So they only released the thin client? At this point, I feel it is no longer even worth clicking on their links to see. Without the fat client, nobody has any idea what SoiledCoin 3 is. |
|
|
|
You forgot to account for two things.
1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning).
2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage. 1) The issue is about "spam" accounts that have small amounts and stay unused. If the tx out is unspent, it cannot be pruned. Pruning is not the answer to every problem with storage. First you actually need to download the whole block chain first, THEN prune. It is not very efficient. If you trust somebody else's prune, you are trusting them instead of "no one." It saves no bandwidth whatsoever and only eventually saves disk space. For perfect security, one can download and verify each block from the network of BTC nodes. Sort of like downloading the source code, inspecting it yourself, and then building the executable yourself. Or you could download a signed full blockchain and then verify each block and only download the last few blocks from the network. Not as secure.. Or you could download a signed pruned blockchain that has been signed by N authorities you trust (like Gavin, or the Church of Scientology, or Bill Mahr, or etc). Less secure but that would save bandwidth. BTW, bandwidth is also growing as fast as storage. (Just not in the USA because our infrastructure is made out of feces and michelle bachman's tears). In Sweden they have tested 40Gbit residential links. Not sure when they will be generally available. 2) See the wiki about 4,000 tps and what kind of storage you'll need. I'm extrapolating; you have a narrow view. BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round You cannot both presume that BTC will suddenly be popular and worthless at the same time. Either BTC is in widespread use before storage becomes incredibly cheap and therefore BTC become more valuable in dollar terms since they are created at a fixed rate and cannot expand to fit demand. Or BTC is not in widespread use before storage becomes cheap and there is less of a problem with needing to store massive transaction volumes. Miners could also just ask for higher transaction fees to support storage as a stop gap solution. Another potential outcome is that BTC could become a currency for the rich. It costs money to participate and issue transactions and mine. Only people able to support the currency can participate in it. No need for a tax designed into the protocol, you are taxed in electrons and hard drives.  |
|
|
|
What you have just described is a system to funnel money from all users into CoinHunters personal wallet. Why should people get richer just because they are already rich? It might be the way of the corrupt high street banks but it's not the way of the peer2peer crypto-currency system that was designed to replace them.
then you are not up-to-date, we are discussing the point on SolidCoinTalk that the biggest account (CPF - CoinProtectionFund) will give his account-fee-income to charity, global organizations with good reputation like UNICEF If you are not going to use the interest, don't collect it. The founders promise to donate it to charity? Like they promised SoiledCoin 1 was better than Bitcoin? And how they promised SoiledCoin 2 is better than Bitcoin? And now they promise SoiledCoin 3 is better than Bitcoin AND going to give to charity? How about they first make a block chain that works, then they can donate money to charity.
This mechanism doesn't clean anything and isn't spam protection. It solves a problem that never existed and in the process ensures those with many coins get snowballing wealth, as well as losing the semi-anonymous nature of BitCoin.
