[ANN] [SAFE] Safecoin - Community Edition of Solana

[SlickRick]

That I have to cover the blocks of my miners because the centralization of this coin destroyed immutability. 

You have no pool, are not involved with this coin in any way, and only here to spread FUD.

Says the scammer who just opened another new account to talk bullshit and fud and troll.

You are a kind of funny guy. Accusing people here that they have all new accounts and you are also almost a newbie (became a Jr. just yesterday??).
You are so wrong on so many levels, it almost hurts.
But hey, I don't have anything against some entertainment value.
Unfortunately the fun wears off, if you have nothing else to say, I am getting bored.

[1715415593]

1715415593

[1715415593]

1715415593

[1715415593]

1715415593

[SlickRick]

Can you point me to the place where they created mutability in notSafecoin?  

It was block 236,000 for Komodo if that's what you want to call a rollback.

Komodo block 23600 is a valid immutable block with 528,795 confirmations, which has exactly nothing to do with a fork coin (like notSafecoin) that started a year after the block you posted and some centralized cliche on some random 3rd-party chat site introduced mutability into a non-Komodo chain (making it notSafecoin), so I'm not sure what you're on about (and I'm guessing you don't know what you're on about either).

ComputerGenie, you still don't get it, do you?
Kind of strange like trying to explain something like human behaviour to some authistic kid.

[ComputerGenie]

ComputerGenie, you still don't get it, do you?

No, because not one person has given an honest, direct answer to the most important question I asked:

...
Explain, exactly, how creating valid blocks, which are recognized by consensus, can "do harm to Safecoin" (especially since it's "Secured by Bitcoin")....

[cumtanks]

I answered you very directly.

[ComputerGenie]

I answered you very directly.

No, you trolled on some shit about showing me that you don't know how to operate a node, not any valid response

[cumtanks]

...while the dev works on recovering from the attack jl777B did on the chain.

It wasn't an "attack", the chain had a mechanism to mine it and that mechanism was utilized. It's, literally, that simple. Calling it an "attack" is, as I pointed out earlier, the same as saying that a miner with 40 1080TIs is "attacking" the network because you only have an RX 480. 

...It was an organized, calculated attack intended to do harm to Safecoin...

OK, let's pretend I'm not as knowledgeable as I actually am for a second:
Explain, exactly, how creating valid blocks, which are recognized by consensus, can "do harm to Safecoin" (especially since it's "Secured by Bitcoin")....

The equivalent hashpower of over 128,000 1080 ti's (700 Sol/s each) were pointed at the SafeCoin network during the attack. The overall network speed was driven from 300 KSol/s to 90 MSol/s. 1 MSol alone would have been enough for a 51% attack and capture a majority of the blocks. A bug was exploited by jl777B that him to generate blocks instantly. This stuck the chain, though we eventually mined through it before doing a rollback and fork. Before the problem was resolved he joined the discord to boast about what he had accomplished and attempted to provide a solution. The fixes he recommended were a load of bull. He invited others to FUD. Regardless of what you may think, jl777B orchestrated the attack. He mentioned that the exploit used led to the largest explosion in difficulty for KMD. It's not something you can claim to forget. Thousands of blocks were mined within this period. There was a community vote for a rollback when the fork was applied that fixed this problem.

jl777B has a history of malicious practice
http://blog.bluemeanie.net/2014/10/nxtautodac-jl777-stolen-nxt.html

You are being irrational. I didn't troll you, but I did beat around the bush about confronting the fact that you do not operate a pool for SafeCoin.

[ComputerGenie]

...but I did beat around the bush about confronting the fact that you do not operate a pool for SafeCoin.

And I, rightfully ignored it because you haven't the vaguest notion of what you attempt to speak about. I operate a pool, notSafecoin was on that pool, notSafecoin was mined by that pool, and the notSafecoin coinbase txs of that pool were signed by that pool. Do some homework. 

As for the rest....

OK, so I've reread what you wrote.
The assertion is the same as saying:

if a new coin (CoinX) came along and the majority of miners switched to that coin (thus "leaving the chain stuck"), then the "right" thing to do is not continue to run notSafecoin, but instead rewind the chain back to a time where the remaining miners could easily mine and CoinX has "damaged" notSafecoin.

I understand now.
The concept is to introduce mutability to make mining easy for anyone in the centralized cliche of a specific, yet random, 3rd-party social media platform that has nothing to do with the network protocol or protocol consensus. Thanks for setting me straight

[cumtanks]

...but I did beat around the bush about confronting the fact that you do not operate a pool for SafeCoin.

