that if a legitimate idea does get designed, its author will not find this RFC, and will not follow it. This will lead to unnecessary problems because the RFC is designed to help people launch successful currencies. People will forget to properly announce their chains, release testnets first, properly version the releases... All the RFC does is formalize a set of best practices, that's all. I don't see how its existence as a sticky will encourage the creation of more ScamCoins. So far, in this forum there isn't much in the way of innovation. Just a lot of BTC forks. |
|
|
|
Coinhunter/RealSolid has no involvements with the pool. I run it with one other person. My partner handles the server and web UI. I handle the selling of the btc and the sc payouts to the miners.
We pay our miners two ways simultaneously. The first method is a simple pps style, where the pps rate is 50% of the market rate of what one btc share would buy in SC. The second payout is a "bonus" payout that occurs after a btc block is found. The bonus payout is calculated in sort of a hybrid SMPPS/PPLNS format. Meaning that we sell the found bitcoin block on the exchanges, then the proceeds from that sale are used first to recover the SC we already paid out in PPS. The remaining SC is then distributed to our miners by using their proportion of shares submitted during the 24 hours prior to the block find.
The reason we do it this way is because the BTC-SC market may change significantly between the time we start mining, and the time that the btc block gets sold. So we set the pps rate at 50% of market so we can handle a 2x increase in solidcoin price without the pool going broke. If such an event does occur, there would be no bonus for that round, but the miners would have at least gotten their PPS portion.
The key point is that currently ALL SolidCoins go to the miners, none of them are given to anyone who did not mine their fair share. We currently charge no fees. The only two people who were ever treated differently were the pool owners (me and my partner). In one instance, we declined to receive our mining bonus, so our regular miners could enjoy a decent sized bonus after one of our found blocks were orphaned and put a drain on the pool wallet.
To make a long story short: Coinhunter/RealSolid slashed the reward of mining Solidcoins to prevent others from obtaining a tyrant node and to create deflation so he can dump his pre-mine for some cash. Since mining SC is a losing proposition, the SC sockpuppets have to mine BTC. Great currency you have there. Not to mention the fact that you nitwits rail on and on about how evil pools are, then make one yourself. P.S. any luck getting RealSolid to give up any of the tyrant node private keys? |
|
|
|
Why were the block rewards of SC cut down by what, 10,000% This was because there was so much demand? Have a read here :- http://solidcoin.info/economy.htmlBasically it's more to do with adding an automatic inflation / deflation mechanism and removing the remaining pyramid scheme aspect from the economy. From this point on coins are pretty fairly made now vs 2 years from now. It's also a market stabilization feature that many businesses want before they adopt a cryptocurrency. So now it's fair to mine without devaluing past coins and eventually will be a very stable price due to these features. Thanks for clearing that up  If you find an SC block, you earn about 0.07 Solidcoins for it. Someone would have to find 14 million blocks before they could have a tyrant node. Of course, RealSolid would raise the difficulty and lower the reward long before anyone else got close. IIRC someone computed that Solidcoins would have to be worth $24 each before one could break even mining them. So, nobody mines SC. There is almost no volume of SC trades on exchanges. There are no merchants that accept SC as currency. This, according to the controller of Solidcoin is according to plan. Ask yourself what someone who pre-mined 13 million coins wants for the currency. |
|
|
|
Not interested in finding your identity for a PM- here's an idea...
Print all of the SC's on toilet paper. Then they would actually have some functional utility in the real world.
We don't need yet another method of getting shit onto toilet paper. We are already pretty effective at that. |
|
|
|
Welcome back Coinhunter/Realsolid/Viper/Psy/Sockpuppetdujour. If people want to ddos the SolidCoin tyrant nodes, there is nothing that can be done. The block chain stops until the tyrant nodes are able to process blocks again. Of course, now that the DDOS is over transactions go through. Notice the complete lack of comment about how great Solidcoin was doing until after the DDOS ended.  SC2 = fair weather blockchain. Imagine how much fun SA could have when they compromise a tyrant node. |
|
|
|
Coinhunter over on Solidcoin IRC saying nothings wrong LOL...
I'll have to take your word for it, I was taken out in the last series of mass bannings.  |
|
|
|
This will end when the Solidcoin community decides Coinhunter doesn't speak for them.