when we just think of someone who doesn't like SC/MC very much, now with SC he can create hundreds of different clients/accounts with a little amount and this blows up the whole network with dispensable transactions and "dead" accounts... yes, he has payed transactions-fees or he has only mined one SC-block, but these accounts will be there "for ever" now he will do the same to MC... hm... after a few days this mini-accounts have gone away and the fine MC$ of the spammer are back redistributed to the network and he does something commendable too: a part of his money goes for charity  for me that looks like fine spam-protection Edit: in the past there have been some problems with spamming - regarding SC - and LTC too (blowing up blockchain)! You have no way to differentiate small users from people who are up to mischief. So it just boils down to money being siphoned form everyone who is not a founder and put into the pockets of people who are founders. Classic pyramid scheme outcome. |
|
|
|
€0.00000005578994750976563
=
$0.00000004184246063232422
Also, average size of a transaction is roughly 500B, so its even smaller again. You can store 2 million transactions for $0.01
Except that there is more than 1 hard drive in the entire network. Say there's 100,000 users with the block chain $0.00000004184246063232422 becomes $0.004184246063232422 that's about twice as much as the current tx fee. And when bitcoin is big enough that there are hundreds of transactions per second, bandwidth caps/speeds become a big issue. We still want new people to download the chain, right? There have to be at least 100k people that have downloaded the block chain already, who knows how many in the future even if lite clients are the norm. I still think microsoiled -3.0's way of handling this is abjectly stupid, but that is realsolid for you. It really doesn't matter though when there are going to be all of 10 people using it. You forgot to account for two things. 1) You don't need to store it for 20 years. Since transactions can be pruned, people don't need to store the entire block chain (on clients that support pruning). 2) The cost of storage is falling continuously, but the size of transactions is constant. You are extrapolating a problem based on today's prices for storage. If you added 1,000,000,000 users today there would be issues. Clients would have to implement pruning, but with 1,000,000,000 extra users BTC would be worth a lot more in dollars which means TX fees would be worth a lot more in dollars. There would still be incentive to mirror transactions and find blocks. The problem is not in the block chain as much as the BTC clients current implementation is not optimal. |
|
|
|
I just used 1TB for $100 I think. But yeah, it is a small amount. |
|
|
|
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
The problem is the lack of participation. If you store some tiny ass amount in an account and expect it to be there in 20 years, that is ridiculous. Why does everyone have to service you for nothing? Bandwidth and storage are cheap, but they are not free. However, I think the way soiledcoin 3 is doing this is just another early adopter scam joke. Charge inactivity fees after an extended period of time, but not daily fees regardless if there is activity or not. If you are making or receiving transactions, then you are supporting the network regardless of how much is in your account and you shouldn't be charged anything since you are already paying tx fees--and it ensures that the wallet key is not lost. If you have some piddly balance after a year with no activity, yes you should be charged a fee, imo. Bitcoin has made a bunch of self-serving whiners that expect everything to be free on the backs of the people who actually support the network. Although, at this point, a good majority of them are miners too, but this will certainly not always be the case. Not that the bitcoin network is even capable of charging inactivity fees though. The security of Bitcoin is proportional to the length of it's block chain. Each block added makes past transactions more secure so adding blocks is in everyones interest. Most transactions are less than a K in size, so storing one costs ~$0.000001667 and that number gets smaller every day. Transactions can be pruned in theory (although the client does not yet support this feature), so in theory not every client need store the full blockchain for 20 years. Every bitcoin client stores the blockchain and more importantly, they check the validity of it. How can the clients be whining and expecting free stuff when every single one is paying to store the blockchain and verify it? |
|
|
|
I hope your 100BTC Myan apocalypse vision comes to pass, I stand to gain tremendously if suddenly every other human on the planet stops valuing money.  Meh, if they don't want money, why would they enforce crazy fees on transactions in the first place? Perhaps it is a dystopian future where the human race catches a virus that causes them to rage against cryptocurrencies. But yeah, Coinhunter/RealSolid's entire supposition is flawed. |
|
|
|
I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes. Since most users in MicroCash won't be running nodes this isn't a zero sum game for the nodes. Apparently all running nodes are going to be paid a reward from the CPF through some mechanism. I doubt it's going to be "that much" though. If all running nodes are paid, why tax them in the first place? So you can take a cut for "administration fees" ? If you the creator of Soiledcoin don't know, how is anyone to have any faith in your work? Are you just making this up as you go? If so, that isn't a good foundation for a cryptocurrency. It would explain why there is no alpha or beta source, and why no paper has been written detailing the inner workings of SoiledCoin 3. You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness. Everyone who has an account pays, not just the node operators. People who run nodes are generally going to be businesses, supporters and people seeking the utmost in anonymity. Because there is no known way to pay nodes fees for running and providing the service in a decentralized manner MicroCash will be using part of the CPF to help support the infrastructure, which is a good use of it in my opinion. So your plan is this: since you have no idea how to reward nodes based on value provided, you plan to give some coins to people who you think deserve it. At least you admitted it instead of saving it for surprise sex later. That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence? Anyone running a node is storing the blockchain but they aren't the only one. Part of the reason p2p decentralization works in a security sense is the fact hundreds or thousands of computers store the same information. If your computer is corrupted you then go out to the other nodes who have it stored (storage cost) and ask them to send you everything (cpu and network cost). So even though you are storing it there is still a cost in those other hundreds of computers storing your information also. Yep, and when one of them crashes I am storing the block-chain for them. The can download part or all of it from me. Thus the term "peer" is applied. All the nodes are providing the same service. Most people think putting a price on services is a good thing as it means it can't be taken advantage of. This is the reason for Bitcoin transaction fees after all?
