Those individuals can leave those pools at any time and the pool owners will be rendered powerless.
That is the theory in practice next to no one shifts a pool once they are settled on it as this debacle has shown. Untrue. Users have left pools that provided shoddy or unreliable service. Those pools have withered and died. Just skim through the pool sub-forum of the mining section and you will find a few. There are certainly improvements that can be made to the pool system in bitcoin, of that there is no doubt. But they are improvements in human behavior, not in computing protocols. For instance, pools that grow large enough to reach 25% of total hash power could close their pools to more work. Yeah when it affected the coin return anything else a pool operator does is fair game it seems for these people and I actually now want to see one get larger than 50% so I can watch these same little weasels whine, complain and squirm over it... Again, why would users whine, complain or squirm? A few need only change the ordering of URLs so the largest pool is no longer their primary. The solution is so simple, and has already been effected in a continuous fashion by many individuals to prevent Deepbit from "controlling" Bitcoin. Not that I have anything against Deepbit, they simply offer an excellent service and are the easy choice for first time miners. |
|
|
|
Those individuals can leave those pools at any time and the pool owners will be rendered powerless.
That is the theory in practice next to no one shifts a pool once they are settled on it as this debacle has shown. Untrue. Users have left pools that provided shoddy or unreliable service. Those pools have withered and died. Just skim through the pool sub-forum of the mining section and you will find a few. There are certainly improvements that can be made to the pool system in bitcoin, of that there is no doubt. But they are improvements in human behavior, not in computing protocols. For instance, pools that grow large enough to reach 25% of total hash power could close their pools to more work. |
|
|
|
because everyone knows your centralized architecture is much better, right? Hey, it worked for the Fed. Your users must enjoy the lottery you built in to your shitcoin. I also heard that they're stealing money from the CPF. But whatever, it's not much worse than the Fed, right?  Since you're not a programmer or network engineer you probably don't realize a few things. If you think SolidCoin is centralized then Bitcoin is even more centralized. Bitcoin has 3 pools which create 90+% of the blocks. SolidCoin has nowhere near this distribution of block creation being centralized. Game, set, match. I guess. You don't need to be an engineer to realize that Solidcoin2 is controlled by a single individual. There is nothing a user of Solidcoin2 can do about this. Nor do you need to be an engineer to realize that Bitcoin pools are comprised of many individuals. Those individuals can leave those pools at any time and the pool owners will be rendered powerless. Could the pool owners act in concert to disrupt the protocol? Yes. Does all the power in Bitcoin still lie with the users of Bitcoin? Yes. In theory, all bitcoin users can act in concert to change the blockchain any time they see fit. Users of Solidcoin2 exist at the whim of 1 man. P.S. You guessed wrong. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin: 1
Detractors: 0
Let's see what we can do in 2012. What an exciting thing to be working on =)
We shall see how Team Bitcoin does in their first contest of 2012, where they play the Mayans at home! |
|
|
|
people still own shitcoins?
There was a time when people discussed owning bitcoins in this nature... oh wait that was my boss today at work amazed I'm still messing with "bitcoins" as I was excitedly mentioning that they are worth over $6 again. I guess it's all about perspective... Actually, its all about math and software engineering. |
|
|
|
How will SOPA effect the Namecoin system? 3 points for using "effect" correctly as a verb  -6 points for incorrectly awarding 3 points. The Namecoin system has already been "effected" (into existence). He was looking to use "affect", meaning to influence. He also could have said, "What sort of effect will SOPA have on the Namecoin system?" but then, that would not be a verb.  Actually, he could very well use "effect" as a verb in this case, since the meaning is broader than to just "start" something. Namecoin is hardly used at the moment. If SOPA makes it mainstream, then we can very well say that SOPA effected Namecoin, or slightly more elaborately: large scale Namecoin adoption. If he said that "SOPA effected large scale Namecoin adoption", then that would have been correct. That was not what he said. He made the classic error of swapping effect in for affect. I wouldn't have brought it up except for you awarding points for it.  I am not a grammar nazi, I am a grammer instant replay booth. The call on the field has been OVERTURNED. He could very well argue, and would be correct at that, that the current state of Namecoin is not fully deployed yet, and as such, SOPA could effect Namecoin. Let me move these closer to you so that you don't have to grasp at them.   Namecoin is fully deployed, just not fully adopted. SOPA might introduce a change in the rate of Namecoin adoption, but since Namecoin has already been created it would be hard to create it again. Not impossible though, since Scamcoin was rebooted and redistributed as 2.0. More likely still is that it won't affect Namecoin at all. DNS providers will simply flee the US jurisdiction. HTTPS will become standard for all web browsing. US citizens will have to buy in addition to internet service some sort of proxy access based outside the US. Move all the datacenters to India (where they can be close to their phone support) and suddenly SOPA has nothing to regulate. Sure, it might become illegal to read things online. On the other hand, Congress only has another 8% to go before they have a 0% approval rating. Then it is Louis XVI time |
