Can we all just stop fucking around on the thread here? Individual perceptions of the technological advancements behind the coin DO NOT MATTER. You either like it or you don't. If you see nothing here you are free to go.
If I sat on the forum all day and just spammed the shit out of coins I don't like because they bring nothing new to the table, I'd probably get banned for the sheer amount of posts per day I'd be laying down.
Also development is key, it's unlikely any coin is going to come "right out of the package" and lay a smack down on other coins with its market cap.
Individual's perceptions of tech. advancements may not matter but you know what does? The technological advancements themselves. I can see you are on the side that thinks that having a 2MB block size = technological advancement. |
|
|
|
Why are you guys spamming the SDC thread and Slack?
I don't see any spamming in the thread... I posted the 'fix' to SDCs anonymity bug because it concerns SDC, does it not? What I posted is very relevant to SDC. It's not like I was talking about rainbows and butterflies. |
|
|
|
MICKEY: And that is why we need a decentralized foundation, and built everything on top of it!
MICKEY: You mean Ethereum.
MINNIE: No. Ethereum is cute, but not a decentralized foundation.
MICKEY: How is it not a decentralized foundation?
MINNIE: It runs on Ether coins, thus controlled by its paying code, thus by the developers who controls that code.
whats the point of all this? why are you talking to yourself. |
|
|
|
Well friend I think at this leg in the race it is safe to say that you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine but let's just agree to disagree here and move on.
Funny my post was deleted although it only brought up legitimate concerns. Another big red flag. Ahem... Lets review something really quick. First of all -- Why would you bother quoting a shitcoin in a forum full of seasoned traders and developers who understand that Eclipse has nothing special or new to offer either -- This reference point is not doing you any favors and just proved that you are here to troll and waste everyone's time. Again to my earlier point - This is not a shitcoin (unlike the particular post you linked) it is simply an improvement to the existing successful bitcoin blockchain and if you took the time to do some research you would understand that there is a huge community backing that supports the increased block size which will ultimately lend a helping hand in C-bits future success.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin.
only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal.
I feel like your attempts at providing constructive feedback or "nitpicking" is doing nothing other than pissing people in this thread off and at this point rather than continuing to sit there in your chair and keyboard warrior it up -- stop trying to prove a point and sit there and wait to see whether or not this coin goes somewhere -- if it does GREAT! if not... what did you really lose ?
Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene.
I fail to see how there were any smoke and mirrors involved in the developers explanation of how this coin works.. i believe it was clearly spelled out to you and im pretty sure there are no smoke and mirrors at play here. Also in this statement you said yourself you will wait and see what is brought to the table yet you still continue onward to poke at the developer..
I will wait to see what you bring... Seems more like smoke and mirrors to me but please prove me wrong. Will be watching.
See below response.
Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation.
I was expecting some actual innovation.
If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section.
The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not.
Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already.
On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional.
Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size?
Yes -- You have made it abundantly clear that you possess the capabilities to copy and paste a response to try and continue to backup your argument. Remember -- We all read what you typed the first time there is no reason to reiterate what you had already stated.
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
Please just do the people who are actually excited about the direction this coin can potentially head; let us be excited. There is no need for you to continue to drag something out that is just going to end in you flaming about some half baked opinion and the rest of us laughing from behind our screens. Cheers- Rekt Okay I will address your points. You are saying it is not shitcoin because of what reason? If the reason is either a) supply count or b) 2MB block size then your reason for C-bit not being a shitcoin is invalid. The fact that there are many members that support a block size increase in bitcoin does not in any way mean they will somehow end up supporting C-bit. Having 2 MB does not mean you have the actual support of those looking to increase blocksize. One of the reasons why there is debate and so much interest about bitcoin blocksize is because it is bitcoin. Blocksizes are currently not worth considering for any other cryptocurrency other than bitcoin. If you seriously think they will suddenly switch over to C-bit simply because it has 2 MB blocks, then I really have nothing to say other than go get a reality check. Let me clarify: my concern is this (and it still stands) - what does C-bit have to offer? From what I can see the only things it can offer is a difference in supply count and blocksize already being 2 MB. This is where my concerns are. Quite frankly, 2MB block sizes and bigger supply is not actually offering anything new. If the only selling point of C-bit is 2MB blocks then it is doomed. Bitcoin's block size problem will be resolved, it is simply a matter of when and how, not if. What then? When bitcoin increases block sizes, what is the selling point of C-bit then? You can be excited all you want, but also remember to keep a level head. Do you not know the altcoin scene? Every 10 altcoins, 9.9 of them are scams. I am just providing a reality check. I am not saying this is a scam although it does seem suspicious. I do not know enough yet to make that judgement. What I can say is this... I am highly doubtful of the coins success due to reasons I mentioned above. I hope I don't have to make an unmoderated thread for C-bit. |
|
|
|
It appears that the devs behind eclipse are at least somewhat competent at coding and if you have managed to successfully fix the flaw then great job.