Coinhunter holds the private keys to the SC tyrant-nodes. He will always speak for them. It is why we refer to them as sockpuppets. |
|
|
|
So that is where my kick-toy went  |
|
|
|
um why cant we just ignore him you keep giving him publicity if you just ignore him he might go away
We tried that, when we do he just spams the hell out of the forum with free reign. They have their own forum over at Solidcointalk, We don't go over there spamming about Bitcoin. I wish they would just return the favor. |
|
|
|
Actually, it's a good thing your SolidCoin stopped downloading blocks at 179999 It gave you the last chance to regret of your decision of installing and joining the network of that infamous so-called "fork". Hope you take the right decision and uninstall SolidCoin, taking advantage of this opportunity the life has given you +1 ^2 |
|
|
|
For the defense against the "optimization attack" the only speed tradeoff I can think of is centralization. Full SolidCoin-style trusted-node verification every second block would work, at least for this aspect. That was actually my first approach, but I was looking for a tradeoff which preserved decentralization. Perhaps there is a way to federate the trusted nodes along the lines Ben Laurie proposed with his mintettes. Centralization would simplify many aspects of the design, though. Using the mintettes doesn't solve the 51% attack, it just moves it from the pool of all participants to a smaller hand selected pool of participants. It still requires that a majority of the mintettes be honest or the protocol breaks. The very nature of distributed rulesets makes them vulnerable to collusion, because that breaks the underlying assumption that the participants are not acting as a monolithic entity against the protocol. I also believe the "51% attack" is misnamed. If the majority of the participants in Bitcoin agree to a protocol change, it changes. That is the process for adding positive changes to the system, but it is also a process from which negative changes can result (double spends etc). Trying to enforce that only positive changes can result from 51% of the hashpower is like trying to legislate that people act responsibly. I don't believe it can be done with any efficacy. I would watch Solidcoin carefully over the next few weeks. You may gain some insight as to what goes wrong when a trusted node system goes haywire. |
|
|
|
Yeah. I have to admit it guys. I really could not sleep well at night because I was constantly wondering who CH / RS REALLY is. Thank you BCX, now I can sleep all right Now if you could figure out who coblee / ArtForz / lolcust is then you are a true genius ! No prob Jakan! A lot of people know who Coblee is LOL.... I know who ArtForz is also ~BCX~ If this CH/RS theory wasn't true, wouldn't Realsoiled be on here calling us idiots, morons, and trolls? If it is true, the only explanation for his gross failure to insult is if someone revoked his privileges to the account. Or he might be sleeping off his latest meth bender. Time will tell. |
|
|
|
Also gleaned from this Skype was that CH/RS was supposed to turn over all private keys to the Trusted Nodes, but has only done so with four of the ten. He maintains control and operation of six of them. In effect he has reniged and balked at going through with relinquishing control and there is some really ugly squabbling on inside SC.
At the risk of letting him in on something he might not already understand, there is no way to "turn over" a digital file. He can always maintain a copy of the private keys and you can never prove he didn't keep a copy. Then when the time is right, he can use his copy of the private keys to cash-out/destroy/etc. the chain. The SolidCoin 2 chain can never be trusted no matter who CH or RS is. SolidCoin 3 might be different, but only if they eliminate those enforcer nodes completely and stop arbitrarily changing the rules of the game. This^. I just figured Coinhunter/Realsolid went off his meds. RealSolid passing off someone else's work as his own seems to be a recurring theme in his life.  |
|
|
|
doesnt matter at all. You should judge his opinion and not who you think he is.
What if he maintains more than just 2 accounts? You wouldn't want to know if someone is astroturfing? Facts and logic don't need names attached to them, they can stand on their own. However, on these boards it is just his opinion. Anonymous opinions in digital mediums are largely worthless. Especially if one moment they are the "opinion" of the developer/creater/license.txt-replacer of Soiledcoin, but as soon as that becomes inconvenient they are disavowed. How are we to know if an announcement about Soiledcoin is legitimate and not a phishing attack if we cannot know the source? Most important of all, if the creator of Soildedcoin cannot keep his own forum account straight, how are we to trust that he can keep a cryptocurrency functioning all by his lonesome. |
|
|
|
And the 12 million spendable coins hovering over everyone's heads is whats holding Solidcoin back...
No matter how you slice it, there are 12 million coins that can be used at any time to scam the entire user base.
No that's just what an idiot thinks. Either you don't have the brainpower to understand how SolidCoin works or you are deliberately being obtuse to serve some other purpose. If you think 12 million coins that can't be spent is "holding it back" then you shouldn't use any cryptocurrency because it is software and it can be changed! You need to leave the "big time thinking" to the people that can understand it and just have faith. You seem to have faith in Bitcoin for whatever reason, good, stick with it, see how you go. You can make those coins spendable with a single client update. Saying you won't is just asking us to trust that you won't ever do it. Soiledcoin just boils down to asking people to trust a pathological liar with multiple personality disorder. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
