And why is this in the alt currencies forum? At most it should be in Off-Topic.
I agree anything related to ScamCoin should be in off topic. Not because of that, only because it has nothing to do with an alt currency, it's just someone crying they got banned from other forum. Stop being a fool. It is someone providing direct evidence that the Solidcoin community does not tolerate either criticism or questions. Solidcoin claims to be a cryptocurrency alternative to Bitcoin and they advertise on this forum. The OP's post is on topic. @OP: Psy can be safely ignored, his posts contain little content. |
|
|
|
Back before Fiat, Gold & Silver were two separate metals being widely used worldwide as currency, with various other metals trading around the periphery, Copper, Lead, Tin etc. so I think at the very least there is room for 2 "metals" in the market place, probably more.
It's wrong to say any physical matter can be used as a currency, a coin made from sodium or sulphur would be ridiculously impractical and last about an hour.
Gold and Silver have a number of unique properties which make them perfect for use as currency. A few other metals such as Platinum and Palladium also fit the bill, but realistically you are looking at maybe 8 or 10 metals that could realistically be used as currency.
Fiat currencies made of various materials predated using gold & siver as currencies. L2readhistory!  |
|
|
|
Or looked at from another angle, four lines that sum up why SolidCoin is successful?
Yeah, one allegedly unemployed guy working 12+hr days w/o oversight on a project which siphons coins every block into his wallet. Exchanges are dropping it before it's launched. All the 'supporters' seem to have been paid 1m+ coins. The coin operates under the premise that '$$$ = Trust'. No source code. That word 'success', I do not think it means what you think it means. From the at least one perspective, mybitcoin.com was a stunning success.  |
|
|
|
viper is incorrect about me posting the full hashing code. I did post the initialization code for it which is what I think he may be referencing.
4 people have been given the full hash code at various times and the opencl version of it has now been released so anyone wanting to look at it can check there. Full source will be out soon anyhow. Thanks for taking an interest in the SolidCoin project.
Citation please? I just checked your latest posts on the solidcoin.info site and it has no mention of this release. The download source button still does nothing. |
|
|
|
It is from BCX's claims on here and of his GPU miner. SC2 supporters are claiming SHA-3 hashing algorithms -- if this is true it may be very open to attacks by FPGA/GPU.
If you search Coinhunter's own posts you will see where he posted the core hashing algorithm already. Citation please? I have seen no source code posted either here or at Solidcoin.info. There is no source code for anything posted. It is hard to prove a negative. Perhaps viperjm could provide a link to the code? |
|
|
|
Could you be more specific about which part of the "information" describing Solidcoin 2.0 was true and which was not?
So far, the only thing to support from Solidcoin is a binary with:
no signatures
no source code
and now no white paper
released by some guy on the internet
for the time being, if you get 10 of them you can trade them for 1 Namecoin
nmc 0.027000 0.027500 sc 0.006500 0.006520 Looks to me that 10 SC will get you >3 NMCs right now if allchains.info is correct?.... maybe I math failed 4.15 SC per NM now, I was going off prices from sometime yesterday. That is some pretty impressive volatility! Any answers about a revised white paper that is more than just a red herring? Or source code for the current block chain? Please provide citations for any answers. |
|
|
|
It is from BCX's claims on here and of his GPU miner. SC2 supporters are claiming SHA-3 hashing algorithms -- if this is true it may be very open to attacks by FPGA/GPU.
If you search Coinhunter's own posts you will see where he posted the core hashing algorithm already. Citation please? I have seen no source code posted either here or at Solidcoin.info. |
|
|
|
Satoshi developed a hashing algorithm in Bitcoin which saw GPUs dominate it, forcing CPU users to the dustbin and making it a lot more difficult for everyone to mine Bitcoin. Out of this grew the GPU farms and the Bitcoin mining community. Prior to SolidCoin v2.0 I released some info saying we were going to a CPU algorithm for SC2, knowing that the trolls would attempt to copy the idea. The end result, tenebrix, a CPU miner, now a dead chain. (I won't mention fairbrix/litecoin since they are both also dying and just copied tenebrix). In actuality the hashing algorithm I developed for SolidCoin v2.0 was designed to equalize CPU and GPU, to make them comparable watt for watt. Now SolidCoin would let anyone with a GPU (even NVIDIA ones) or CPU able to mine rather fairly. Like all the core SolidCoin people know, we are the current technical leader of cryptocurrencies, with the most innovations and the most secure p2p currency, if you want an early alpha for GPU mining please visit our forum. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/342-solidcoin-v20-gpu-miner/Could you be more specific about which part of the "information" describing Solidcoin 2.0 was true and which was not? So far, the only thing to support from Solidcoin is a binary with: no signatures no source code and now no white paper released by some guy on the internet for the time being, if you get 10 of them you can trade them for 1 Namecoin |
|
|
|
The real onslaught will come after the source is obtained.
