Yep that is true. There is a lot of "misinfo" out in the community about what is an attack, what has happened in the past, etc. It's a complicated subject and doesn't make for easy reading.

That said all existing p2p crypto currencies suffer from the >51% malicious attacker. Until some smart minds solve it , it is something we all need to be wary of and keep an eye on, such as not supporting large pools with great shares of mining power. Easier said than done though I guess. You only need ~15 million (less if you're buying in bulk I guess) to own the bitcoin network with GPUs. And if you have that kind of money to do an attack you probably can also start fabricating your own SHA256 machines which run on minimal power.

Food for thought.

No I get you you're just overstating the impact here.

If someone did start messing with timestamps/speed/etc it would be detectable. It's not like a ninja attack in the night. It's the same with any >51% attack, they are very visible and you need to take advantage of them quickly before people realize. In both instances confidence in the network will be shattered.

Haha yes that would be excellent. Instead of letting them hoard SolidCoins sell them immediately to get BTC back. I'm sure doublec or moon will help you out with this

It's actually irrelevant about not being able to spend others coins, because you can continue to spend your own, you simply give the vendor the amount of confs they want, then take the chain back to a point in time before the TX and rewrite history. Because no one is going to beat your length there is nothing they can do about your rewritten history. The higher over 50% you are the quicker you can repeat this process. ie MtGox would be cleaned out or would be forced to shutdown, freezing the entire economy. Bitcoin dies.


Yes you could manipulate the speed of the network to increase coins. But it's kinda irrelevant when you can just spend whatever you want over and over again. Either way there is utter chaos and doesn't end well for the chain. In both instances the malicious team have to work fast to get wealth out of the system before it is noticed, so in both instances it will be very obvious something is happening.

It is why I don't understand why people support pools like SCguild or deepbit when they are too powerful for their respective networks. SCGuild at least will be moved down soon as other large pools join but it's just as likely deepbit will do the same to SC as it is now to BTC.

A little education doesn't go astray . At 51% you are guaranteed to be able to always produce the longest chain and hence you can not just "do a few double spends" you can write the chain pretty much however you like. So yes, bitcoin would be dead because that "group" would effectively devalue the entirely currency as they plundered it. Mtgox would be bankrupt in a few hours/days. No business could any longer trust transactions unless there were massive amounts of confirmations, likely reaching days (even then they are still vulnerable).

>51% and malicious = death. Bitcoin isn't designed to protect against it, and one of the only known ways is centralization.

About 4-6 hours.

Yes Bitcoin has a 4x limit on increasing or decreasing. However it is far too long, every 2016 blocks. Bitcoin also desires a "magic number" for it's blocks, and that is 10 minutes. SolidCoin on the other hand tries to stay _UNDER_ 3 minutes. To reduce variance and provide a fast network. As such the people thinking "coin generation goes too fast" are kinda missing the point, it is supposed to go fast, it isn't supposed to always be at 3 minutes and if the system is "gamed" by a miner or two to provide "artificially" higher speeds then that is also "ok".

However I also stress network balance is very important and having SCGuild so powerful on the network (like deepbit is on btc) isn't good, so I'll be looking at ways to solve this going forward, even though I think the current situation will resolve itself soon.

Well he is right that it introduces some more "fun" you can have with a chain at 51%, the point is if you're at 51% it's not healthy regardless whether you're on SC or BTC.

At 51% and having a malicious attacker both chains are dead. Discussing the new ways you could die is kinda irrelevant. Do you understand what I'm saying?

It can drop by a factor of 4 at maximum, so anything up to 12 minute block average is under the 4x limit.

At the moment blocks are averaging perhaps 6-8 minutes. Still under BTC confirmations even though we've dropped 900GH which is why SolidCoin is the fastest currency. So we should see a drop down to about 9000, give or take. We are 43 blocks away from this retarget period actually... not very long at all.

We can't really have a discussion unless you give actual numbers. The longest time it can take is infinite, with 0 miners. Don't know if that really answers your question or not.

We're about to see a drop back down to 8000 diff or so in 6 hours, down from 18000. So we will likely see more miners coming back and the cycle continues. Notice however that we now have a new minimum amount of miners (compared to starting with 0 ) This is part of the algorithm. Each cycle the base should continue to grow.

Yep all good points. It depends of course on a variety of factors, but regardless of what the "value" is, switching to SolidCoin is really painless for most sites. Obviously determining "value" is an importing thing for any business and will definitely restrict uptake.

So we need to improve the developer tools and make it easy for businesses used to dealing in fiat to have that option. Unlike bitcoin we aren't going to force users to rely on middlemen who go to the exchanges for you and take fees and then give you fiat after a complicated and unneeded signing up procedure. We are working closely with some exchanges to offer this straight to the business and give them the code to use it.

