Well you came in blablah about coiledcoin, it was trolling as far as I could tell. I'm not very active in #eligius but luke wasn't around at the time. I got a talking to as a result of that kick— he's a lot more tolerant of casual trolling than I am, and I wasn't aware that he'd been hanging out in your channel. Sorry about that.
This is nothing but slander!  |
|
|
|
Let us presume that enforcer node X is compromised and beings attacking the Solidcoin2 network. Coinhunter issues a code update to strip that node of its enforcer status. Some portion of the user base implements this code update, most critically exchanges and pools. Solidcoin has enough enforcer nodes under his direct control to continue the protocol processing until the other enforcers update. The remaining enforcer nodes now have a choice; they can run the old "insecure" client that allows them to be "attacked" by node X, or they can update to the newer more "secure" version. It will take more than a single trust wallet to get out in the wild to have any severe impact on the SolidCoin network. If any security holes appear they will of course be quickly taken care of. That is what SolidCoin is known for, security. If they don't update, they will be left behind and eventually become a liability themselves. They can't write their own source to fork because of the following line in license.txt:
"We reserve the right to cancel this open source license to any project which has a negative impact on the SolidCoin network or SolidCoin users."
Of course "negative impact" is defined by Realsolid, and he owns the copyrights to all the code.
Just because I own the copyright is irrelevant. Someone owns the major bitcoin domains which control the code most people run on. Someone owns the sites and content we are posting here. It isn't us. It's already stated that I will pass all my code ownership to the NPO when it is setup. Including any SolidCoin wallets, code, domains, etc used. If you want to get into this "well RealSolid owns this so blah blah" we can go on all day with Bitcoin too. It's a strawman |
|
|
|
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 may be a programmer, but basic arithmetics are not your favorite ability: total btc-hashrate: ~ 9,000 GH / atm deepbit + btc-guild + slush: ~ 6,000 GH / atm now we calculate the hashing-percentage of the big three: ~ 66.67 % / atm  Edit: it's much, but far away from 90+% Well I think it varies day to day what the exact makeup of the larger 3 or 4 pools is. Either way, there is less centralization in SolidCoin than bitcoin when using these metrics. We have a much wider distribution of block creation and decentralization than Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If you want to have an opinion on SolidCoin at least make sure it's based in reality and factual eh. Like the fact that #SolidCoin operators (in this case, yourself) kickban people for no reason whatsoever? Pot , kettle? A day before you were banned from #solidcoin for being a liar and thief. * You were kicked from #eligius by gmaxwell (pretty sure luke would have wanted this: sorry, no scamcoins, please.) |
|
|
|
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. And what do you base this claim on? I can do the same thing, Bitcoin is controlled by one person. Does it make it true? Usually you need to give the evidence for such bold claims. SolidCoin's trust nodes aren't operated only by me, others have wallets now that cannot be taken away from them. They are forever out there to be used to sign blocks. On top of that we have multiple pools creating half the blocks. So if we do the maths :- SolidCoin . Upto 10 trust nodes can currently operate and create half the blocks (which contain no SC). The other half of the blocks are solved by everyone, and the current breakdown you'd say about 4 big pools or solo operators are there. That's 14 "nodes" solving the majority of SolidCoin blocks. Bitcoin. Upto 3 nodes creating 90% of the blocks. Everyone else fights over 10% scraps. Since bitcoin security revolves around at least 51% of the power being in "good hands" and 3 people have 90% of the power it puts bitcoins security in a precarious position. Only 2 people in Bitcoin need to decide or have it decided for them (hacked) and bitcoins security is no more. Bitcoin is so much more centralized than SolidCoin it isn't funny. You have some incorrect belief there is only one person mining or that has control of SolidCoin. Hopefully this shows it's more than one, and less centralization than Bitcoin. Finally there are now 4 developers working on the source code and able to work on it without needing "permission". Everyone else is able to submit pull requests. https://github.com/solidcoin/solidcoinIf you want to have an opinion on SolidCoin at least make sure it's based in reality and factual eh. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
The sad thing is , the bitcoin proponents act like this exact thing can't happen to Bitcoin. It is simply a matter of scale. Someone hacks deepbit, someone gets upset at Gavin doing some changes (Luke already has threatened along these lines in developer chats) and expect your Bitcoins to be heading towards $0 USD.
