b) smart enough to come up with a mechanism to funnel 12 million coins into his personal wallet every year into perpetuity It's actually 200K * 10, or 2 million total that can be "Funneled" back into CPF. Like I said, once they drop past 1 million they are useless and cannot be used. Have you worked out how long that 2 million would take to be completely funneled to CPF? Perhaps you should. |
|
|
|
So to be clear on this, the sole criteria to generate the alternate blocks (at difficulty 1) is that you have control of an address with a balance of 1 million+ SC2s.
And when clients verify the block they check the address signing it and scan the whole block-chain to make sure they have a balance of 1 million+ SC2?
That leads to two questions:
1. Isn't calculating the balance of addresses signing those blocks rather computation intensive? Is there some short-cut to work out the bal;ance of an address that doesn't involve reading the whole block-chain? If that's really what happens then isn't the network vulnerable to someone spamming 1 difficulty blocks signed with loads of different addresses - the time to parse the whole block-chain for an address is gonna be longer than the time to generate a 1 difficulty block.
2. If the client knows the addresses of the 1 million-holding accounts (to block spends from them) then I still don't see why yo udidn't have the criteria for generating the alternate blocks being "either it's one of these known addresses OR it holds 1 million+ SC2". Down the line you could remove that code if you chose (meaning only the 'real' millionaires could make them) and there wouldn't be all this controversy about the pre-generated coins.
On an aside, I assume you still have the private keys for the super-node wallets (or we have to take your word for it that you deleted them)? So saying you don't have control ofthem is misleading - as you have access to them and the ability to remove the hard-coded spend-block on them from the source-code.
I'm by no means totally opposed to the PRINCIPLE of how you're stopping 51% attacks - but the pre-genned coins seems needless and hence LOOKS like scam. And there's a fair bit of hypocrisy in your comments elsewhere about exchanges providing RL info on their operators (to reduce the likelihood of them scamming), but you (with the ability - and a past record - of rewriting the block-chain) give no information at all on yourself and fail to identify who the trusted nodes are.
You ask some good questions. However if I may address your last point first. Do you know how many coins were pregenned and I have in control? It's 80000 leftover from the genesis. That is *it*. Now the CPF funds are a different matter, they aren't premined they are part of the network protocol, so perhaps a bit of terminology use there would make it easier to follow. If you think 80000 coins to setup the CPF is "a lot of coin" then that is your own subjective value I guess. There was 30000 generated in SC1, 80000 in SC2, in the scheme of things quite low. 1) You don't have to verify the whole block chain, you verify the last transaction it was used in. It's quite quick and done for every transaction. 2) That can be changed going forward. I don't think many people will complain if those accounts are removed provided we have some real millionaires. Like I said though, if they drop below 1 million they're useless anyhow. As an aside yes I still have all the wallets created. Mostly as a safe keeping thing right now and they are heavily secured. The people who end up with these wallets will know if anyone else is using them so if "I went rogue" they would know. Not that there is any point in going rogue with these wallets generally speaking, unless you want to cause some temporary network issues. SC2.0 cannot be rewritten in the same manner as Bitcoin can so users and businesses are rather safe in that way. If you can't trust me to be honest with the CPF you won't trust that I've got the other wallets either so it's kinda a moot point. All of them will be given to control of the NPO when started, and they'll have the capacity to analyze them to verify everything has been done "above board" so to speak. And at that point I will remove them, and they can create new addresses and whatnot for these funds to finalize all of my involvement. |
|
|
|
Coinhunter,
You do realize you just countered everything you stated prior to releasing Solidcoin 2.0.
In the above post you openly admit with no room for misunderstanding that a few large miners control 60% of the SC wealth. What happened to fair distribution?
BTW does CPF = Coinhunter Personal Fund?
