 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
Today read coindesks article about Vericoin, and lee's comment on it: In lite of what happened with Vericoin recently (http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-protected-vericoin-stolen-mintpal-wallet-breach/), I just wanted to make this clear. As developers of a decentralized crypto-currency, it is our duty to make sure that the network is secure and that Litecoin functions well as a easy-to-use and efficient currency. It is not in our rights to decide which coins belong to whom. The rules are set forth since the genesis block and cannot be changed. If a theft happens on top of the network, the developers will not fork the coin to reverse any transactions. It is up to the market to decide on how to handle the theft.
That said, Vericoin developers were put in a bad position. Vericoin is a proof of stake coin, so the thief will actually have a lot of stake and can further attack the coin. So the Vericoin devs almost had to do this to prevent future attacks on the coin. This is why I don't believe PoS is a viable alternative to PoW.Also read comments from the readers of the coindesk article and see majority is against this roolback, I quote a few: 1. Neurorit • a day ago
Appropriately many in this space are starting to refer to VeriCoin as the Paypal of the alts. This actually suites the coin well as every one of its services are centralized and require you to trust the developers to use. They even are talking about rolling out a wallet that allows you to load it directly with fiat. Sounds just like Paypal if you ask me.
If the VeriCoin developers want to employ functionality in this manner then they should do the right thing and incorporate and call themselves a business. Because when they operate in this manner under the pretense of something they're not (a decentralized crypto currency) they're essentially opperating as a scam.
They are not decentralized in most senses. Even their network. Having 30% of the total coin supply on one exchange is infinitely worse than Ghash.Io having more than 50% of the hashing power. People need to wake up about PoS. It's not secure the majority of ways it's being used. We're likely going to see more of this ahead.
One obvious redflag with this entire project is the lack of decentralization accompanied with the overuse and misuse of the word decentralization by the dev team. It's quite the joke when you think about it.
2.Now we see one big problem of new coins is that they have not had the time to be adopted so few hold many making it easier to be centralized. We will see the divide between people who believe forking in this situation is good and those who would never fork no matter what. I feel bad for the devs as it was mintpals fault. The devs are damned if they fork and damned if they dont.3.This is 1st in crypto currency charge back(roll back )... it was for "greater good" but all small manipulation movements are started from greater good... save children - censor internet... save Wrold attack Iraq they have dangerous weapon... an so on... such situation open door for manipulations on high scale. This event broken unnamed rule transactions are irreversible in crypto... No responsibility for all parties at the and at all...
I know they saved exchange and investments of people but it costed reputtacon of all coins...4. WTF 1: The hacker used an SQL injection attack to access the database. But only the wallet was affected, not the database. Come again?
WTF 2: “We also didn’t want one individual with the ability to 51% attack”. MintPal was already such an entity. But when it was MintPal it was ok?5. They only did what any Central bank would have done to protect his money. Oh wait ...!6. I am so happy that Big Brothers (VRC dev & Mintpal) were there to fix things up...
Doesn't it feel like 1984?
Or was it Lehman Bros and the US gov in 2008?7. I also feel like a hard-fork to fix it totally invalidates Vericoin completely.
So every time someone does something bad, they will just hit the reset button?As a conclusion, this is the opinions from community outside the Vericoin, and it seems majority are against the way Vericoin team handled the issue. I don't know what to say, honestly, I am also against the way of handling because the impact is detrimental in the long term, just like what Lee mentioned, however, due to the Vericoin teams' non-through thinking, they chose this bad route, perhaps they want to protect their own money and profit. I hope the Vericoin team can give the cryptocurrency community an explanation. |
|
|
|
I am a senior member in this bitcointalk forum, but I want to remain anonymous.
I noticed Vericoin discussion when go to Altcoin ANN, and here is some of my insight:
First, a few questions:
1. Did mintpal really lost Vericoin, because of being hacked?
After reading their official announcement, the information is rather vague. Is there a possibility that coins are withdrawn by some big bagholders? Is there possibility that coins are sold by Mintpal (or its personnel) to other people and then they want to reverse the transaction while not paying the money back?
2. Vericoin was hacked, while other coins, including Bitcoin, was intact. Is it because the problem of Vericoin blockchain, or because of the safety hazard in Mintpal?
3. Vericoin group decided to roll-back the blockchain, is this a result after a deliberate consideration, or not?
4. If a small Altcoin-Bitcoin exchange site get compromised, will the Vericoin team do the same thing to roll back?
Then a few insights:
Cryptocurrency is created to be de-centralized. By reversing some transactions through the intervention of development team, it goes against its initial objective.
Cryptocurrency is created to be not regulated by authorities, such as countries. What happened to Vericoin today goes against this objective, because it is controlled by an exchange site. Suppose someday a country authority send request to the Vericoin development team about some Vericoin is held by some bad guys and the authority request a hard fork to remove those Vericoins, or send those coins to the country authority, based on what happened, I doubt the team will say no.
my two satoshi
Nobody care to answer, I will leave, but the credit of Vericoin is compromised. |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency is created to be not regulated by authorities, such as countries. What happened to Vericoin today goes against this objective, because it is controlled by an exchange site. Suppose someday a country authority send request to the Vericoin development team about some Vericoin is held by some bad guys and the authority request a hard fork to remove those Vericoins, or send those coins to the country authority, based on what happened, I doubt the team will say no.