In the Bitcoin model the miners get all the fees, why isn't this discussed as unfair? All the non mining nodes do the same work and they get nothing. At least in MicroCash anyone who has an account does get something back for all the network fees (both transaction and account). So this means nodes are paid indirectly for helping the network, the amount they get paid just depends on how much MicroCash they have. You say that the non-mining BTC nodes do the same work as mining BTC nodes? You say that non-miners magically create blocks and encode transactions in them? That is a bizarre statement and betrays a deep misundertanding of Bitcoin. No wonder you are so hostile to BTC, you have an incomplete understanding of how it works. The amount collected in daily transaction fees is only a relatively small amount, each account only pays half a cent, most real banks charge on the order of 100x more. So it's certainly not free like Bitcoin, but it's also much less than real banks. People have a choice if they think a daily half cent fee is too much or if they think that the biggest accounts are getting unfair rewards. If these two things are contentious to new users then MicroCash simply won't be popular. I don't see how these concepts are too negative though as they are similar to what people in the real world already deal with today (account fees and interest).
When comparing to real life banks a daily half cent fee is about 100 times less cost to a business. When comparing to wiring funds around the world a half cent fixed fee is about 6000 times less. When compared to buying items, you can buy something in MicroCash that is 5c and only pay a 10% fee for it, Visa/Mastercard would be jealous. MicroCash when compared to real life examples is extremely competitive.
Yes. Congrats, Microcash charges less than real banks do. You do charge account fees and interest just like banks do. So if people want to put their money in a bank run by an unknown group of people, running code they have never seen, running a system that it's creator cannot exlain, they can. They can feel right at home getting charged fees and taxes which go straight into the pocket of the "bankers". |
|
|
|
Are you still arguing with these trolls? Seriously, why are you trying to teach these pigs to sing? Let the kids play in their sand box with their dog poo, not your problem  The MicroCash kids can play where they like, when they start trying to scam people that don't know better into using their rigged coin then I care. If we just ignore these morons they are going to scam everyone they can. If we make noise and question their rigged system google will index it and anyone doing due-diligence ( which isn't nearly enough people judging by how many people handed over BitCoins to bitcoinica ) will find it. Less people will be scammed and less damage will be done to the reputation of crypto-currencies in general. You cannot protect everyone. Eventually people will have to learn to wise up and do their homework before jumping head first. It's all part of the natural cycle. Unfortunate? Yes. But it's for their own good. It's been well established that Scamcoin is a sham, and anyone who fails to see that deserves to get ripped off, as that's the only way they'll learn. Some people never wise up, and when those people get fleeced by SoiledCoin the press might make a distinction between them and Bitcoin. I would prefer if those who are doomed to be taken advantage were not part of Bitcoin so their folly does not reflect poorly on BTC. So SoiledCoin does serve a purpose. There does need to be a minimum bar however. Threads like these make certain that those with over 80 I.Q. are forewarned of the danger. Those with under 80 cannot be helped, and provide the grist the SoiledCoin mill feeds upon. |
|
|
|
With Bitcoin there is no fixed transaction fee, miners can charge whatever they want. So if a miner charges you 100 BTC to send a transaction then you have to pay. Luke-jr is currently doing this with coiledcoin, so it's not a theoretical thing, it's actually happening. Anyone can mine but if you don't have enough power it could take you 5 years to mine a block and not be charged 100 BTC. So if your life savings are less than the transaction fee then it's essentially like losing your life savings if you ever wanted to actually spend them. This isn't true right now in Bitcoin, but it could potentially happen because transaction fees in Bitcoin are not fixed.