Unfortunately I cannot control the mining nodes, who mines, who prepares etc. The SC1 launch was a lot fairer but since SC2 was public it was hard to "Surprise" people. Only about 320K coins have been generated and I'd say 60% of that went to about 15-20 people. That breaks down to about 9600 per person. Not exactly rich by any standard measure. My I7 found 10 blocks in the first 90 minutes then nothing for 3 hours. So personally I didn't mine very much either. To put that in perspective, I'm the one who did all the work and because I'm coding up to the last minute I didn't have time to setup servers for mining, etc. Do I really care that much? Not really, if people are happy with SC I'm sure they'll donate some SC to me. I don't really understand how it's my fault such things happen, if I was to place some sort of ID on everyone who mined I'd then be criticized for doing that, so I'd never win regardless. People who have a lot of mining power, whether GPU or CPU make the most money. Happens in BTC will happen in SC. However unlike BTC at least we can have more people making _something_ due to use of CPU. There was an interesting theory about using human work instead of CPU work on our forum, I may investigate this at some point and see if it's feasible. |
|
|
|
Well there's a few obvious questions that spring to mind from it:
1. How does the network "know" that a node has more than 1 million SCs in a wallet? Are all generated blocks somehow signed with the address of the largest wallet you own?
2. How are these wallets with the 1 million coins not able to be used for transactions? Are we suppsoed to just take SC's word for it - or is there some special functionailty about those accounts?
3. With any reasonable answers to the above two questions it seems likely to me that the same could have been achieved without pre-genning the 1 mill coins in the wallet. IF those 'special' accounts ARE somehow different to normal ones then surely the test could be that EITHER the node must hold 1 million coins OR it must own one of the special wallets (without them needing to actually hold 1 million coins).
Doubt we'll get straight answers to the above - but:
A. If the answer to 2 is "we have to take his word" then obviously his white-paper is intentionally misleading due to him claiming the money "can't" be used rather than that he "won't" use it.
B. If the answer to 2 is that those accounts are in some way different to other accounts then obviously it follows that there was no need to generate the coins - the special 'status' of those accounts could have been detected instead. And any such special status HAS to be detectable - or the network wouldn't be able to tell to disallow any attempts to use the content of them.
If he's either lied about the status of those accounts OR has generated millions of coins where there's no reason to (unles he wants to pump and dump with them ofc) then seems like it's just a get rich quick scheme at the exense of anyone gullible enough to buy SC2s (though I find it hard to have any sympathy for anyone that stupid).
Bumping this on the (very) unlikely chance that he overlooked what (I believe to be) serious questions addressing the very basis of the "trusted nodes" and pre-mined coins. Sorry I thought this was a troll as it's obvious. In answer to 1) the blockchain has a set of rules for creation of money. These rules are well known (generates, and now cpf). No one can create money out of nowhere except under the conditions all the clients accept. It's not one million in a wallet, it's one million in an ADDRESS. So hopefully that clears it up for you. The source code will verify that all clients will not accept the initial trusted accounts in any normal transaction. I could even show you in a live demonstration by attempting to send it right now and watching your client spit out "block failed trusted fund trying to be spent" in debug.log . You can analyse the EXE to find this string in there now if you want. In regards to 3) Yes this could have been done in a split system whereby "some licenses" say this guy can create a trusted block. However this is quite limited and doesn't get around the fact these accounts will forever be accepted by clients. I think we should let the initial trust funds go under one million and then become "completely null" once we have some real millionaires. |
|
|
|
Hey BitcoinExpress, have you heard?
Make this EC2 farm run a bit longer until you are sure you collected 1.2M+ coins, and the whole network will be relying entirely on your good will.
No need to attack it. Isn't it sweet?
Let's make a cartel of coin holders, and use our power to double spend at will.