I have some realistic concerns about eclipse though. If the fix is the only new implementation for eclipse then eclipse will simply fade away when SDC applies a fix as well. There would be no appeal to utilize SDC over Eclipse with all things being equal in terms of anonymity. My next concern is potential flaws in other parts of SDC code, this means Eclipse will also be vulnerable to them.
Do you guys have plans for eclipse other than applying the fix?
Yes, we have an internal roadmap. But before we make it public, we need to see for ourselves what kind of potential there is for an anonymous coin. Our motivation was to get some people who know cryptography and math (us) together with a coin that has good anonymity. We aren't for bells and whistles until the potential of the underlying protocol is fully realized. However, if you like bells and whistles, those that come with shadowcoin are pretty good. If you insist, our near-term plans are twofold and a little technical. 1. First, we need to bring the bitcoin secp256k1 library to the entirety of the Eclipse code base. This means not only using it as an API for patching the broken shadowcash ring signatures (which we have done), but also to use it for all of the operations over secp256k1. This also means integrating Schnorr signatures, which are native to the bitcoin secp256k1 library. 2. Second the current implementation needs proper blockchain pruning. Thanks for your continued responses. It is good to hear that you have a vision for eclipse that expands beyond the anonymity fix. The sky is the limit for an anonymous coin but only if it is truly anonymous. I am looking forward to see everything take hold and hope to see eclipse as a top contender for anonymity. I remain a bit skeptical of how dedicated you will be to eclipse because quite frankly the altcoin scene is just an absolute mess but I am liking eclipse much more than any other recent garbage launches. Hard work will pay off so I hope you remain dedicated to eclipse and success will follow! |
|
|
|
Cool! That was fast! Also everyone don't forget, we have an active Slack community at http://slack.hodlcoin.comDrop by to talk. The chat is mostly about our nuts and how Winter is Coming. cool project, i am thinking of jumping on board. is this a long term project for you? What do you hope to do with this project? That's a good question. The way I see the crypto world evolving is as a marketplace of competing and complimentary cryptocurrencies with different properties. The ones that will do best will have stable rules, good distributions, fair launches and good recognition. I aim to make HOdlcoin one of those coins. The branding and logos are pretty lighthearted and jokey, but the concept and coding behind it is serious. This is Bitcoin with interest. It is well coded - that's why you're seeing quality people getting behind it. It has been built to last. HODL OUT. Nutoshi Sackamoto. Thank you for reply. You aren't promising any new ground breaking innovations, your vision for HODL sounds like a solid one. Just don't become like iGotSpots and launch a million high interest coins. Dedicate yourself to just this and I'm sure HODL can be one of the most sought after high interest coins in crypto. Keep up the great work and although it does not amount to much, you have my support! |
|
|
|
POS starts after POW is done?