Bitcoin is inherently insecure, all these altcoins (including SolidCoin) have pinpointed most of the flaws. Only one chain (SolidCoin 2) has done anything to address the most serious security issues and that is why we are the only alt chain which hasn't had a major attack on it. Luke and co continue to attempt to lie and attack SolidCoin and get nowhere. It's pretty funny all the fail.
No major investmest is going to happen in Bitcoin because it's inherently insecure. It's like a bank telling it's customers that their money is safe purely because they have 49 guards with guns. Then 51 criminals with guns get together and steals the money. With no other security in place it is just a matter of time before it is attacked. Anyone telling you otherwise is merely trying to scam you by selling security snake oil. The biggest scammers are the people like Luke-Jr and gmaxwell who imply this cannot happen in Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Until it is proven that the supposedly tried-and-true bitcoin code can actually work and survive with only the absolute minimum changes needed to form a separate blockchain, sich as default port and connect handshake, proposing revolutionary changes, innovations, "advancements" seems possibly premature.
It actually is starting to look as if bitcoin itself is fundamentally flawed, since it is not itself at all immune to exactly the kinds of overly rich, even if on other people's resources, religious fanatics that societies that try to use currency in lieu of, and possibly even as an attempt to ameliorate or avoid, violence, warfare, dictatorship and so on, seem so good at aquiring as enemies. How hard would it be for any other Ayatollah to do to bitcoin what the bitcoin Ayatollah's are able to do even to chains that are pretty much identical do bitcoin itself?
-MarkM-
This is why we abandoned SC1 (mostly bitcoin code) and rewrote it to fix most of the glaring holes (SC2). You are right that Bitcoin is just as vulnerable, it's just a matter of scale. Luke-Jr and his cronies can take down small chains right now, guys with a few million can do it to Bitcoin if they wanted. SolidCoin is the only secure cryptocurrency available right now. |
|
|
|
Well aren't you assholes so smug now you think you have gotten away with your scumbag move, well karma is a bitch who will come back to haunt you and I for one can't wait to see it do so, hell almost makes me want that piece of shits SC to succeed and kill BTC off.
It's why your idea of "playing nice" with these people would never work. Makomk never did anything wrong to these people and they raped his coin like a child bride. They only care about one thing, which is why you need to take a harsh stance towards them from the very beginning. |
|
|
|
Why would I use solidcoin over paypal? Both are centrally controlled systems of exchange subject to unilateral whim. At least if paypal screws me I know where to track them down and can take them to court. ::shrugs::
Again with the FUD. You know what SolidCoin is but have the "PR spiel" all ready that is completely different from the truth. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, the Bitcoin is the titanic and you're playing the violin. |
|
|
|
I'm laughing at CH's claims— as if SC weren't the most repeatedly exploited coin of them all. That it says around at all speaks to the amazing power of hope. Sadly, things don't seem to change.  Yah right. The only chain to not be attacked and have months of operation behind it. Keep crying and trying to shift the focus on not what SolidCoin fixes over BTC but instead some philosophical debate on "why it's evil and Bitcoin is good". There is only one future cryptocoin and it isn't Bitcoin. The sad thing is you already know it, you just can't "Fully accept it yet". Give it a few months. You and the others will see. |
|
|
|
|
It goes to show it's not only Luke-jR behind the attacks but a few "bitcoin people" who pool their resources together. GG, TBX, LiteCoin and now CoiledCoin. They continue to attack all the alt coins in an attempt to discredit them. Pretty funny they keep trying to attack SC and get nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
No one attacks these currencies because you effectively lose most of your invested money into mining if you do.
Way to FUD it up CH. The "dark pool" has had 50+% of the hash rate from day 10 of Litecoin's existence, I would think that by now they would have already 51% attacked the chain if they so wanted to. My thoughts are: they know know they are the ones securing the chain and they also know they'll make the most money dumping into the market if the coin is secure, not if it's insecure. The dark pool is only enhancing the security of the chain as it has been from the beginning.