He probably already has half a mil. I can't wait when he becomes a "trusted" node. But CoinHunter probably has code in there that says a million coin owner only becomes trusted when he (CoinHunter) says so. Looking forward to the source code... You probably don't care what I say, even though I'm the developer and have quite the SC connections (obviously). I can gaurantee you that bitcoinexpress is lying about his SC holdings because of the people who have told me what they made mining on the first day. All the biggest miners I know of made more than 60% of it. Leaving the smaller miners to take their share and then possibly whatever this guy thinks he got. He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said. |
|
|
|
The OWS movement isn't 'anti bank'. It's anti-government-aided-corporate-corruption. And any 'system' talked about has to do with government - how in the heck is SC an attempt to 'defeat the current system'?
"without so much emphasis on greed"... SC 2.0 is focused on greed. 13m premined, 12m distributed to your 'best friends', of which you eventually gain sole control over all the premined?
This is a scam, with your personal greed as the engine.
Do you sign off every SolidCoin message with "it's a scam" . Haha. 10 accounts were created with 1.2 million. That's 12 million total generated. However once those accounts go under 1 million they can no longer be used, so it's like a "dead one million" until life is brought back into them (donations, cpf, or whatever). Some people take a while to develop trust in something, it's why I don't mind that you think it's a scam johnj . But you'll be made out the fool as the weeks/months/years go on and everyone else is jumping onboard whilst you sit there on your "I still think it's a scam" pedestal. You have too much ego involved in this decision, and you won't back down on it now I'm guessing. The type of personality you and a few others have here is quite stubborn in nature, mistrust of others combined with a false sense of pride. I don't expect you to stop educating people about your beliefs but yeah, hopefully you'll do it in a better manner going forward and not have to rely on lies and whatnot to pass on your beliefs. |
|
|
|
Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".
And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol oops, there went your argument... fool The owner of deepbit makes a lot of money each day if he does not cheat the system. If he cheats the system, he might make a lot of money at once. So would he kill his golden goose? And CoinHunter, you are using the same logic to bootstrap SC2, where million sc owners have incentives to behave. So you can't go and attack deepbit. You can't have the cake and eat it too. So which is it? The SC2 system places trust in 10 accounts currently, over time this will grow. So we have at maximum, 10% centralization with these nodes, over time that will decrease. Alternatively with the BTC system deepbit seems to get bigger everyday , maybe soon they will be 80% of the network. Furthermore it's not like deepbit makes "that much money" doing what they do, they take a small percentage and give most to its users. There is certainly more in it for them in the medium term to take millions of dollars. That being said I don't know deepbit owners and am not implying they are untrustworthy. Just personally I don't understand how people can criticize something like SC for having a little centralization when BTC already has significant amounts. It's not the glory land of decentralization people make it out to be. |
|
|
|
Which makes this a very ironic statement. Since at this very moment, people are camping in the streets protesting the anonymous rich! I dare you to go down to wall street and tell everyone, "Those with the most money should be in charge of your security!"  Well I understand your view. However being "anti bank" and "anti system" my hope is that similar people rise to power within the SC network. Not the traditional "rich types" if you know what I mean. Since we are starting fresh and most people with money couldn't care less right now we have a good chance of that happening I think. You have people who can create SolidCoin businesses and compete with the bigger businesses who are afraid of such things. I want SolidCoin to defeat the current system, destroy the banks, and have something that everyone can use rather cheaply around the world. Mixed with something like precious metals for currency when "real life" doesn't have the internet. The ideal people who rise to power and have the most SC will hopefully be those type of people too, and hopefully the world may become a better place to live without so much emphasis on greed. |
|
|
|
I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent  Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network. That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now). Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own. Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower. Or other pools can grow and compete. That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block. Because it's highly relevant to this discussion of centralization. Currently BTC is nearly 50% controlled by a single entity. Please tell me how decentralized this is, 50% > 10%. |
|
|
|
I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network. That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now). Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise". Oh right, why aren't people leaving him now when they know it's a flaw in BTC that the network can be attacked in that manner? Can BTC recover if deepbit doublespends in multiple exchanges, businesses, etc ? That's an interesting theory, sure they may stop mining at deepbit after it comes out the attacks are carried out but by then the damage is done isn't it? |
|
|
|
I wonder who those people might be! You're so transparent Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network. That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now). |
|
|
|
I have to admit I thought the trusted nodes as vector clock idea was clever. Did you build in any additional logic to help resolve chain forking due to network partitioning? Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.