|
|
|
How will SOPA effect the Namecoin system? 3 points for using "effect" correctly as a verb -6 points for incorrectly awarding 3 points. The Namecoin system has already been "effected" (into existence). He was looking to use "affect", meaning to influence. He also could have said, "What sort of effect will SOPA have on the Namecoin system?" but then, that would not be a verb. Actually, he could very well use "effect" as a verb in this case, since the meaning is broader than to just "start" something. Namecoin is hardly used at the moment. If SOPA makes it mainstream, then we can very well say that SOPA effected Namecoin, or slightly more elaborately: large scale Namecoin adoption. If he said that "SOPA effected large scale Namecoin adoption", then that would have been correct. That was not what he said. He made the classic error of swapping effect in for affect. I wouldn't have brought it up except for you awarding points for it. I am not a grammar nazi, I am a grammer instant replay booth. The call on the field has been OVERTURNED. |
|
|
|
How will SOPA effect the Namecoin system? 3 points for using "effect" correctly as a verb -6 points for incorrectly awarding 3 points. The Namecoin system has already been "effected" (into existence). He was looking to use "affect", meaning to influence. He also could have said, "What sort of effect will SOPA have on the Namecoin system?" but then, that would not be a verb. |
|
|
|
Flipper- welcome to the Dark Side. Here you will find that skepticism and healthy doubt still have a place in the community of men, and open debate still remains as the hallmark of honest discourse. You remain a complete tool for having been rs's little mouthpiece, but at least you are now a tool that I can communicate with without laughing my ass off at your blindness. In time you will drop off the shame of your toolishness and rejoin civilized society.
And on a slight tangent... did you notice how every single post that real-douche meade was a complete vindication of what Flip stated? Censorship? Yup. Banned? Yup again, although it was only collateral damage when he was banning someone else (as if the dossiers were next to each other and his electronic chainsaw cut too wide of a swath!). Editing post? Sure enough, Captain Super Coder to the rescue, when you say something that isn't in full praise of his Remarkable Assholishness, then your posts will be changed. Delusions of Godhood? Dead on the money- "secession plan in place" (sic) he thinks he is so important that he wants to Anoint the Next Anointed One. But his utter lack of intelligence comes shining through once again-
se·ces·sion [si-sesh-uhn] noun
1. an act or instance of seceding.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) U.S. History . the withdrawal from the Union of 11 Southern states in the period 1860–61, which brought on the Civil War.
3. ( usually initial capital letter ) Fine Arts . a style of art in Germany and Austria concurrent with and related to Art Nouveau.
Trusting that he was not referring to shortbus-coin as an fork of the Art Nouveau blockchain, I wonder if the big word he was looking for was actually...
suc·ces·sion [suhk-sesh-uhn] noun
1. the coming of one person or thing after another in order, sequence, or in the course of events: many troubles in succession.
2. a number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence.
3. the right, act, or process, by which one person succeeds to the office, rank, estate, or the like, of another.
4. the order or line of those entitled to succeed one another.
5. the descent or transmission of a throne, dignity, estate, or the like. Sound familiar?
I wonder if the successor gets to wear the same tiara and carry the Holy Staff of Scam when he parades through the adoring throngs?
Throngs plural? I can't see there being enough Scamcoinites to form a single throng, let alone multiple throngs. Otherwise spot on. |
|
|
|
The unknown part of the litecoin mining power is still at 80% . This kind of "unknown" amount mining a coin is quite unheard of. The fact some people here laugh it off like it's nothing to worry about it is quite concerning.
By "unheard of" you mean that SC keeps tabs on all the peasant nodes and Bitcoin uses pools because the difficulty is so high. In Litecoin the nodes are not unknown, they are just unaffiliated. That is actually the goal by the way, to have a high percentage of hashing power not under the control of a single person. |
|
|
|
So Coinhunter claims he doesn't know where most of the hashpower of Litecoin comes from. Not surprising that he conflates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. |
|
|
|
people don't need to worry about Trojans with SolidCoin, only one person makes the binaries
Which requires that people actually trust this one person in the first place. And that kind of trust goes dead against the whole point of having peer reviewed and publicly readable source. Only a fool would trust SolidCoin but there are plenty of fools in the world. Maybe that's the real attack vector. CoinHunter will slip people a mandatory binary update with no source that searches for BitCoin wallet.dat's and sends them to him. It won't work against anyone who sets up their systems right but we already established SolidCoin users are fools. Why would you go for wallet.dat? Install a key-logger via auto-update and go for credit card info, bank website passwords, and the brass ring. |
|
|
|
|
This exploit (and others like it) is why it was so important to release the code the control nodes run.
