Great enhancement! While you are already at it, would it be possible to make this transparent thing optional. I mean if you have some dark window (ie. command line) behind the bitcoin window, it has the same problem as if it would be maximized. IMO this transparent effect doesn't fit a financial software anyway. So again IMO, this option should be disabled by default, but maybe thats just me. Yes, I know, should code this myself |
|
|
|
|
I still wonder what the hell came over them to add it in the first place
|
|
|
|
It was weird, I never looked that deeply into ixcoin and could tell it had scam on it, but I am still not catching SolidCoin as a scam, just horribly horribly handled is all.
At first solidcoin looks if it was a combination of https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41327.msg506664#msg506664 combined which changing fundamentals without understanding them. On a second look, as ArtForz pointed out https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40772.msg501511#msg501511 it has a builtin mechanism that enables a big miner to mine on 1/3 of the difficulty and prevent others from even mining anything. So yep, it is a scam. And you posted right after ArtForz, so you know about this vulnerability. I am starting to suspect you are somehow tied to solidcoin, as you are constantly defending it, apparently against your knowledge. |
|
|
|
A. Create a bitcoin copycat fork, with just parameter altered - no need to use this, can just use Bitcoin itself.
Not helping either, but mostly irrelevant as long as (A) is met:
1. Pre-mine coins
2. Be uber arrogant
3. Say you are way better at coding than the entire Bitcoin dev team
4. Say your new fork will kill Bitcoin because it fixes several Bitcoin bugs
5. Spread some good Bitcoin FUD
Fixed that for you |
|
|
|
IMHO, the better move would simply be taking anything of value from SLC, pre-104, and porting it to Bitcoin.
Please let solidcoin bugs die with solidcoin. Don't port them to bitcoin, please I don't even know if there's much though, it seems to me, in a cursory understanding, that Solidcoin is architecturally broken, because the author doesn't seem to grok why certain decisions were made in Bitcoin and reversed them anyway.
So why do you want code from solidcoin? BTW, almost all changes in the solidcoin codebase (at least what he made public) where part of the re-branding, you know, changing "bitcoin" to "solidcoin" all over the place. |
|
|
|
That had nothing to do with solidcoin. There is an (apparently) endless stream of, lets face it, stupid peoples that try to buy coins of every new fork. We saw this happen on namecoin, ixcoin, i0coin and most recently on solidcoin. And of course a lot of miners jump instantly to each of those forked chains, because they know they can rip off those early buyers. Don't believe it? Just start some chain and you will see the same will happen.
Oh I agree that it was solely on hype. But it was still impressive hype. I think the ixcoin was the most impressive one, because even a blind deaf-mute could hear and see the scam. |
|
|
|
CoinHunter,
I'll be to the first to admit when I heard of SolidCoin with the 3m blocks, I was intrigued. When the price hit .03 BTC within days and held around .01, that was impressive. You certainly didn't have any problem flaunting and flexing at all the naysayers.
That had nothing to do with solidcoin. There is an (apparently) endless stream of, lets face it, stupid peoples that try to buy coins of every new fork. We saw this happen on namecoin, ixcoin, i0coin and most recently on solidcoin. And of course a lot of miners jump instantly to each of those forked chains, because they know they can rip off those early buyers. Don't believe it? Just start some chain and you will see the same will happen. |
|
|
|
not to mention the most intrusive signup questions  what the hell do you need my full name for to allow me to use my bitcoins on your site? lol, think about your demographic here guys... Here's what we need. Google "strikesapphire". Once found DEMAND THAT HAVING BITCOINS SHOULD BE AS ENOUGH TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT. With the power of everyone here, we CAN break their love of US censorship. Get with us... Google "strikesapphire" and demand that they should no longer use use US restrictions that do no apply in Costa Rica anyway!!!! =) SCNR |
|
|
|
Correct, I have no further interest in solidcoins. I'm of the opinion that any future alternate chain needs to bring something substantially new to the table rather than just tweaking existing things.