If Bitcoin ever moves to the same protocol as MicroCash (which it probably needs to for performance reasons if its successful) then it will have to move to account fees also. Otherwise it could be spammed to death. So comparing two different protocols, they both have advantages and disadvantages. Obviously some people familiar with how Bitcoin works aren't too comfortable with the idea of daily account fees but there's no other alternative if you want to move to the same account protocol that MicroCash uses.
It is happening in CoiledCoin, but not Bitcoin. Why? While you are technically correct, every miner on the planet could collude and charge 100BTC for every transaction. But since the miners are Bitcoin, you would have to say it is not collusion but a decision to enforce a new rule. Unlikely, but possible. For the sake of argument, let us say that all of a sudden every transaction fee must be higher than 100BTC. As a result fewer people submit transactions to these miners and the transactions requests with fees under 100BTC begin to pile up. Pretty soon any miner (not in the 100BTC cabal) who finds a block stands to gain tremendously if they processed these rejected transactions. Market forces insure that it is worth someone's while to process transctions. While it is technically possible for the entire human race to suddenly no longer desire money, the Bitcoin protocol did not feel it need a special case to handle this. I hope your 100BTC Myan apocalypse vision comes to pass, I stand to gain tremendously if suddenly every other human on the planet stops valuing money. |
|
|
|
This guy is clearly being paid minimal wage because he can't spare less a cent a day! It's a matter of principle. Evaporating cryptocurrency isn't a match for non-evaporating real cash imo. I mean, in a system advertising itself as free from a central authority, having someone removing stuff from your wallet like the government directly debiting taxes from your account, or like e-gold slowing draining accounts when they went rogue, it's fairly discrediting I think... Yes and transaction fees aren't evaporating your cryptocurrency savngs in Bitcoin I guess? Apparently in the future Bitcoin fees are the only way anyone will make money mining. It's something heavily discussed and criticized. That is right. Transaction fees are not evaporating my cryptocurrency savings in Bitcoin. I have not transferred them, every single satoshi is still in my possession. That is because I am saving them, not spending them. |
|
|
|
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency?
Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction.
Because there is a cost involved in storing your accounts and transactions on hundreds or thousands of computers around the world. I propose to be one of those computers storing the accounts and transactions. In fact I propose to store your account and transaction information. So pay me 0.005 cents for storing your account and I will pay you 0.005 cents for storing mine and those two payments cancel each other out. I know that algorithm works for 2 nodes, I think it works for N nodes. It's free in Bitcoin, but there is a small fee in MicroCash for this luxury. Just because it's free in Bitcoin doesn't mean it's a scam to have fees for actual services.
You are proposing to charge the providers of the service, the nodes are the ones storing the information and providing this "luxury". They provide this in order to verify that the block chain is correct, which in turns provides security for those depending on that correctness. Just because one person runs a node doesn't mean everyone else around the network doesn't have to also store their accounts and transactions. There is a cost for storage, network transfer and cpu usage related to accounts, MicroCash has a fee for this so that it can protect itself from spam and so that the system self cleanses. If you don't like the daily half cent (0.005) fee then you don't have to use MicroCash. No one is forcing you to use the service.
That person running the node is providing the storage, network transfer and CPU usage that you are proposing to charge them for. So now it costs them twice as much to participate. If Microcash needs money to defend itself, it is not secure. If a authoritative group needs to collect these funds then Microcash is not decentralized. The power, profit, and motivations becomes highly concentrated in the accounts with the most coins. Coincidentally, you control the most coins in the block chain at the moment. Or is it coincidence? |
|
|
|
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency? Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction. I agree with you, no need to lose money and we already have bitcoin for that. Actually what I just described wouldn't work as people would just start splitting their accounts as they get to the middle threshold and above. There is a difference between losing control of your private key and losing currency by design. Why must the currency be redistributed among it's users? Everyone is still addressing how it should be redistributed, not why. |
|
|
|
Good thing there's an "Ignore" button, to shut out the trolls Agreed. -- Smoov There are currently only 2 active alt-currencies that are under discussion. LTC and SC. There is currently an entire subforum dedicated to these 2 subjects. If you restrict them each to a single thread, you will have a subforum with 2 active threads in it. |
|
|
|
I think a better approach for coins redistribution would be to create thresholds for three classes of accounts:
1) spam/dust account x < 0.5 mc
2) low income account 0.5 < x < 10000 mc
3) high income account x > 10000 mc
Then the rules would be the following:
- spam/dust accounts gravitate to zero over time (decay with fees)
- low income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (grow with interest)
- high income accounts gravitate towards middle threshold 10000 mc (decay with fees)
EDIT: plus add the rule that if any account hasn't been spent from for a period of time,
the interest (if any) drops to zero, the fees start to apply (if haven't before).
