When I donate to a charity, I make sure they guarantee/describe what the money will be used for. If I later find out they broke that guarantee, I could take action, either demanding a refund, suing in court, etc.

Where on the pool site does it support what you just said?  He makes no guarantees as to what the hashes were used for.   

When namecoin merged mining first came around and it was enabled on Eligius, the miners demanded a share of the namecoins because they had mined it.  I'm surprised that they haven't demanded a share of the coiledcoins.  Paying those coins out would effectively kill part of luke's kill effort.

Merged mining.  No wasted hashes.

It does say that for every share you provide, you get paid a certain amount of BTC.  It doesn't say he has to use it for Bitcoin or anything else.  He could pay you in bitcoins and use the hashes for solidcoin if he wanted.

PM it to me too

It IS up to each of us to decide which is legit and which to use.  Anyone that mines with a pool inherently gives the pool operator permission to use his/her hashes as the pool op wants.  Each miner has to trust that the pool op is doing what he/she has announced and nothing more/less.  If a miner feels the pool operator has abused that position of trust/acted in bad faith, the miner is free to mine somewhere else.

Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I am a "brown noser."

Actually, if you actually knew me, you'd know that I disagree with Luke about most things.  Ask around, most people in #bitcoin-otc/#eligius will confirm it.  Just because I happen to disagree with you doesn't mean I'm a Luke cronie.  Calling me a d-bag is just juvenile.

Post a poll here in the forums that asks users to check which of the alt coins are 'legit' or whatever you want to call them.

Me too.

This is one of the primary reasons I do not mine on DeepBit.

Right now, it seems highly unfeasible for a new/unknown 3rd party to come in overtake the whole of the bitcoin network.  It is still possible however, but I think the community would turn on more miners to prevent that from happening.

First, thank you for actually responding with something besides


Now on to the discussion:

4) It was my understanding he was simply mining new blocks that built off his previous blocks.  Essentially there was a race condition.. chain1 which included blocks from eligius and chain2 which included blocks from everywhere else.  He/Eligius wasn't reassigning anything, the clients were simply using the chain selection algorithm that picks the longest/most difficult chain which happens to be chain1.  As a result, any work on chain2 keeps getting orphaned.  To combat it, more blocks would need to be found that build on chain2 to overcome chain1's length.

5) What I meant is that if you had sent coins to address1 in block10, eligius started mining in block11.  Essentially, all coin transactions were preserved, only the coin generation coins were lost because the original assigning blocks were orphaned.

6) I think I described this in 4.


I appreciate the alt coins, they show reasons why bitcoin has done well and also illustrate where it can be improved.  I do not like them when all they do is change some vars, uncomment/comment out some code and release.  That isn't innovation. 

I realize that part of the point of coiledcoin was to use op_eval, but I also believe there are ongoing discussions to roll this out to testnet, which means setting up a brand new network isn't needed/warranted.

If people were making threats against my actions, whether they were right or wrong, I would remove my personal information from my websites as well.  If you really feel he did something wrong/illegal, please call up law enforcement.

Here are the facts as I see them:

1) Mining for blocks isn't against the rules of bitcoin/its clones.
2) There are no rules regarding how much hash power you may contribute to any of the bitcoin/clone networks.
3) There are no rules mandating which transactions miners have to include in the blocks they mine.
4) As far as I know, he didn't reassign any coins that were mined before he started mining.
5) Luke never made fake transactions to take coins that weren't his.
6) Luke generated a bunch of blocks that became the longest chain and orphaned shorter chains.

Please let me know if any of those 6 facts are wrong.

Edit: and if those 6 facts are indeed correct, then how is what he did wrong?

so what actually happened, blocks were orphaned?  Can't that happen with any block chain?

how was it stealing?  did he take coins from you?

Perhaps he used merged mining, in which case no hashes were wasted at all.

sorry, misread.

There's also #bitcoin-escrow for the #bitcoin-otc users.  The fees there are negotiable and pretty reasonable.

It seems you were scamming.

Unless the people that let it sit think the price is going to go higher than $6, in which case, it is stupid to sell at $6.

Still looking?

If you wanna go 'common sense', then 'common sense' dictates to not trade with someone with very little ratings for very little profit.

The little link at the top of the topic that says 'notify' does the same thing.