Do some homework. 

What pool do you operate? Nothing you have said in this thread is correct. There was a community vote visible to a large amount of people and every Safecoin pool administrator. The attack was noticed by everyone who was mining at the time and we dealt with the situation together. We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

[ComputerGenie]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

[gfigg42]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

Your grasping at straws. This coin isn't even on an exchange. Had it been, things may have went differently. Thank God it wasn't.

[ComputerGenie]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

Your grasping at straws. This coin isn't even on an exchange. Had it been, things may have went differently. Thank God it wasn't.

What does a currency being on an exchange and being treated as a commodity have to do with stealing the currency out of people's private wallets (the wallets that were supposed to have "zCash Privacy")?
You're trying to say that it's OK to steal currency from people because other people aren't it as notcurrency, but if a currency were on some random exchange and being treated as a noncurrency, then the centralized 5% of the known community wouln't have voted to steal the currency from people using the currency as currency?

[lennox_dan]

That I have to cover the blocks of my miners because the centralization of this coin destroyed immutability. 

You have no pool, are not involved with this coin in any way, and only here to spread FUD.

Says the scammer who just opened another new account to talk bullshit and fud and troll.

Don't argue! We can all speak calmly. Please follow the rules of the forum.

[gfigg42]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

Your grasping at straws. This coin isn't even on an exchange. Had it been, things may have went differently. Thank God it wasn't.

What does a currency being on an exchange and being treated as a commodity have to do with stealing the currency out of people's private wallets (the wallets that were supposed to have "zCash Privacy")?
You're trying to say that it's OK to steal currency from people because other people aren't it as notcurrency, but if a currency were on some random exchange and being treated as a noncurrency, then the centralized 5% of the known community wouln't have voted to steal the currency from people using the currency as currency?

You're welcome to continue mining the old chain and bring it to market.

[ComputerGenie]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

Your grasping at straws. This coin isn't even on an exchange. Had it been, things may have went differently. Thank God it wasn't.

What does a currency being on an exchange and being treated as a commodity have to do with stealing the currency out of people's private wallets (the wallets that were supposed to have "zCash Privacy")?
You're trying to say that it's OK to steal currency from people because other people aren't it as notcurrency, but if a currency were on some random exchange and being treated as a noncurrency, then the centralized 5% of the known community wouln't have voted to steal the currency from people using the currency as currency?

You're welcome to continue mining the old chain and bring it to market.

And you're still stuck on this whole using a currency as a noncurrency thing, why is that? Is it your belief that unSafecoin can't be developed well enough to be used as a currency and must be used as a noncurrency commodity in order to have value?

[thiendaicat]

Hi Manager.
Great project! Do you complete your web platform or any MVP product so I and other could take a deep look about it?

[Z00Z]

...We mined through the difficulty and brought it back down to normal before still deciding to roll back. I don't understand why you are trying to dispute this.

I'm not disputing that fact; I'm saying that that fact alone make makes this notSafecoin, because at any time transactions can be mutable by a centralized handful of people in some random social media outlet, despite the fact that there's no valid reason to make currency transactions mutable or that protocol consensus did not agree with the actions of said handful stealing the currency from my miners.

You seem to want to glaze over the fact that currency was, literally, taken from those that rightfully had ownership of it. There's a word for that "theft".

This "roll back" to "fend off an attack" was nothing more than outright theft.

Even if one were to agree that certain actors were "attacking" the network (which I still say is utter bullshit; because, protocol), that only excuses taking currency for those that consensus believes acted in bad faith (examples of this would be ETH and DAO funds or TETHER and treasury funds). Stealing the currency out of the wallets of valid transactions that were supposed to be immutable and had nothing to do with the alleged "attack" is theft and, literally, makes this an unSafecoin to even attempt to try to own.

Why even have "private keys" when a random centralized group that makes up only 5% of consensus can just take your currency away from you? Of what validity is trying to claim "zCash Privacy" when an extreme minority can steal your private currency out of your wallet because they are mad at someone else?

Your grasping at straws. This coin isn't even on an exchange. Had it been, things may have went differently. Thank God it wasn't.

What does a currency being on an exchange and being treated as a commodity have to do with stealing the currency out of people's private wallets (the wallets that were supposed to have "zCash Privacy")?
You're trying to say that it's OK to steal currency from people because other people aren't it as notcurrency, but if a currency were on some random exchange and being treated as a noncurrency, then the centralized 5% of the known community wouln't have voted to steal the currency from people using the currency as currency?