Question is not whether devs do it or not. Question is CAN THEY DO IT? And the answer is obviously YES, for every single cryptocurrency, IF they get backed by the majority of their miners. So, all the crypto community will have to deal with this reality. You should all help to get the right spin in terms of PR. Always, they can do it, as long as they make ppl support their new fork. The question is, DO THEY DO IT OR NOT? DO THEY GIVE IN TO THE AUTHORITY OR THEY OBEY THEIR INITIAL AIM FOR A CRYPTOCURRENCY: NOT REGULATED BY AUTHORITIES. (don't want to use caps, but obviously you don't get my insight) If they are regulated by authorities, what is the difference between it and centralized banks? p.s. til now, my questions are not answered. Not a single developer will accept to face jail for not attending a legal order. Just face the truth. The whole world now knows for sure that it is technically possible for EVERY SINGLE CRYPTOCURRENCY, including BTC. So, crypto will be better served by getting the right PR spin on this story. Simple as that. Really? Will Bitcoin do this? I highly doubt, because its destiny is not controlled by two or three persons (and from the same country), and that is why Bitcoin can hold its value. Is the Bitcoin sold recently by government got by hard fork and rolling back? No. think about answers to my questions and then answer me |
|
|
|
Cryptocurrency is created to be not regulated by authorities, such as countries. What happened to Vericoin today goes against this objective, because it is controlled by an exchange site. Suppose someday a country authority send request to the Vericoin development team about some Vericoin is held by some bad guys and the authority request a hard fork to remove those Vericoins, or send those coins to the country authority, based on what happened, I doubt the team will say no.
Question is not whether devs do it or not. Question is CAN THEY DO IT? And the answer is obviously YES, for every single cryptocurrency, IF they get backed by the majority of their miners. So, all the crypto community will have to deal with this reality. You should all help to get the right spin in terms of PR. Always, they can do it, as long as they make ppl support their new fork. The question is, DO THEY DO IT OR NOT? DO THEY GIVE IN TO THE AUTHORITY OR THEY OBEY THEIR INITIAL AIM FOR A CRYPTOCURRENCY: NOT REGULATED BY AUTHORITIES. (don't want to use caps, but obviously you don't get my insight) If they are regulated by authorities, what is the difference between it and centralized banks? p.s. til now, my questions are not answered. |
|
|
|
I am a senior member in this bitcointalk forum, but I want to remain anonymous.
I noticed Vericoin discussion when go to Altcoin ANN, and here is some of my insight:
First, a few questions:
1. Did mintpal really lost Vericoin, because of being hacked?
After reading their official announcement, the information is rather vague. Is there a possibility that coins are withdrawn by some big bagholders? Is there possibility that coins are sold by Mintpal (or its personnel) to other people and then they want to reverse the transaction while not paying the money back?
2. Vericoin was hacked, while other coins, including Bitcoin, was intact. Is it because the problem of Vericoin blockchain, or because of the safety hazard in Mintpal?
3. Vericoin group decided to roll-back the blockchain, is this a result after a deliberate consideration, or not?
4. If a small Altcoin-Bitcoin exchange site get compromised, will the Vericoin team do the same thing to roll back?
Then a few insights:
Cryptocurrency is created to be de-centralized. By reversing some transactions through the intervention of development team, it goes against its initial objective.
Cryptocurrency is created to be not regulated by authorities, such as countries. What happened to Vericoin today goes against this objective, because it is controlled by an exchange site. Suppose someday a country authority send request to the Vericoin development team about some Vericoin is held by some bad guys and the authority request a hard fork to remove those Vericoins, or send those coins to the country authority, based on what happened, I doubt the team will say no.
my two satoshi
|
|
|
|
|
I am a senior member in this bitcointalk forum, but I want to remain anonymous.
I noticed Vericoin discussion when go to Altcoin ANN, and here is some of my insight:
First, a few questions:
1. Did mintpal really lost Vericoin, because of being hacked?
After reading their official announcement, the information is rather vague. Is there a possibility that coins are withdrawn by some big bagholders? Is there possibility that coins are sold by Mintpal (or its personnel) to other people and then they want to reverse the transaction while not paying the money back?
2. Vericoin was hacked, while other coins, including Bitcoin, was intact. Is it because the problem of Vericoin blockchain, or because of the safety hazard in Mintpal?
3. Vericoin group decided to roll-back the blockchain, is this a result after a deliberate consideration, or not?
4. If a small Altcoin-Bitcoin exchange site get compromised, will the Vericoin team do the same thing to roll back?
Then a few insights:
Cryptocurrency is created to be de-centralized. By reversing some transactions through the intervention of development team, it goes against its initial objective.
Cryptocurrency is created to be not regulated by authorities, such as countries. What happened to Vericoin today goes against this objective, because it is controlled by an exchange site. Suppose someday a country authority send request to the Vericoin development team about some Vericoin is held by some bad guys and the authority request a hard fork to remove those Vericoins, or send those coins to the country authority, based on what happened, I doubt the team will say no.
my two satoshi
|
|
|
|
|
