Perhaps next is to encourage people to take "veto" power away from Deepbit which should have been done a long time ago as well, the pools need more balance to avoid such things. And while you can't enforce this, your encouragement should go a long way with BTC supporters.
BTC already did that with P2Pool. I wonder how long before Coinhunter strips the license text from the p2pool and passes it off as his own work.  |
|
|
|
Yeah it's the old tasty argument of "SolidCoin is centralized Bitcoin isn't" . Like the trust nodes in SolidCoin somehow make it sooooo much different than deepbit and btcguild controlling Bitcoin. Might as well call deepbit trust node 1 and btcguild trust node 2. Because you are trusting them to not attack Bitcoin..  Lets look at the two scenarios shall we? Pool bad, people are free to leave the pool. Plus P2Pool is gaining ground so this issue is diminishing not growing. Enforcer node bad, people are free to make forum posts about how they are trapped in a cryptocurrency controlled by one guy. Not that I'm saying deepbit or btcguild will do an attack but if you can't see Bitcoin users are TRUSTING these two pools not to then you can't argue any centralization aspect against SolidCoin with a clear conscience. There are plenty of things in Bitcoin that are centralized that are essential to its future success. A main website, a main source, main developers, a main forum. Oh and the alert key in Bitcoin too is rather centralized is it not? Who has control of that? One person? Oh nooo King Gavin may shut down Bitcoin ... argggg Bitcoin trolls will have a field day! Oh they won't because when it comes to Bitcoin they are like blind mice following the pied piper or something. Bitcoin has a main website? Which one is it? Several splinter groups have split off the forums and made their own place to discuss cryptocurrencies (yourself included). Gavin can't shut down bitcoin with the alert key. He can only suggest that the network be shutdown by using the alert key. Furthermore I have just modded a bitcoin clone that completely ignores alerts. Gavin is now powerless to stop me with alerts. Welcome to free software. So, that was pretty much a standard Coinhunter post, one composed entirely of failed assertions. |
|
|
|
|
It is probably too much draw on the PSU. Try 3 cards instead.
|
|
|
|
Legit source for this? IMHO: DMCA is a bad thing in most situations, but luke-jr didn't use it in a bad/abusive way.
So you're saying it's bad when it effects you but it's not bad when it effects someone else? That seems to be a sign of very poor character.... I'm not going to weigh in because this whole mess is retarded but some of you lot need to reevaluate your morale high ground (on both sides of the fence) DMCA is poorly implemented. It has guilty until proven innocent issues. The need behind the law is sound (having a way to notify websites they are hosting infringing content). In this case, having Coinhunter plagiarize code and then try to lock that code up with a restrictive license was simply beyond the pale. |
|
|
|
|
I think Solidcoin is just a thought experiment on how much it takes before the mods apply the SCAMMER label.
|
|
|
|
Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way? And the fact that miners refusing to accept the change themselves get rejected from the network? I had faith in Bitcoin's decentralization before. But unfortunately for me not to accept P2SH is for me to fight a losing battle.
Misinformation. Please get a new source. Also, please explain the technical issues you have with BIP16. |
|
|
|
No it's you facing serious jail time for using the DMCA on something you do not own and have no claim over. Shouldn't have perjured yourself there bro. You were unaware that Luke-jr contributed code to Bitcoin as far back as June 2011 (perhaps earlier, I didn't look much further)? Interesting. Still haven't mentioned which part of the take-down notice was incorrect? Interesting. You still haven't posted the MIT license in the bitcoin source files (I know its a lot of cutting and pasting). Interesting. All you have done is acknowledged in your own license.txt that "some parts of SolidCoin are based on the MIT licensed source code by Bitcoin", which is an admission of guilt. Interesting. Until you can implement the simplest license in the software world, I have to believe you are simply not capable of implementing a cryptocurrency (which is why you had to use Bitcoin code in the first place). |
|
|
|
There is no successful DMCA against SolidCoin, the source code and binaries are being distributed. So let's just get that fact straight. This censoring troll Luke-Jr only managed to get this claim on Github in the state it is because he knows the people there and also the unprofessional way Github act. No, the DMCA takedowns were successful in the case of both GitHub and Linode (your former webhost). You've just managed to run away from the law by moving to German servers outside the DMCA jurisdiction. You can give ISPs in Germany a DMCA notice about infringing code. They are not required to honor them, but if the investigation is trivial (as it should be in this case) they sometimes comply. You can also file a lawsuit about it in Germany and the ISP will take you seriously. You can go after the domain name solidcointalk.org since it is being used to host infringing content. You can subpoena the registrar for who owns the domain in order to make them a party to the lawsuit (thereby obtaining the entity behind Solidcoin). |
|
|
|
It's just funny how ironic the whole situation is with some of these people supporting draconian laws to try to censor a free project they don't like. Isn't the Bitcoin ethos against this? Or am I in the wrong place?
"Dude you didn't put a text file exactly the way I like!!! OMFG I'm going to DMCA you!! Yeah that will teach you!!"