~BCX~
Which is why the source will probably never be released. CH is hoping that security through obscurity is good enough. You do realise right that saying that is calling CH an idiot - right? There is no positive meaning to your statement. From what I understand by reading the IRC logs is that Coinhunter is going to release an updated version client 2.01 or 2.02 for non trusted node miners and release that source. He has said he will not release version 2.00 source. It's plainly obvious he is simply going to clean up the bugs and release it, therefore pretending he released the source. If he doesn't release the source for SC 2.0, nothing else really matters. He must feel the block chain still requires a manual kill switch and manual reorg capability to remove undesirable people from the block chain  |
|
|
|
Coinhunter sent out a tweet stating that he would release Solidcoin version 2.01 with Source Code tomorrow. http://twitter.com/TheRealSolid In IRC chats he has emphatically stated he will not release Solidcoin 2.0 due to proprietary reasons. I think everyone knows my opinion of this, so no need in repeating it. What is yours?~BCX~ It appears there are proprietary control mechanisms in 2.0 that gave Coinhunter total control over the block chain. We shall see to what extent they are removed in 2.01. |
|
|
|
I think bitcoin is still useful unless it drops to 1 Satoshi, then basically it is not useful for trade or speculations.
what does this mean? how does bitcoin 'drop to 1 satoshi'? I don't know it put my brain into a recursive loop. 1 satoshi = 1E-8 BTC So if 1 BTC = 1E-8 BTC? Now that would likely kill BTC if 1 BTC is equal to 1/100,000th of itself. It's the new math:  Dividing by zero when nobody is looking eh? |
|
|
|
Comments have been made about reversing transactions. Now that shouldn't be possible in a chain without forking back to the block that contains the transaction ... unless the encryption keys used are part of a key pair that someone else has the 2nd part of for all access. That would make releasing the source code rather a MAJOR problem (or if someone bothered to decompile it they could find how to get this key ...) So either none have been reversed, or everyone using SC2.0 is in even more serious trouble than already stated. Also, the fact that every 2nd block is low difficulty also says that the chain itself is not secure to the network hash level - technically, only half that (and what does everyone hash while waiting for the 2nd block to appear?) This release seems to be an exercise of "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks". If the technology and code was truly secure, there should have been no qualms about releasing the source code. Given that some of the licenses employed require such at a release it seems very suspect that none has occurred. So far, it appears to me that SC2 is just a manually controlled block chain with one individual's finger on the killswitches. I presume this is so that Coinhunter could release a binary with the smallest chance that people will hack it. Perhaps later source will be released without some of the killswitches in order to lend credibility to the block chain. However, if a trusted node gets hacked and its private keys stolen the whole block chain is compromised. I wonder how long 12 relative novices at computer security can keep their "trusted nodes" 100% secure. Should be an interesting experiment. |
|
|
|
It's amazing how CoinHunter just seems to ignore this.
But I think he's sweating... It doesn't feel nice to be caught...
He isn't ignoring it. His sockpuppets are here posting already. |
|
|
|
Ok, so when will you hack SC2 and kill the chain? Just give as a date, better to create some facts  Network was already supposed to come to a grinding halt hours ago.... the difficulty is barely changing now.... guess he was blowing a lot of smoke again, no?.... Yeah, the difficulty is barely changing... Yet, the block generation only at ~67% of where it should be. Kinda makes sense, that being I was about 35% of total network rate when I dropped off. Early on I was over 80%. Pics or it didn't happen... Full of shit, that's what you are lol Hey Dumbass, posted hash rate over the life of SC is better than pics. Hash rates are numbers. He needs pictures.  |
|
|
|
No you are right, apart from the huge amount of pre-mined coins, the centralised dictatorial control that CH has on the network, the taxation, the closed-source binaries and the fact that SC experienced hyper-inflation within the first 24 hours, the whole project has been a HUGE success  I stand corrected Compelling. |
|
|
|
More and more people realize, that their BTCs will lose value because of other chains being innovative and BTC not, so they jump on the FUD-train? Since the only thing you can trade SolidCoins for is BTC, it actually increases the demand for BTC if anyone wants to trade their SC2. |
|
|
|
Rumor is that SC 2.0 is just a small recursion loop inserted into the BTC hash algorithm. If that is true, it should be trivial to make recursion simulation for GPUs. I wouldn't bother mining SC 2.0 on CPUs until we see the algorithm, it would be a waste of electricity. Unless source is never released... Then I suppose Solidcoin is dead.  |
|
|
|
I find it extremely disturbing how people jump in to mine without having the source or even knowing the generation algorithm. It's like an early adopter mental disorder or something.
Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it. You can learn a lot more far more quickly about how secure / full of trojans / likely to open up backdoors a program is by running it in a Virtual Machine and inspecting what it does while running. But of course you know this. These accusations are simply FUD, anyone with half a brain can see that. He may not know what to look for, but I do. If I were to find something, I could post the filename, the line number, and why it is a problem. Then others can validate what I posted. Then you would have a measure of confidence that there was a problem. I couldn't prove the code to be secure, but I would have the opportunity to prove the code to be insecure (if any flaws exist). It is the difference between "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence". Security through obscurity mistakes one for the other. Just as an aside, I wouldn't activate any trojans until after a cooling off period has expired. Gotta suck in the fish before you pull the net closed.  |
|
|
|
|
The first botnet that realizes they can take whatever they want from Tenebrix will solve the problem of Lolcust having 7.7 million coins.
|
|
|
|
|
No hashes of the binaries provided so one can make sure that we are actually downloading Coinhunters binaries instead of trojanware from someone else.
No source.
No whitepaper.
Identical feature set to other coins.
Hope the "beta" goes well.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