PoS has already started... Currently PoW/PoS PoS V2 PoS Min Age: 8 hours HiPoS Length: 4 Weeks HiPoS Reward: 300 Corona, decreasing by 10/day to 20 Corona Post-HiPoS Reward: 10 Corona this coin is promising, just hope devs have more planned than the anonymity fix. |
|
|
|
they're just using secp256k1.. what's special about it? just stop whining so much and wait then, if you are "waiting to see what happens" here.. or does waiting involve trolling and nitpicking? Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene. You just don't get it. You want a MAJOR contribution ? C-bit now gets Bitcoin Classic off of Bitcoin Core's back. If the REAL reason for Bitcoin Classic's argument with Bitcoin Core is because of the Block size, then here is C-bit, all ready and presented like a christmas gift. All they have to do is move in and settle down. It's all ready for Classic. C-bit IS Bitcoin Core, but with the 2 Meg block size already baked in. Bitcoin Core no longer needs to do a Hard Fork, this is the Major innovative item of C-bit that you don't seem to understand. Unless the real reason behind Bitcoin Classic is more than just the block size, it's a perfect fit. If the real reason is something else, well then, we just exposed it. It might be the Bitcoin network, the value of Bitcoin, the clients of Bitcoin, the name of Bitcoin, or the power. Everything then is now exposed as a smokescreen and a lie. Everyone will be able to see it all for what it really is. A grab for Bitcoin. As for your comment about it is so easy that all you have to do is cut and paste. You know what, you're right. I did this whole project while sitting on the toilet one night, in about 15 minutes.... the whole damn thing. There, happy ? You win. William Martens Founder C-bit Copy pasting bitcoin code and changing to 2MB blocksize + supply is not innovation. I was expecting some actual innovation. If changing block size and supply count is innovation, then oh gee... bitcointalk is overflowing with innovators... especially the altcoin section. The only thing that would make C-bit worth anything is if it really was a solution to the current blocksize problem but it is not. Please do not say C-bit is the solution because it has 2 MB block size already. On a more realistic note, if you think Bitcoin Core supporters will move to C-bit you are delusional. Do you have any reason why people would consider C-bit OTHER than the 2 MB block size? |
|
|
|
|
Very impressed with all the work done on this... I have just one concern.
There was over 9 million EMC mined by a single address on the first day of launch... This is definitely going to be an obstacle if EMC hopes to achieve real usage.
Is there anything being done to address this issue?
|
|
|
|
Great idea Shen providing a review would be great for Eclipse. I was getting the opinion of others on SDC/Eclipse and a good point was brought up. any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. Have you considered the possibility of this? Is there a reason why you chose shadowcash method of anonymity over other ways of anonymity? As usual, smooth has beautiful insight, but it's not an insight that wasn't also obvious to us. It's important to understand that SDC ported the cryptonote ring signature system to the bitcoin codebase, almost in it's entirety. You can see what I mean in the naming of the methods: CN: hash_to_ec --> SDC: hashToEC CN: generate_key_image --> SDC: generateKeyImage CN: generate_ring_signature --> SDC: generateRingSignature Why is this important? Because where SDC has an opportunity to deviate, they may create security flaws. Here, they chose to use curve secp256k1, which has a number of useful properties, most notably the potential for an very efficient implementation, as has been created by bitcoin. In choosing secp256k1, they had no template function by which to map a scalar hash (SHA256d) to an EC point. So they did the most "obvious" and provably wrong thing, they took the scalar multiple of the EC base point, using the hash as the scalar. Shen discovered this flaw, we absolutely do not want to take credit for his insight. In general, SDC did not deviate significantly from cryptonote elsewhere from what we can tell. Thus, since they followed the cryptonote recipe, the rest of the ring signature system will be as secure as cryptonote for the simple reason that there are not many ways to screw it up. Once you have the EC point from the hash, generating the signature and key image is identical to the cryptonote method. It appears that the devs behind eclipse are at least somewhat competent at coding and if you have managed to successfully fix the flaw then great job. I have some realistic concerns about eclipse though. If the fix is the only new implementation for eclipse then eclipse will simply fade away when SDC applies a fix as well. There would be no appeal to utilize SDC over