This will allow dead accounts no matter of which class to eventually decay to zero.
Just my two cents.
Why exactly must people lose their money for participating in the currency? Nobody has articulated that need to my satisfaction. |
|
|
|
coooooooooooooooooooool
Scamcoins, Now with the ability to slowly drain your balance!
Signing off until the official release... Stay tuned to MicroCash.org for updates. That's all Folks! I see you addressed none of my points about the design weaknesses in SoiledCoin (and it's rebranding as Microcash). Still, if you spent more time coding and less time on the forums it would save us all a lot of time and effort. I wonder if the source code will ever be released for Microcash. Probably not since they had to shut down SoiledCoin2 after releasing it's source. |
|
|
|
I can see the spit coming out of k9quaint's mouth sticking to the screen of his computer...
Morons...
Right now, you are looking at your screen. The spit you are seeing is probably not mine. LOL. Keep spiting out of rage, little man! And here we have the third puppet demonstrating The Joint's assertion: "When you ask them specific questions about the technical aspects of Solidcoin/Microcash, they respond not with an answer, but rather by 1) insulting you or 2) insulting Bitcoin. "When we use logic and facts, the SoiledCoin sockpuppets respond with insults. Enjoy your second failed block-chain. I will look forward to May 10th when SoiledCoin promised to release their greatest creation... |
|
|
|
Hello guys I'm new to this. I found the bitcoin.org site (is it official?) to be a bit lacking for a beginner. Bitcoins sounds like a revolutionary push for new currency, but I have a few questions before I actually go any further. - I heard bitcoin was opensource, but what prevents me from giving myself 999 (or anyone else) bitcoins?
- How long does it take for me to download all the stuff in the software? It's been sitting at 1% for quite a while.
- Is there a list of businesses accepting bitcoin? What can I do with it?
Please mind my name, if you're a redditor, you'll know someone that goes by "I_RAPE_CATS". I thought it would be funny if I claimed this name before anyone else. Anyway, thanks! [Edit: What is mining? I heard I could make some money with my computer, how?] This is the first post of i_rape_bitcoins where he claims to be new to the whole crypto-currency concept. The next 4 posts are similar in nature. Of course, as soon as he exits the newbie forum his tone shifts markedly and is revealed to be a SoiledCoin sockpuppet. One day later and suddenly he knows everything about SoiledCoin. People who need to lie in this fashion should not be trusted with your money. I can see the spit coming out of k9quaint's mouth sticking to the screen of his computer...
Morons...
Right now, you are looking at your screen. The spit you are seeing is probably not mine. |
|
|
|
Microcash is just a rebranding of SoiledCoin. To claim otherwise is to contradict the current marketing material which claims every SoiledCoin will be migrated to Microcash. In that sense, it is just an extension of SoiledCoin.
Microcash is not just a re-branding, there are significant changes. The widely feared trust nodes are gone. Microcash does not exist except in the marketing messages on this forum. It can only be more than a rebranding when it's source is released. At this point, it is just a vehicle for Solidcoins to be renamed Microcash. Any further enhancements are promises from a group of people who have yet to keep any. MtGox does not control the license to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the source to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the block chain of Bitcoin with tyrant nodes. MtGox holds those Bitcoins in escrow for their users, they cannot decide to spend them as they see fit without breaking the law. The CPF and tyrant nodes were under your total control. That is the difference.