Before the coin launches, not after.
|
|
|
|
You are assuming the control nodes run the public client. I doubt any code changes need to be made at all. Actually, I'm assuming the trusted nodes aren't running the publicly-released source because that's what RealSolid said; if they were, then they'd be just as happy to let him convert the entire 12 million SC trustfund balances into spendable coins as any other node. Because they already run new code with the amount restriction in it? A new version will be released, then everybody has the fix. You found a critical bug in the source code? No worries, it's already fixed in the trusted node code. RealSolid just didn't have time to release the actual source yet. And by the way, the trusted nodes are also running code that has all bugs and exploits fixed... even the ones that have not been found yet. I fully trust RealSolid. Don't you? Well, the 12 million being spendable isn't actually a bug since RS runs the control nodes and he wants to be able to spend it at some point. The bug was people finding out about them being spendable, and that is why we don't need source for the "fix". We just have to "believe". |
|
|
|
Don't forget the fact that these 10 accounts are controlled by a single entity (RS). The coins that back them are only "unspendable" for the moment, that could change with any release of new code. In fact, there is no way the peasant nodes of Solidcoin can enforce any rules on the control nodes or the block chain.
Worse, it's actually the other way around - until new code is released, the ~12 million coins in those accounts are not in fact "unspendable" at all. The current trusted nodes should reject any attempts to spend them, but RS or anyone else that gets control of those 10 accounts can set up their own trusted nodes that will approve this and the rest of the nodes should go along with it. Edit: Of course even once this is changed it can be changed back again in a future release. You are assuming the control nodes run the public client. I doubt any code changes need to be made at all. |
|
|
|
A trusted node in SolidCoin is a node which has a significant amount of SolidCoins (at least one million) in a special account. This account is used to "sign" a trusted transaction block to say that this person with a lot invested in SolidCoin agrees with the previous block. But the 10 accounts that have 1.2M coins have unspendable coins. There is no investment. Nothing to lose (other than control). If there ever was another account that had 1M coins that were actually spendable, then that huge investment is dwarfed by the out-of-thin-air coins. So, SC's reasoning doesn't make sense. By allowing these fake coins to make a node trusted, he has broken his own system. Don't forget the fact that these 10 accounts are controlled by a single entity (RS). The coins that back them are only "unspendable" for the moment, that could change with any release of new code. In fact, there is no way the peasant nodes of Solidcoin can enforce any rules on the control nodes or the block chain. The only question is, will the value of a Solidcoin reach the point where RS decides to monetize the control coins? |
|
|
|
Since RS controls the control nodes and the control nodes control the block chain and the block chain controls the currency, RS controls the currency. At a whim, he could undo transactions and lock wallet addresses out of the system.
He's already proven that. You can "undo" transaction in EVERY cryptocurrency by overwriting a block by remining it, nothing new here. The new part is that a single person can. Whoever hacks into their box would also have absolute power over Solidcoin, so it won't be one person forever. But how would to lock out a wallet? No proof? That's your usual way, accusations and then post some excuse or "It has alreay been proven.", but no facts It is been made abundantly clear that you can neither read code, nor write it. So hush up while the adults talk. The simplest way to lock a given wallet out of the currency would be to have the control nodes overwrite every block with a transaction to or from that wallet address, thus preventing it from spending, receiving or mining. Those actions can be taken in piecemeal or in concert. |
|
|
|
If I could be multiple flies I would sure as shit think deathandtaxes and bitcoinexpress is the same pmsing mongtroll.
If anyone still take bitcoinexpress seriously after this thread(cant fking believe why they would before it) then it just shows why bitcoin value is popping to shit since there has to be a bunch of retarded fkheads killing the price cause its "LOLFUNNYWAHAHA" to do it.
A poster child for Solidcoin supporters? Since RS controls the control nodes and the control nodes control the block chain and the block chain controls the currency, RS controls the currency. At a whim, he could undo transactions and lock wallet addresses out of the system. Even if RS was the most altruistic and trusted saint mankind has ever known, the person who hacks his Windows computer might not be. That person would have full control over the entire system. When one man controls a currency, it can end up like this:  |
|
|
|
what's to stop anyone adding the magic line to their conf file? Presumably you have to ask sweetly for the information.
1 million Solidcoins. And then sell it to a 10 people for 200k and make a tidy profit? Well it's impossible for someone to buyout 1 million Solidcoins, without driving the price up, increasing the miner production, thus increasing supply and creating even more millionaires in the process. Right now there is under 2 mil "spendable" coins in existence. Trying to buy those 2 million coins would cause a market frenzy, increasing mining production, and increasing the inflationary rate of the coins. I really don't think you along with many people here have a fundamental understanding of what Solidcoin aims to be, and why it's an awesome alt currency. There has been alot of stupid decisions made by RS from a marketing/public relations perspective. Me and other people in the community were very vocal about this, and many of the problems of "total RS control" are being fixed. Someone could pay RS for 1 million coins. Again. I don't see how that would move the price up. |
|
|
|
|
Measuring an increase in hashrate on SC2 is pointless since it most likely reflects how many new people have access to a good GPU miner.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