If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.
I really have to disagree here though. You system would have been trivial to implement without the million SC accounts. All you need is a dozen people to say, "Hi, I'm Fred. I'm watching the system. If something goes wrong. Sue me at this address." That is basically what you did by giving out million plus SC accounts. Except you're not telling anyone who the account holders are. So if they collaboratively misbehave, there is no one to sue. So a mixture of licensed mining and money? I'm not sure a more complicated approach is better. This is simple for general people to understand "money = security" . The amount of time it would take those trusted nodes to pass out their money is massive, and they stop passing money out when they go under a million dollars. So think of it more like 200K*10 going back to CPF over a very long period of time. There have been large changes to handle reorgs and whatnot, and more to come. |
|
|
|
Vague threats on peoples families is not the best way to inspire confidence that you're not a scammer. CPF fund will be used to hire lawyers and other things to prosecute criminals. Regardless of who they are. If any one of the initial trust holders scam anyone then I've failed in my job to select good characters, so therefore anyone I select I think has an excellent character. How they would potentially scam people depends. It's not a traditional scam in that they have coins to spend, as they can't spend the trust accounts. But in theory they could prefer some nodes blocks, or give the wallet to hackers who may have a valid millionaire account and together they can disrupt network performance. (Double spends are nearly impossible even with trust accounts due to manual shutdown on large reorgs). I've tried to limit the effects of the initial trust holders as much as possible because I like most people don't want to see them abused. |
|
|
|
Good to know. But the only way to build real trust is through non-anonymity.
Anonymous trust is a bit of an oxymoron.
Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative. If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it. |
|
|
|
...who have families, assets and things to lose...
you're going to do WHAT to their families and assets for misbehaving?? I believe if others scam or harm others in some way then justice should be served. It's quite simple. What else should happen to fraudsters and scammers? I'm quite big on punishing those that hurt others, if someone finds it HARD not to hurt others I don't think they should be alive. Just my own life philosophy. |
|
|
|
Question, for CoinHunter. Who runs the trusted peers? Are they all yours?
I have control of one of the accounts currently, I'm not sure if I will end up with any, just for now it's easier this way. I won't say how many are in the wild yet but we are increasing the presence on the network of them. The people I'm giving them to are ardent SC supporters, who have families, assets and things to lose if they do anything inappropriate with it, combined with having excellent knowledge about system running. |
|
|
|
SC1 had 30000 premined for bounties, currently my personal wallet has ~115000 SC...
