Scrypt Bitcoin Threads NOT Allowed

[kelsey]

not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.

You oppose the use of judgment?

when its poor judgment yes

[JoelKatz]

not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.

You oppose the use of judgment?

when its poor judgment yes

So are you saying that only topicality should be enforced and anything that's actually about an alternative cryptocurrency should be allowed? If so, I think I agree with you.

[SaltySpitoon]

oh u mean forum btc bagholders. not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.

If you haven't noticed, theres at least 100 Alt coins I don't actively support, but I don't feel the need to disallow them. What we feel the need to disallow is a coin that can essentially be considered malware. The BITCOIN forums don't want immitators confusing/harming their BITCOIN users. That is the main priority. Its really not up for negotiation, the threads will be removed for the reasons that I have gone to lengths to explain already. Yep, censorship is bad, but necessary from time to time. I don't see anyone complaining when someone posts fake wallet stealer clients and I remove those.

If there is something you don't understand in my explanation, feel free to pm me with your questions, and I'll clarify.

[aa]

Why is this thread still getting posts? Are there really people dumb enough to not understand a concept as simple as "releasing a client that overwrites Bitcoin wallets will get you banned for spreading malware"?

[kelsey]

Why is this thread still getting posts? Are there really people dumb enough to not understand a concept as simple as "releasing a client that overwrites Bitcoin wallets will get you banned for spreading malware"?

ok from now on no talk of formatting your HDD seriously any user that installs scrypt btc and loses their btc wallet has bigger problems to worry about.

[SaltySpitoon]

Why is this thread still getting posts? Are there really people dumb enough to not understand a concept as simple as "releasing a client that overwrites Bitcoin wallets will get you banned for spreading malware"?

I really don't know.

edit* And no it wont get you banned, I said in the OP, that the threads would be removed. I'm not heartless, I just dont want to see people lose their money on something that is incredibly preventable and completely unnecessary.

Why is this thread still getting posts? Are there really people dumb enough to not understand a concept as simple as "releasing a client that overwrites Bitcoin wallets will get you banned for spreading malware"?

ok from now on no talk of formatting your HDD seriously any user that installs scrypt btc and loses their btc wallet has bigger problems to worry about.

And no, if there is a thread about formating your HDD, if people had absolutely no clue what it did, they probably wouldn't use it. And if they went ahead and tried it, your OS tells you to back everything up as it will be lost/deleted. If there was a thread that said download Bitcoin (Scrypt Bitcoin), thats a fair bit more confusing, especially to people who don't know what alt currencies are. If you went into a thread that said Download Bitcoin, or even Download Scrypt Bitcoin, with a download link I would bet almost everyone would check it for viruses/wallet stealers. However, having it overwrite your Bitcoin wallet isn't something that people know to check for as it hasn't been a worry up until now.

The possibility of having your wallet overwritten isn't something that would trip up one or two people, its something that I'd be willing to place a wager would catch the majority of people. This is the first time anyone has ever made a coin with the exact same name, and even more, being upset when not being allowed to post about it on a forum dedicated to the coin they are copying and potentially harming strikes me a little odd. To the people that are complaining, I highly advise rereading the OP where I specifically say it has to do with the coin's name. I have no prejudice against the creator of the coin, nor its supporters. I challenge anyone to find any coin that I've treated unfairly and give me a logical reason why the forum staff would ban the mention of this coin, if not for the reasons I gave in the first place. If people want to make a stink out of what I believe is a pretty reasonable and concise decision, be my guest, however posting it here is not ideal.

Like I said, if you have any further questions, pm works best. Then we don't need to bump the thread, and you can still get an answer to any question you still have.

[kelsey]

Like I said, if you have any further questions, pm works best. Then we don't need to bump the thread, and you can still get an answer to any question you still have.

well i'm not asking questions in this thread to get ur opinion/answers funnily enough SaltySpitoon, you're opinion is already clearly stated, so pm would just been an endless pointless discussion.


(plus the troll in me likes watching this thread get bumped by you guys, hey can you make it a sticky again I don't think people fully get it?).

[BitcoinEXpress]

I personally don't care either way if Bitcoin Scrypt threads are allowed or not.

BUT

If it is banned for some irrational fear of over writing BitcoinSHA256 wallets, the fear is unfounded and simply not true.