Please re think that position. Not on SolidCoin specifically, but any alternate chain. Sometimes a few tweaks are what is necessary to existing code, and if there is refusal to make those changes, alternate chains must be created to give new ideals a chance. Whatever on SolidCoin, just please have a more open mind about the next coin that may on the surface not have so many changes, but in the long run could have benefits over other coins. Yes, please all be open minded. Without quote "dummies" that pay Bitcoins for ShitCoin huge profits are no longer feasible https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=41389.msg505348#msg505348Actually it is easy: when the block chain fork and the opening of an exchange happens within a few weeks, it is not for feature testing, but to rip off early buyers. Especially if they bring no additional things, but are a one to one copycat of bitcoin. Namecoin at least has this dns feature, and even then it is a far stretch. |
|
|
|
I spent some coins buying SC.
Maybe next time inform yourself about a product *before* you buy it  The problem probably lies in the fact that the people behind SC are better developers than public relations people or leaders.
Now that was really funny. Coinhunter is a single person, so in a best case scenario that would be "developer" instead of "developers". And the solidcoin fiasco of the last few days showed us that the rest of you sentence is also completely untrue. Apparently one is not a good developer by taking the unreleased development version of bitcoin, relabel it and the release it without testing. If they treat other people like they want to be treated, then this whole thing might not have happened. They should realize that without Bitcoin, there would be no SolidCoin, so any changes someone wants to incorporate back into Bitcoin is just giving something back.
You really think that bitcoin should add all those solidcoin bugs? The market decides which technology people want to use.
Looking at the solidcoin price, the delistings and the close of mining pools I say the market has already decided. |
|
|
|
I'd say that if the is how the bitcoin community decides to act and present itself then it is destined for failure, very sad as cryptocurrency had a chance to be the next great thing but until they learn to self police you lot it's f'ed.
For a cryptocurrency itself it does not matter who is trying to attack it. The only thing that really matters is can the currency withstand such attacks. As gavinandresen wrote "Hackers and script-kiddies are a fact of life". So if a currency has weak points it is best for the currency itself to either fix the weak points or vanish as early as possible. Survival of the fittest. Bitcoin itself is under continuous attack from black hats, but it is solid  enough to withstand all those. |
|
|
|
You can find it good or bad what CoinHunter did, but it's not illigal. You may use MIT-licensed code and re-distribute a changed version under whichever license you want. You just have to leave something like "contains Bitcoin code ( http://blabla, licensed under MIT license)". I took a bit of a look at that. CoinHunter broke the terms of the Berkeley DB license. Berkeley DB may only be used in FOSS projects, unless he pays Oracle for a commercial license. CoinHunter's closing the source means he can't use Berkeley DB, but he still is. Does Oracle know about this? I wonder how long it will be until someone tells them? "Hey, Larry? Some mythical wolf beast guy on the internet says someone's using BDB in a closed-source project to make personal profit, and we've got like 10 e-mails from people who say the wolf beast guy told them to mail us." I think Oracle would care way more about some companies (bitparking, ruxum, mooncoin) using BDB a closed-source commercially project. Companies are way easier to sue and they can be sued for much more money. |
|
|
|
Don't forget to tell them that several business (bitparking, ruxum, mooncoin) are using this commercially. Oracle loves to sue companies because there is more money to get from them. Not sure if coinhunter aka Ken Solid (according to http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/solidcoin.info) can satisfy Oracles money hunger alone |
|
|
|
I've pretty much been spending what I mine/earn as soon as something comes up that I want and can afford lately. I'm much more interested in what it can get me now than how rich it could possibly make me sometime in the future.
It is great to have people like you, because you guys produce some cool stories. One of the best example is https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=137.0 |
|
|
|
Let's assume each user does at least 1 transaction per day. There are 144 blocks per day.
A million users * let's say 100 bytes per transaction / 144 = almost 1 MB per each block = 6 Mb / hour constant incoming traffic to every client.