The fact that I personally take a cut of all minted coins is not written on the website. Use terms like CPF if you want. I fixed your post to reflect reality. As far as the block chain. The block chain is backwards looking. It can't provide any oversight. It can't prevent you from similar taking the funds and spending them, or laundering them, or claiming "we got hacked" (aka mybitcoin). You may not like what SC2.0 does to siphon funds from unsuspecting users into my personal wallet file. Either way, it's the most advanced con out there, and will only get better. Fixed your post again. The only thing "getting better" is your personal wealth. At the rate of 6.4 SC siphoned out of the Solid Coin economy every even block. Things are looking up. While I wrote this you got another 25.6 SC richer for doing nothing. I think you mean your version of reality, so let me correct that for you. As of right now I've safely handed out 33000 in bounties personally, I have a history of not scamming people to this point. That said I don't think anything will change your mindset and that's ok. I suppose you'll want to educate as many people as possible about the imminent SC scam threat, you can do that too I guess, just don't try to pass off lies or mistruths as fact and I don't mind. I think everyone has a right to question whether or not I can safely handle the CPF and also the other "Trust" factors that have been added to SC2.0. I don't have a problem with those questions being raised and people pointing it out to others. What I do have a problem with is lies such like that I *am* a scammer, which is bs, until I have scammed you cannot say that. If you find the truth gets in the way of your message perhaps you'll realize your message isn't a good one. I have never been hacked, I'm an advanced programmer and know much about I.T. So if I do come out saying "I've been hacked" I wouldn't even believe it if it was me personally. Like I don't believe most people that say that to cover up their fraud. |
|
|
|
This is the same reasoning Lolcust used for why we should trust him with 7.7 mil premined. I can't trust Lolcust with that, and I can't trust these million sc holders. Sure, they don't want the coin to fail, but why can't they use their power to make more coins slowly? It won't kill the coin, but it will build their wealth. So now tell me why I should trust them. Except I don't have 7 million coins, and I've already stated that it isn't "my coins" , it's every SC supporters. Just because I have the wallet doesn't mean much at all in my eyes. You can not believe that, it's your right. So what happens after many years of this and all the trusted million dollar accounts are now less than a million dollar because they've transfered enough of their wealth to you and your CPF? Will you then become the sole trusted user and get to control everything? Nice! I'm looking forward to that. CPF can obviously fund the account holders back to positive territory if needed. It's also one way to stop an attacker getting grip of one of the trusted wallets, if they do they can't spend it any other way than protecting the network. By the time we have real millionaires we will have some very tight guidelines and recommendations for them to increase their security. Running on multiple nodes, block proxying, etc. The attacks I'm looking to defend against are government (the biggest) related ones. If we can defeat them everyone else will have no hope. Now that SC2.0 is secure from this perspective I'll be able to argue with businesses that they can adopt SolidCoin as it's secure from all viable threats unlike all the other alternatives. I wasn't able to do this with BTC or SC1. |
|
|
|
|
Haha yeah what a scammer I am. Spending weeks and working 12+ hour days to make a better product, implementing CPU mining so more people can generate SC, improving security and performance.
If I was a scammer you know what I would do? I'd release a slightly modified chain which does barely anything different (TBX/GG) premine 7 million coins and not really tell anyone about it until some days later. That requires only maybe an hour of my life vs the 1000+ hours I've invested already.
Please get some perspective.
|
|
|
|
It is double speak but it isn't worthless. More SC deception.
The super nodes have 12 million and they can't be spent = True.
HOWEVER the super nodes transfer 5% of block reward from Super Node to Coin Hunter (as part of the even blocks).
So yes the 12 million in super nodes can't be spent but slowly that money flows FROM the Super Nodes to Coin Hunter personal wallet .... where it can most certainly be spent.
This is correct, think of trusted nodes spending money to protect their investment, just like rich people do in real life with safes, etc.
As a real world example. As of time of writing there are 20150 blocks in the chain. Half of them are the "even" supernode blocks and they each transferred ~3.2 SC to Coin Hunter. That's ~32K coins. So the Super nodes no longer have 12 million coins. They have 11.968 million coins and Coin Hunter has ~32K.
But wait there is more. The "even" blocks also have a matching 5% tax. Coins created out of thin air. So that is another ~32K coins. If Coin Hunter has no miner he gains ~64k coins a day for being the glorious leader.
The CPF currently has 32354, though it will be obtaining some more as the old bounty wallet is moved into it (2500SC) and the leftover from the genesis block (about 80000 coins). Sorry if you think this is a secret it's not. SC1 had 30000 premined for bounties, currently the CPF has ~115000 SC, and you think this is a big deal? GG/TBX has 7 million premined coins, do you have threads pointing out the scam factor of this? You should have about 70x more posts about it if you're being fair. Please link me to them. All the dealings with CPF will be written on the website as part of public policy, there is a block chain remember, everything is recorded. You may not like what SC2.0 does to solve the security problem, or you may like that part and dislike other parts (CPF). Either way, it's the most advanced cryptochain out there, and will only get better. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