I guess nobody bothered to actually test the theory. All that happens is that if running Bitcoin Scrypt, Bitcoin SHA256 transactions are unconfirmed, when running Bitcoin SHA256 the reverse happens. No coins are lost, everything is reconfirmed when running the desire Bitcoin version.

If you want to try it, setup a virtual machine and see for yourself.

Now if the reason is that the name is confusing, you have a point.


~BCX~

[kelsey]

I personally don't care either way if Bitcoin Scrypt threads are allowed or not.

BUT

If it is banned for some irrational fear of over writing BitcoinSHA256 wallets, the fear is unfounded and simply not true.

I guess nobody bothered to actually test the theory. All that happens is that if running Bitcoin Scrypt, Bitcoin SHA256 transactions are unconfirmed, when running Bitcoin SHA256 the reverse happens. No coins are lost, everything is reconfirmed when running the desire Bitcoin version.

If you want to try it, setup a virtual machine and see for yourself.

Now if the reason is that the name is confusing, you have a point.


~BCX~

actually I agree with bcx on something, i tested it and also found the fear unfounded.

[BitcoinEXpress]

actually I agree with bcx on something, i tested it and also found the fear unfounded.

Strange things can happen at the one, two point!

Yeah Kelsey us agreeing is definitely weird but I got tired of the repeated lame reasoning behind banning it.

Sounds like someone stated this was possibility and everyone ran with it as fact without any shred of proof or testing. From the moment I first read it, it didn't sound like over writing would be the case at all and calling it malware is absurd.

Like I said before I have no interest in BTC-Scrypt and whole lot of interest in protecting Bitcoin-SHA256.

The 100% absolute legit reason to ban Bitcoin-Scrypt on Bitcointalk is due to the exact same name, symbol, specs and brand confusion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with protecting Bitcoin this way, just be straight up about it.



~BCX~

[BitcoinEXpress]

Now that the official reason of BTC-Scrypt being banned for over writing Bitcoin-SHA256 wallets has been debunked can we at least switch the reason to banning based on similar name and brand confusion?

Bitcoin Scrypt will not over write or destroy any Bitcoin SHA256 wallet even without switching directories. I have tested this on Windows XP, Win 7, Win 8 and Linux.


It would definitely lend a lot more credibility for the latter reasons.

 


~BCX~

[kelsey]

Now that the official reason of BTC-Scrypt being banned for over writing Bitcoin-SHA256 wallets has been debunked can we at least switch the reason to banning based on similar name and brand confusion?

Bitcoin Scrypt will not over write or destroy any Bitcoin SHA256 wallet even without switching directories. I have tested this on Windows XP, Win 7, Win 8 and Linux.


It would definitely lend a lot more credibility for the latter reasons.

 


~BCX~

Think you're forgetting the forum rule; 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

[BitcoinEXpress]

Now that the official reason of BTC-Scrypt being banned for over writing Bitcoin-SHA256 wallets has been debunked can we at least switch the reason to banning based on similar name and brand confusion?

Bitcoin Scrypt will not over write or destroy any Bitcoin SHA256 wallet even without switching directories. I have tested this on Windows XP, Win 7, Win 8 and Linux.


It would definitely lend a lot more credibility for the latter reasons.

 


~BCX~

Think you're forgetting the forum rule; 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

No I didn't forget it, just curious if they would come out an ban it for the proper reason now that overwriting wallets has been debunked.


~BCX~

[SaltySpitoon]

Going off of the original Bitcoin Scrypt thread, when it was first posted on Cryptocointalk, it had this message which I quoted and had in the staff section for people's opinions.


IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.

Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.


It now says,

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing Bitcoin Scrypt will not delete your SHA Bitcoin folder, it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.


So it seems you are right, it will not erase the wallet. I'll open the staff discussion back up and see how people feel. I'm still guessing BTC2 still won't be allowed for the other reasons. Others felt the name was fraudulent etc etc,  however that risk of wallet damage is the main factor that changed our opinions from allowing it with a disclaimer, to banning it all together, so we shall see.
 

[BitcoinEXpress]

I'll open the staff discussion back up and see how people feel. I'm still guessing BTC2 still won't be allowed for the other reasons. Others felt the name was fraudulent etc etc,  however that risk of wallet damage is the main factor that changed our opinions from allowing it with a disclaimer, to banning it all together, so we shall see.
 

