Uhh... Yeah? You didn't know this? Of course, we always weigh the troll posts you make against the value of your normal posts. If your signal-to-noise ratio gets too high, however, you're out of here.

Ah, that's a good point.

In that case, the other solution is to do away with having the trusted nodes actually make blocks altogether (it's a stupid idea since it forces the network to be idle for a good amount of time) and instead move toward having trusted nodes sign the forks that they consider correct. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27787.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=37194.0

I split off that thread because it was all off-topic. Unfortunately, that split didn't really keep a common theme, so I locked it until/unless another mod wants to take the time to sort it. Normally, I would just delete that stuff, but there was so much of it that I didn't feel I should, hence the split-lock.

You said it yourself that it was this forum policy that killed Bitcoinduit. It stands to reason that removing the policy will revive the site, bringing the spam back in full-force.

Have you considered having the trusted nodes assigned to their own difficulty target? Instead of always using diff 1, do regular difficulty retargets on the trusted chain based on how quickly each trusted block was solved after their previous normal block, over x amount of trusted blocks. This is even reverse-compatible with the current chain. Just start having clients enforce it in a later version.

No need to always reinvent the wheel...

I already PM'd your information to him, but whatever, your call. It won't be my fault if this thread gets trolled while no mods are on.

Lying isn't a bannable offense, but it's not a good idea, either. If we ever ask you something and you lie to us, we are forced to ignore your statement and only use whatever other evidence is available to us. In fact, we usually won't even bother talking to you unless we feel that your side of the story might shed some light on things and we have enough evidence to take an action, anyway.

Again, lies for the sake of trolling are still bannable. For example, if you lie about someone being a scammer, or if you pretend your account was hacked and waste administrator time having it recovered. Pretty much any lie that causes us to pointlessly waste time will result in a ban. Otherwise, lying is fair game.

I honestly think you guys don't remember how bad things got. Almost every thread on the first page was Bitcoinduit, and most of them had only one or two posts.

Alas, I can't make policy decisions. Post in Meta where theymos will hear you.

It's not a double-standard. Had BCX lied about his attack, he would have been trolling. If CH is lying, then he just pirating software, and that has nothing to do with the forum. As for why we'd try our hardest not to ban CoinHunter, that's because we don't want to EVER ban people here, especially for something as stupid as this. As I'm not an administrator, though, I can't say for certain what would happen.

Lying to mods is not a bannable offense.

I'm just gonna close this under the "No zero-value threads" policy. This is just beyond stupid. That'd get you banned in ANY channel.

Not necessarily. That'd depend on what our lawyers say. Of course, I'd hate to have theymos hire a lawyer from our forum improvement fund, so it'd be best if we never knew.

CoinHunter says that he's licensed, so unless Oracle (AND ONLY ORACLE) specifically tells us otherwise, I consider this matter closed.

Are you trying to kill this forum? I've told you why it was bad to pursue this, but you have persisted. Now that I have read your reply, I may be legally obligated to do exactly what you asked. Of course, CoinHunter doesn't really have to tell me the truth. However, if we are ever approached by Oracle with information that contradicts his response, we might be legally obligated to ban his account.

God damn it.

I have verified that this is a known scammer, hence the tag.

Again, I can't make that assumption, as unlikely as it may be to be wrong, without proof. At the end of the day, all it would do is cause more work for the mods and remove a few links. We wouldn't ban CH, since this would just be considered a single infraction. We also wouldn't ban discussing SolidCoin. In many ways, the topics would become quite similar to Silk Road threads, and I HATE Silk Road threads since that means I always have to read every post to make sure nobody starts linking to it, or otherwise tell people how to find it, and also that nobody mentions specific deals.

Meta, but it won't happen. The only reason this board exists was because I finally told theymos that if he didn't either make this board or ban the topic altogether immediately, I was going to start deleting all the alt-currency threads.

Now, stick to the topic at hand, shall we? (or PM me instead of trying to communicate with me in a thread)

Edit: I wrote this before I saw Matthew's excellent post. Just in case he missed something I mentioned, though, I decided to post it anyway.

Let me break this down:

Statement of fact in third person. Completely valid from CoinHunter's prospective.


Rephrased: "I wouldn't use a network myself if the original creator could zap coins whenever they want". It was poorly phrased and didn't use the right prospective, but that would make sense. Perhaps the first line was edited after he wrote this and forgot to re-edit this line?

Direct response to this:
"I" = CoinHunter
"he" = BitcoinEXpress

Rephrased: "You don't think that it'd be a bigger story than BitcoinEXpress crashing the market if it turned out that I really could zap coins"?


That being said, I think this boils down to CH not realizing how powerful his "trusted nodes" are, since he's such a bad developer. All it takes is him not allowing the trusted nodes to accept and build on a block containing blacklisted transactions and the coins are essentially "zapped".

Are we sure that he isn't licensed? Does SolidCoin even use BDB (I wouldn't know, since I don't have it installed)?

Since I somehow doubt that you can prove a negative, we won't be able to do anything about it until we hear from someone at Oracle. If it turns out that he is pirating BDB, though, I would suspect that policy would be to remove every link that points directly or indirectly (one hop) to the client. Most links to solidcointalk would be safe, since fortunately there isn't a big download button on each forum page.

Folks, read the post again, but in context. It'll make much more sense. CoinHunter was merely referring to himself in the third person. You'll notice, however, that references to "me" allow apply to CoinHunter.