Even with Bitcoin's "value" in 50% swings in some days businesses can't rely on it. So for a while at least we have to peg value to fiat and keep their holdings in fiat until the day the currency is stable.

Ok so now we're getting down to the meat of your debating talents, that when I reply to your incorrect statements you change them to subjective ones.

"I didn't mean buy stuff, I meant buy stuff that I like from the shop I like"


That's what I'm going to change. You excited? You should be.

Artforz has "suggested" code be put into i0coin which was designed to ensure his FPGA miners got more of the blocks than others. Someone incompetent then added the code. So this is what I mean by fleece, he has willfully decided to fleece BTC from the ignorant people who don't understand it. Perhaps people think that he's a champion for using his intelligence in such a manner but to me it comes across as deceitful.

The other BTC trolls here taking joy in the potential misery of others is also quite a sad indictment on the human race.

Firstly no it's not really a problem LOSING 80% of the network hash, it's a good test of how resilient the code is. Without that happening I won't be able to point to it in the future as evidence. It's an issue all new chains will face gaining support from miners. They come and go when it's "immediately profitable" or "immediately not profitable".

I also don't think it's wise to publicly out yourself as a troll but nevertheless I can't stop you.

Hey dude you can buy stuff with SolidCoin too!

And BTW, vendors only need to take 5 minutes switching to SolidCoin, it's not hard. One of the advantages of me still supporting the archaic bitcoin API.

Similar things are possible with BTC so not sure of the relevance to only SC? Things need to be done to ensure network balance, both SC and BTC are powerless in that regard. Howeer like I said SCGuild is concerned with such things and I'm sure he would realize he would face consequences if he attacked peoples investments. Other pools, who knows, there has been open talk from people like LukeJR (elegius owner) to run malicious attacks on IXCoin. So obviously this kind of behaviour isn't unheard of when it comes to pools.

It's not actually too big a problem if they do that, faster blocks is fine. SolidCoin is only a week and a half old, once it starts gaining more traction due to my development changes there will be more stability in the mining power. What we do know is that in under a week we have gone from 1.2 THash, or 11% of the BTC network to 300GHash and SolidCoin is still flying. BTC would be dead, as we saw with NMC, Ixcoin and I0coin.

So yes SC may not be "perfect" in every way but those trying to suggest it's not better than BTC are living in lala land.

That is correct. Firstly I didn't expect quite the amount of success SolidCoin has had to this point, I thought I would have more time to fix such things. However it was also important to start testing my network protocol changes in a "Live environment". As can be seen with the data available, SolidCoin is the fastest and most reliable cryptocurrency network out there.

I am working on fixing this issue with the wallet.dat storing unneeded junk, and also automatically backing up wallets, along with multiwallet support for businesses and users.


Well I am laughing at the code more than "them", as a serious programmer that is the joy I get in life. But if people want to actually DEFEND the code, especially when they are ignorant, then of course I will show them examples of the poorly written and designed code they seem to be supporting. At least I am trying to do something about it, whereas people like artforz just "agree" with me, do nothing to the code because they'd rather spend their time fleecing BTC from people supporting new coin chains.

Sure, but the goal is never to be in the situation where someone has 51% power, worrying about "attacks" that happen in that scenario when you can fork the chain is kinda irrelevant no? Better than doing a namecoin/i0/ixcoin and dying, thus leaving an "80 million dollar economy" in shambles. Obviously with deepbit on BTC and SCGuild with SC it is a concern, however the SCGuild owner seems honest.

I'm trying to solve some of these bigger issues, so we will see what I can produce.

If you had ever looked at the ugly state the Bitcoin code is in (and the inherent issues in it) you wouldn't be thinking it's fit enough to run millions of dollars worth of transactions a day. It's like someone turned in a highschool assignment and everyone else went "well that works" and off they went. I mean, which "designer" decided to start dumping GUI and other settings in wallet.dat ? Do they know there is a .conf file for this? Where is at least some attempt at backing up wallet.dat's which are worth tens of thousands? Is it really the mantra that if the power goes off and your wallet.dat was being written to that it's your fault for not running some sort of sophisticated backup system for it? Is it that hard to always have a backup file there (a single copy command) ? These type of things are standard for bulletproof applications that customers have to use, anyone with experience in the industry would see it in a second. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

I have to laugh at the trolls who can't program and don't understand how awful the situation is for BTC at the moment. Satoshi had some great ideas, but he wasn't a good programmer, and since he left barely anything has been done with the code. The client has stagnated, badly and nearly no one wants to touch it. So keep the false worship up and let's see how deep people like you can keep digging the Bitcoin hole.