Bitcoin can have supporters like this, we only want people against these types of institutions working with and investing in SolidCoin at the moment.
That is the price you have to pay (in this specific instance) to use other peoples code. If you don't want to pay their price, don't use their code. They are not making you pay money, or give them royalties or ownership. They are just asking you not to take credit for their work. |
|
|
|
I have copies of solidcoin code (downloaded from GitHub) that have had the MIT licenses removed. I have copies of the bitcoin code with the MIT licenses in place. The former occurred after the latter. The courts can obtain the same thing I have via subpoena.
Yeah it doesn't really matter about "what you think the truth is" . We have the DMCA claims from Luke-Jr and he has perjured himself. You should really see the way he tries to beg people in countries where DMCA isn't relevant to "listen to him" . It's quite sad how he wants DMCA/SOPA installed around the world. People like him need are the reason for the increasingly sad state of the world. DMCA is relevant in both the US and Australia which is where all the parties involved (Luke, Github, and Coinhunter) reside. You violated the license terms. You were warned numerous times. You had the side effects explained to you by numerous people. You chose to ignore the warnings and explanations, instead favoring your own interpretation. Now you have no Github project. You might pursue this in the courts, but you have not done so in spite of having 20 days in which to file. P.S. I can also read the DMCA takedown notice. It is posted at https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2012-01-09-bitcoin.markdown. There is no perjury evident. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is about absolute freedom (mostly in regards to data), which is why it boggles my mind that someone who preaches freedom of all data, would go ahead and do a DMCA takedown on an infant open source e-currency... "Absolute freedom" is absolute evil. This pretty much sums you up in one sentence. Thanks for the quote... You are no better than Coinhunter and his 13 million premine. Disgusting... The problem isn't so much that Coinhunter left out the MIT license. The problem is he replaced the MIT license with his own proprietary license. Coinhunters license claimed he had the right to prevent anyone he wished from using the code is in both Solidcoin and Bitcoin. That includes everyone running a bitcoin client. If uncontested, Coinhunter could try to assert that right in court or via DMCA. That was the problem. Now it isn't.
Luke-Jr is going to be prosecuted soon enough for his fake DMCA claims as he has perjured himself.
I have copies of solidcoin code (downloaded from GitHub) that have had the MIT licenses removed. I have copies of the bitcoin code with the MIT licenses in place. The former occurred after the latter. The courts can obtain the same thing I have via subpoena. |
|
|
|
I am not given to conspiracy theories at all. I took too many physics, chemistry and mathematics courses to lend credence to off the wall theories put forth by the truthers and the fake moon landing luddites. Even so, I feel this little tiny twinge in the hairs on the back of my neck. Then I picture Gavin in an orange jumpsuit @ gitmo  |
|
|
|
I violated the MIT license, but still can't admit I did it. I just keep changing the story and hope people forget the earlier versions.
Thank you Coinhunter, that was an excellent summation. To the mods: can we get a scammer label on these guys? I would hate for someone new to cryptocurrencies to take what the Solidcoin folks say at face value. |
|
|
|
SolidCoin ripped off the open source Bitcoin code to make it proprietary (okay, that's allowed by the MIT license but that's still ugly). Yes. I tried to pass off other peoples work as my own. I then imposed my own licensing terms on code which I did not own the rights to. All I had to do was notify people that the code I used was written by someone else and that my right to use it stemmed from the MIT license. But I failed at this trivial task, and that is why I github took down my code. There. That wasn't so hard. |
|
|
|
ScamCoin says they have "solved the 51% problem" when in reality they have merely created a "0.00001% problem".
That is an unfair characterization of Solidcoin. There is no way there are that many solidcoin users. It is more like a 0.1% problem.  |
|
|
|
|
Another really weird thing about this: Coinhunter has been claiming he can't make fiat changes to the currency and that we should all "read the code" to see why.
Then he makes a fiat change to the currency.
Artforz nailed it earlier in the thread. "Solidcoin has always been at war with Eurasia."
|
|
|
|
take a stock clocked GTX590 for example. it uses about 370W on full load, and with my own cuda miner, it puts about 470MH/s. with pocl it's just under 200.
given that the 590 is comparable to a 6990(price, wattage, dual-GPU), I'd say it meets your bet!
Shenanigans. Code or it didn't happen. And a 6990 will still smoke those numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Pump return status 0.
repl>(map solidcoin dump)
nil
repl>
|
|
|
|
Even with 3x 5970s at 880 mhz (2400 mhash) around 900 watts its only 18 dollars a month to run them. The current payout is $343 a month. That leaves power at 5.2% of expense. Outside of keeping temps down it seems to make little sense to underclock. I realize power costs are higher in some places but it seems like if power was that high mining would be a bad idea to start with, maybe fpga would make more sense.
You pay $0.0202 per kilowatt-hour. At home I pay ~$0.32 per kilowatt-hour. My electricity costs at home are 16 times yours. At your power consumption rate that would put my expenses at ~80%. Undervolting can cut it from ~80% to ~40%, which makes it worth doing. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