You're welcome to continue mining the old chain and bring it to market.

And you're still stuck on this whole using a currency as a noncurrency thing, why is that? Is it your belief that unSafecoin can't be developed well enough to be used as a currency and must be used as a noncurrency commodity in order to have value?

your incessant obsession with SAFE is curious at best. As you are a KMD notary shouldn't you be focusing on the notary NOTdecentralised node voting or maybe looking as to why your DEX does not attract any volume?

You can argue or continue your attempts to discredit all you want, the reality remains the oldchain is still mineable as pointed out to you. You have the repos and the notary pubkeys; please, go ahead...The community has moved on from this except for the opportunistic KMD community members that decided to exploit a weakness of which they were well aware of.

The KMD community had 2 choices, 1. take advantage (which they did knowing full well of the consequences) or 2. work with SAFE. Unfortunately, greed and arrogance won the day for KMD and the SAFE community voted with their feet. You are 100% in your rights to mine the old-chain where you took advantage of a loop-hole and take it to market if you so wish OR you can mine the new chain ethically with no clear advantage.

YOUR CHOICE. but stop trolling. It is not casting a very good light on KMD community.     

[ComputerGenie]

...As you are a KMD notary shouldn't you be....    

What feken idiot planted that lie into your head? I am not now, nor have I ever been a notary. Again, people need to do some homework before blindly trying to attack me on a personal level in a vain attempt to hide the fact that they are talking out of their ass.

[jl777B]

What happened the other day was an inadvertent triggering of a long forgotten bug. I stopped the mining at about 0.0001% of the full diff it would have gone to. Went into discord and explained all this and how to fix all the issues.

Within 24 hours I got the diff back down to what it was before I started mining and I estimate the total mining losses to be less than $1000.

All that had to be done at that point was resume mining and keep the chain intact with my having gotten a whopping 60,000 SAFE. Certainly the most inept attack every conducted. Get a small amount of coins, go in and publicly announce you did it, help the attack vector get fixed, and undo the high diff.

For thanks I am accused of attacking SAFE. If it were an attack I would have mined millions of coins and put the diff in the trillions. not just from 1 million to 10 million, but to trillions. Now that would be an attack. Even after the diff was to 10 million, the chain was still being mined, it wasnt forked. It was just temporary high diff like if a larger miner mined it for an hour. Really, no big deal in the big picture.

But your reaction to this has made it into a bigger deal. You made it clear that SAFE chain will be rolled back for arbitrary reasons and is not an immutable chain. You attack me incessantly believing that I am motivated by the money from getting SAFE.

Anyway, you now convinced me that I am like to attack SAFE. So I will.

To my mind you stole the notary mined coins, so I will get them back at some time in the future. This is my announcement of that. Feel free to keep rolling back the chain after each attack.

It was your choice to make me into an enemy.

Good luck.

[cumtanks]

...As you are a KMD notary shouldn't you be....     

What feken idiot planted that lie into your head?

It's a safe assumption as the homework leads nowhere.

Anyway, you now convinced me that I am like to attack SAFE. So I will.
..
It was your choice to make me into an enemy.

Clearly it's your choice. With the crowd you have brought about to publicly shame this coin, what choice did you leave its community other than to paint you in this regard? I expect this means all future attacks should be credited to you.

[jl777B]

...As you are a KMD notary shouldn't you be....     

What feken idiot planted that lie into your head?

It's a safe assumption as the homework leads nowhere.

Anyway, you now convinced me that I am like to attack SAFE. So I will.
..
It was your choice to make me into an enemy.

Clearly it's your choice. With the crowd you have brought about to publicly shame this coin, what choice did you leave its community other than to paint you in this regard? I expect this means all future attacks should be credited to you.

Did I choose to rollback the chain over 60,000 coins?

That is not what crypto is about. Rollbacks should be reserved only for cases where the chain integrity cant be assured moving forward. The 60,000 coins mined had no effect on that, it was about 8 hours of normal mining.

All that had to be done was resume mining normally and wait for a new release this week that patched things properly. Treat me with civility and you would have had a friend instead of an enemy.

So there was indeed a choice and it was not me that deployed the rollback. I was the one that brought the diff back down to normal levels BEFORE the rollback was deployed.

That is the fact.

Oh, I cant be certain I will be the only one to attack SAFE as many have the skills and knowledge to do it. You guys really dont understand crypto very well, but best way to learn is by experience.