Eclipse with all things being equal in terms of anonymity. My next concern is potential flaws in other parts of SDC code, this means Eclipse will also be vulnerable to them. Do you guys have plans for eclipse other than applying the fix? |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. Thank you for your replies, this must mean that the premise behind SDC anonymity must be somewhat sound/reasonable (?) although yet to be reviewed. If the premise behind SDC anonymity was completely ridiculous or unreasonable there would have been mention of it from somewhere at the least. I am curious as to what the differences between SDCs proposed anonymity and XMRs anonymity is... I will look into it unless you can point me in the right direction. That would save me much time and be greatly appreciated  Smooth can confirm or deny, but I don't think any optimism was intended in his comment above. It doesn't matter how reasonable SDC's "premise" is if the developers are making such fundamental mistakes in the math. The entire SDC chain has been de-anonymized. I understand that he was not being optimistic but the points he raised had me thinking about whether SDCs anonymity is flawed as a whole or if certain parts of its anonymity is flawed. If the former is true then there is potential, if the later is true then that is that. Does the same apply for XMR? Is it anonymous because it has not yet been proven otherwise/reviewed or is it anonymous because it is truly anonymous? Could a potential flaw that is discovered down the road lead to XMR being deanonymized as well? Thank you for your replies, I have recently become more fascinated and interested in the anonymity aspect of cryptocurrency. No one can 100% guarantee anything, but Monero's fundamentals have been reviewed by competent people who have said that the original developers were also competent. The core cryptographic code has also been carefully reviewed, with its origins determined in most cases, and its correctness checked multiple times. Higher level aspects of the anonymity implementation have also been reviewed, various potential weaknesses identified in MRL-0001 and MRL-0004, and improvements implemented. We continue to work hard toward further improvements such as RingCT, which is written up in a detailed paper and is being peer reviewed. SDC has done none of this. Sorry to be frank in a way that may be perceived as hostile but if I'm honest I can only say that it was and is an amateur effort in my opinion, and someone who forks from it while fixing one flaw is being no less amateurish and irresponsible. You will have to make your own judgement about the quality of Monero's effort. it is reassuring to hear that XMR has been thoroughly reviewed. Did not know that SDC was never seriously reviewed by anyone. I realize that eclipse is most likely just another coin that will be forgotten within a few months, I was more curious about the validity of SDCs anonymity However if eclipse does indeed fix SDCs flaw, then in reality it is better than SDC (as long as the flaw is present) even if it is newer. Your replies have made me realize that any developer that is seriously concerned with anonymity would most likely create a XMR clone instead of any btc/shitcoin clone (is this fair to say?). The only other serious contender in anonymity seems to be zerocash, which I hear will be launched soon. |
|
|
|
Loving how OP was not updated. Im sure it was a 'mistake' Yeah, nothing seems serious there ... Read the start of the thread, there was an announcement but no wallets or info or even a source, then it was ninja launched just today, just because the stuff isn't right at the top of the OP doesn't mean you have to have a sook because you didn't get in early enough, look what DARK/DASH done at the start with their labeling. Dont be so naive. Dev purposefully did not update OP so that less people would be aware and be able to mine it. Do you not also see how quick block halves? I was around when dev posted launch and wallets but still did not choose to mine it because this shitcoin is too obviously shit. DASH has many problems with it but it is by far better than this worthless coin so do not try and compare. |
|
|
|
they're just using secp256k1.. what's special about it? just stop whining so much and wait then, if you are "waiting to see what happens" here.. or does waiting involve trolling and nitpicking? Much more special than simply changing block size limit and max supply. At least they have solved an actual flaw. I am waiting but I do not see where I am whining. If you think me pointing out the possibility of vaporware is trolling than you need to meet a real troll. Nitpicking is necessary because it is important to be critical of things, especially in the cryptocurrency scene. |
|
|
|
any input or thoughts from the XMR camp? Does this mean Eclipse is cryptograhically anonymous?