So you think 6 megabyte (BTW, Mb would be megabit) per hour is too much? I mean, a single SD card in my smartphone could store the total *raw* traffic for more than a year. But as was already pointed out, there is no need to store the complete raw data on a smartphone client. And on a full node? Well, we are not living a decade ago, we now have terabytes for a two figure price, and believe it or not, we will have petabytes as cheap in the future. So those while those number may look huge for the uninformed, those are actually tiny. At the moment the bittorrent network alone produces a network traffic of around 10 petabytes per hour, some 7 orders of magnitude above the your imaginary bitcoin network, and probably 10 orders of magnitude above the current bitcoin network. But seeing that you are trying to spread FUD in some other thread, well, maybe you are just trying to to that here too |
|
|
|
I can't say I lost all faith, but I have a strong feeling that BitCoin is dying (not to spread FUD or anything)...
Shifting 60 gigabytes of data in, say, 60 seconds means an average rate of 1 gigabyte per second, or 8 gigabits per second.
So, Bitcoin could have scaling issues in a scenario unlikely to happen within a decade at least, assuming development is being halted today. Well, that is spreading FUD. |
|
|
|
Exchange Bitcoins ( https://www.exchangebitcoins.com/) is light years ahead of their competition. I use them myself, and always recommend my clients to use them. Some idiots are still screwing with Dwolla- what a joke. Why do Tradehill and MtGox even need Dwolla? Why don't they take money directly the way Exchange Bitcoins does? Has anyone of you tried https://btc-e.com/. Apparently one can use any credit card to add funds on this exchange. I stepped through this process almost until the actual buy. If this is legit it could "kill" the other exchanges, because funding would be instant. So was anyone already brave enough to test this? |
|
|
|
I think it is very premature to try and promote heavily without more of the basic building blocks available to the average end-user or the average merchant. Sure some nerds and geeks can figure it out eventually, but so what?
So we actually have all the building blocks, yet the main devs think it is premature to tell anyone about it. Strange situation. Sort of self-denial. I mean, not only do we have all those thing evoorhees mentions, we even have a new client (bitcoin-qt) ready, but do we tell anyone about it? Of course not, end users could find it usable and we don't want to have more users! If this attitude persists, well, then bitcoin deserves to be replaced by some shitcoin - while those devs release mostly buggy software, they at least release anything. And more importantly, they promote their product. |
|
|
|
You really think Coinhunter is the one out to get us, when ArtFroz is the attacker? WTF?  I think those solidcoins have brainwashed you too much: - Coinhunters modification where half-backed. - Artforz used it within its specifications. - Coinhunters version failed. - Coinhunter delivers a fix to fix the fix of a fix for his version |
|
|
|
a) Just look at this issue that ArtForz brought up. b) It seems that coinhunter develops everything "in house". doublec updates the git repo afterwards. so in essence coinhunter can code in whatever he thinks, which in the best case leads to things like (a). having the coding centralized in one single developer, I have to say I rather trust paypal. c) bitcoin works like this: code -> test -> fix -> test -> release. solidcoin: take bitcoin test version -> release -> daily mandatory bugfix d) think about the implications if solidcoin would make it to the average joe, and only then "we" (or some black hat Vladimir ) exploits all those bugs: it could destroy bitcoin as a collateral on its way down, as average joe/media does not see any differences between Bitcoin and solidcoin. I am pretty sure one could add a lot more points to this list how those half-backed "improvements" could eventually affect the bitcoin community in a bad way. I understand the negativity regarding how the program updates, I don't care for the system you just laid out if that is how it is specifically (which I see doublec already has corrected one part of what you wrote). I you read carefully, he acknowledged what I wrote.
I am still confused about how all the things regarding a currency that isn't Bitcoin would effect the Bitcoin community in a good or bad way?
"Act fast, think little, care not" it seems to be the way programmers treat each other now. SolidCoin could have avoided a lot of this with better PR, the negative attack on Bitcoin has drawn these stupid users to hate on it's flaws and handle them like every other kid on the internet handles bad programming, exploit it.
I still like the ShitCoins, and even after all those points I am not sure their threat to the community.
Maybe you are already too invested? Imaging thousands and thousands people owning solidcoins. And now someone uses one of those bugs/shortcomings in solidcoin to make those all vanish. The public scream and media reporting would not only destroy solidcoin, it will destroy confidence in p2p currency (and hence bitcoin) for a few years. You know, journalists and the general public see no difference between solidcoin and bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