Do you read my posts in the context they are written in? "the joint" claimed that Coinhunter having "1/8" of the coins in the entire network harms the decentralization of Microcash. I responded with the rebuttal that any amount of coins does not relate to the decentralization of the network since there are no trust nodes. And here you are rambling something completely remote. I guess you have no comment on how completely different the two situations are. I am not surprised that you fail to understand (or feign ignorance), if you did understand and had a conscience, you would not find yourself in this situation. In one case on entity has total control of the currency, client, servers, and block-chain and also owns a significant fraction of the coins. In the other case, one entity acts as a broker and has no control over the peers, client, or block-chain. MtGox could not stop Bitcoin if they wanted to. Coinhunter has already stopped SoiledCoin twice. The code is still not open-source. It is proprietary, licensed and controlled by Coinhunter. We can see the source for the client nodes, but not for the tyrant (server) nodes. Client/server architecture where one party controls all the servers is not "decentralized", nor is it peer to peer.
I never said it was open-source. I said the source code is freely available on their website (he was talking about SolidCoin). The Microcash source has not been released yet, how can you claim to see the source for the client nodes and not the server nodes? Anyone can run a server. Clients are only there for the average joe and those who don't want to download the blockchain. I guess you should add "Purportedly," to the beginning of your claims. My statements were regarding SoiledCoin and the unsubstantiated claims of the SoiledCoin crew. Of course I wasn't talking about Microcash, it does not yet exist. Thank you for admitting that Microcash will be client/server and not peer to peer. Also, you can stop pretending you are not a Coinhunter sockpuppet. There are 3 supporters of SoiledCoin on this forum, and you pretending to be a fourth just detracts further from your image. When the organizers of SoiledCoin decide to own their product instead of hiding in the shadows, we might take them more seriously. Until then, we are left with: SoiledCoin 1.x, fatal design flaw, blockchain shut down SoiledCoin 2.x, fatal design flaw, blockchain in limbo SoiledCoin 3.x (aka Microcash), vaporware, purported by a sockpuppet (none of the SoiledCoin crew will sign their name to it) to have serious design flaws if ever released. Until it is released, we are left with the rantings of a pathological liar on which to base our evaluation. |
|
|
|
I asked why Microcash is a scam. 1, 2, 3, 4 are not valid reasons.
Microcash is just a rebranding of SoiledCoin. To claim otherwise is to contradict the current marketing material which claims every SoiledCoin will be migrated to Microcash. In that sense, it is just an extension of SoiledCoin. 3.) I did the math in a previous post -- Coinhunter had about 1/8 of the coins in the entire network based upon the amount of money that he stated he had invested in it. How's that for decentralization?
How does having any amount of coins relate to the decentralization of the network? Mt. Gox has a large percentage of Bitcoins in their wallets, you don't see people complaining how that harms the security of the Bitcoin network. MtGox does not control the license to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the source to Bitcoin. MtGox does not control the block chain of Bitcoin with tyrant nodes. MtGox holds those Bitcoins in escrow for their users, they cannot decide to spend them as they see fit without breaking the law. The CPF and tyrant nodes were under your total control. That is the difference. 2.) Development team has consistently claimed that their currencies are decentralized when they aren't. In the past, they would not publish the code as open-sourced. When you ask them specific questions about the technical aspects of Solidcoin/Microcash, they respond not with an answer, but rather by 1) insulting you or 2) insulting Bitcoin.
I believe the source code is freely available on their website. Although it was a concern in the past, it is not one right now. The code is still not open-source. It is proprietary, licensed and controlled by Coinhunter. We can see the source for the client nodes, but not for the tyrant (server) nodes. Client/server architecture where one party controls all the servers is not "decentralized", nor is it peer to peer. These versions are iterations of the ongoing development of SolidCoin. They are not separate entities from each other, just like new Bitcoin releases.
The SoiledCoin 1.x and 2.x releases are separate block-chains that are totally incompatible with each other. They are not just like Bitcoin releases. Bitcoin has not had to stop and restart it's block-chain twice. Try to spend a coin created with the first Bitcoin client, and you will find that coin to be valid. Try to spend a coin created with the first SoiledCoin client and you will hear nothing but silence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