They seem to have at least tried to fix the one identified flaw in SDC. Whether SDC has other flaws they didn't fix or whether their fix is even correct is not something anyone can answer without spending a lot of time reviewing it all, which probably won't ever happen. Valid points, I am hoping they will be able to get their 'fix' properly reviewed. Assuming the fix is indeed correct, would that mean that it is then truly anonymous? In other words: if recently exposed flaw in SDC anonymity was fixed, does it make SDC as/more anonymous as XMR? or is SDC still inferior to XMR for anonymity? What about the other 99.999% of SDC, developed by the same people who made a basic math/crypto error, and which no one has ever reviewed? Shen found that one flaw effectively by accident, while working on something else. If SDC were comprehensively reviewed, then one could make claims about it. At this point, I would not. Thank you for your replies, this must mean that the premise behind SDC anonymity must be somewhat sound/reasonable (?) although yet to be reviewed. If the premise behind SDC anonymity was completely ridiculous or unreasonable there would have been mention of it from somewhere at the least. I am curious as to what the differences between SDCs proposed anonymity and XMRs anonymity is... I will look into it unless you can point me in the right direction. That would save me much time and be greatly appreciated Smooth can confirm or deny, but I don't think any optimism was intended in his comment above. It doesn't matter how reasonable SDC's "premise" is if the developers are making such fundamental mistakes in the math. The entire SDC chain has been de-anonymized. I understand that he was not being optimistic but the points he raised had me thinking about whether SDCs anonymity is flawed as a whole or if certain parts of its anonymity is flawed. If the former is true then there is potential, if the later is true then that is that. Does the same apply for XMR? Is it anonymous because it has not yet been proven otherwise/reviewed or is it anonymous because it is truly anonymous? Could a potential flaw that is discovered down the road lead to XMR being deanonymized as well? Thank you for your replies, I have recently become more fascinated and interested in the anonymity aspect of cryptocurrency. |
|
|
|
I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000.
This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'.
I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims.
I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization.
why are you even here then? obviously most of us in this thread are interested. if you aren't, why not just leave? contribute something positive or take your jaded self elsewhere lol I am here to see what more is offered than 2MB and 210m supply. I am not making claims to solve bitcoin's blockchain problem. This coin is. A claim was made so I am here to see if that claim is valid. To me changing block size to 2MB is not actually solving bitcoin's blockchain problem. I am interested, I just need to verify what the creators of the coin claim. |
|
|
|
Loving how OP was not updated. Im sure it was a 'mistake' |
|
|
|
i'm already a fan.. the new bitcoin .12, 10x the supply, larger blocks, brand new.
you are funny. there is absolutely 0 reason to currently think that this is different than any other shitcoin. only thing worth noting currently is 2MB block size but even that is not a big deal. Well aren't you just a peach. This coin just raises many red flags for me starting with the very vague 'helix' nonsense. Also a coin that aims to become more centralized with no sure model is definitely a warning sign of failure in the long term. Centralization poses many risks already but centralization with no model or proper plan is even bigger danger. Eliminates The Bitcoin Blockchain Problem.
C-bit is a parallel Bitcoin to the original blockchain. This new blockchain can develop independently to Bitcoin — becoming, in a managed way, more centralized — while allowing the original Bitcoin to return to its decentralized vision.
anyways, like I said before, I am waiting to see delivery of actual things besides changing block size to 2MB because even you have to admit, it is not a noteworthy accomplishment at all. You know, it's easy to sit back and complain. There are lots of complainers in the world, and very few doers in the world, that's what's wrong. I don't see you slaving away tons of hours per day on a coin, trying to solve problems. I don't see you pouring tons of money down a hole. I don't see you donating money towards Yobit to get the coin listed on the exchange. I don't see you doing anything but complain. You probably just came along, dropped a little money on mining, gained a few coins, and now want to effortlessly sell for some money; of course wanting someone else to pay for that privilege. So, when I see you actually DO something USEFUL, like make some suggestions, or help find some errors; then, maybe, I'll consider you're comments useful. Otherwise, I'll put your comments where they belong, in the useless drawer. I can easily make a copy and paste bitcoin clone and change block size to 2 MB and increase max supply to 210,000,000. This is all you have achieved so far so please do not say you have 'done anything'. I repeat, once you actually present something 'noteworthy', then you can continue with your grand claims. I am simply calling it as I see it. Am I wrong? I did not mine any of this coin because 2MB and 210m supply alone is not appealing enough... not to mention how you are working towards centralization. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