We have your word on that then? The "dark pool" hasn't been malicious and will not be? |
|
|
|
Details like those in "control" own most of the coins - but not as in bitcoin by investing into it but by simply being those in control? Or details like having a fork that got hacked/explolited already a few times? Or simply the detail that scamcoins only exist due to the agressive nature of its marketing/propaganda?
Right, like who is in control of deepbit? Want to control bitcoin? Just buy enough GPUs or FPGA and you can do it. Or just hack the pools and control them. These large pools in bitcoin are "control nodes" . They print most of the money , decide which transactions are added and generally control the entire network. Anyone who mines in Bitcoin and particularly the big miners have more power than the "majority" who don't mine and are simply using the code to create transactions or run a business. Is that seriously what you call security? You can say "anyone can mine in Bitcoin" and that can be countered with "anyone can become a trusted node in SolidCoin", it's just a matter of degrees. You need to make the connection here that it's much, much better to have as much control of possible in the hands of people who are for the currency instead of random individuals who created a website and now have a pool controlling 33-50% of the network. |
|
|
|
This is the part that Coinhunter just can't seem to comprehend. That he can change the code to anything he desires and the rest of the chain is incapable of resisting. He just doesn't seem to get why that is a major flaw.
No I get what you're saying there, but it also applies to Bitcoin. For instance say the dev team does something you don't like, some forking change. Now you say others can resist it, so let's say bitcoin splits in 2, 50% who support the devs, 50% who support the old way. What if mtgox supports the devs? Did you know who owns the bitcoin trademarks, copyright, website, etc? Anyone who disagrees with THOSE people and wants to continue bitcoin "Like it is now" will get shut down. So the same threat exists in Bitcoin. The same solution exists in SolidCoin. If I'm "killed by the feds", one of the other SolidCoin people can create new keys and the network will continue. I'm also not the only trust node so it would still continue for quite some time even without me in the current format. A year or three. I understand people don't like others having "control" over something, but we have goals in SolidCoin that we want to achieve, we're against the banks as they exist today and we're against governments impinging on our freedoms. If you agree with those 2 main things you can be safe in knowing where we are going with SolidCoin, the rest are just small details which should be sorted out by "someone". |
|
|
|
Unspendable until your next mandatory binary-only release that is... Not really. If there was a forking change which required new updates and it needed to be out quick, then it also means it's easy for everyone else to resume from that point on with a new client and new keys if anything was to happen. Having source code out with a release doesn't stop anyone from being malicious either. People still need to A) Read the source code and B) understand it. As I'm sure you're aware with Bitcoin code, not much of that happens, and it's currently a more supported product than SolidCoin. Even with that the 2.02 source code was out a few hours after the binaries, and no one *needed* to upgrade without testing it. A few hours of downtime to ensure everything is good is hardly going to kill anyone. It's less than getting 6 confirms in bitcoin sometimes  Some people just have a level of trust in me that probably makes you uneasy sitting on the sidelines there, but trust is important in all human relationships. Some people should probably look at why they are so overly paranoid about some things (source code) and not about Gavin being funded by Trucoin or visiting the CIA. |
|
|
|
They can be transferred to the CPF in any quantity you need.
No, 2.02 implements a fix for that. So over 5 years or so 2 million will be transferred from those accounts if they are used until each one drops below 1 million and becomes "dead". The reason trust blocks cost a little money to sign is mostly so that the trust accounts eventually "die" to be replaced by real millionaires. |
|
|
|
You're not secure from 51% as it won't be long before we have a trusted node online that you can't control.
Also the only proof we have that any coins are "unspendable" is your word.
Well besides my word and those of other core SolidCoin people, there is also the source code. Even makomk could tell you they are unspendable, just give him a PM. |
|
|
|
It's quite a cool security feature don't you think? Being secure from 51% attacks.
If you're a 51% attacker it isn't. Hah! Right.. maybe that's why I'm getting so much steam over here |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