My goal is not get BTC2 "unbanned"

I just wanted a legit reason to the basis.


~BCX~

[kelsey]

I myself have no interest in this coin (think I have a grand total of 7 and no desire for more or even to run the client again), and personally I feel btt has full right to ban all alts.

However if you allow alts don't be inconsistant in picking and chosing at a whim. Also seriously I don't think things should be banned purely to protect idiots.

If its for the naming, btc is opensource and p2p, let people use whatever part of it they wish (whether that be code or the name) and let the people/or market decide if its acceptible. If its not acceptible it'll die without btt forums help.

[BitcoinEXpress]

I myself have no interest in this coin (think I have a grand total of 7 and no desire for more or even to run the client again), and personally I feel btt has full right to ban all alts.

However if you allow alts don't be inconsistant in picking and chosing at a whim. Also seriously I don't think things should be banned purely to protect idiots.

If its for the naming, btc is opensource and p2p, let people use whatever part of it they wish (whether that be code or the name) and let the people/or market decide if its acceptible. If its not acceptible it'll die without btt forums help.

True, if the powers that be ban BTC2 based on name, then are they violating the open source concept of Bitcoin?

I'm willing to bet they will ban ALL alt coins here before just banning BTC2 and becoming the very thing this forum and BTC rails against, censorship and central control.


~BCX~

[gmaxwell]

True, if the powers that be ban BTC2 based on name, then are they violating the open source concept of Bitcoin?
I'm willing to bet they will ban ALL alt coins here before just banning BTC2 and becoming the very thing this forum and BTC rails against, censorship and central control.

Yea! If I make a BTC3 that removes all the inflationary limits and transfers everyone's private keys to me and does whatever else I like then this forum has NO RIGHT to prevent me from posting all over it telling people to use it!  DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP.

[SaltySpitoon]

My goal is not get BTC2 "unbanned"

I just wanted a legit reason to the basis.

~BCX~

The legit reasons of the time, were due to the warnings by those initially releasing download links to the coin. As I posted earlier today, the first "official" Scrypt BTC thread had this warning.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.

Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases.  Don't shoot the messenger.



If you check on Page two an excerpt from Fablio's post, as a Scrypt Bitcoin supporter.


2. There is an instruction how to install wallet:
"IMPORTANT NOTE
Installing the wallet:  Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder.  You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client.  BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file."
*************
3. Soon will be renamed version (Bitcoin2) for convenience. Of course you do not lose your coins.




So as I said, the original reason behind the ban was because the evidence was that the coin could damage your SHA BTC Wallet. As it stands, yes it still does, however it doesn't completely overwrite your keys. That was the reason it was banned. Prior to that info, we just had people put disclaimers in their threads.



My post to be discussed by the staff:

Well, the coin's announcement thread on the Alt Coin forum has been changed to,

IMPORTANT NOTE

Installing Bitcoin Scrypt will not delete your SHA Bitcoin folder, it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.

In light of it not actually overwriting SHA Bitcoin wallets, does anyone feel that we should go back to allowing the threads with disclaimers?

A point that gmaxwell brought up which I find particularly relevant,

it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.

Translation: it will shit all over your wallet and probably blow out your blockchain. Your coins keys may not be lost, but there is more to "doesn't break things" than not erasing your keys.

There are still the other issues that I posted originally which was the general consensus that lead us to request that everyone used disclaimers to signify they were talking about Scrypt Bitcoin, however like I said we are discussing everything again. At this point, I would personally return to the disclaimer section, however, its not entirely my call as I don't feel that I should impose my personal judgements on anyone. Thats what leads to unnecessary abuse and overall jerkery. For that reason, I've opened up the discussion with the rest of the staff, and I'm waiting for others feedback. I have my own ideas, but I value the opinions of the rest of the forums staff.

There are a lot of staff and adminstrators that have no other reach into the Alt Coin community, so their opinions are solely based on how great the potential for abuse is and how it will effect the BTCTalk members and their BTC. No one is afraid of Scrypt taking over, or that Scrypt BTC will outcompete SHA BTC or the other odd claims that some people are making. If that was the case, we wouldn't allow any Scrypt Coins, which clearly isn't the case. There are no alterior motives, I've listed all of the factors that lead to the decision, with the commonly held knowledge that Scrypt BTC could damage your SHA BTC keys. Now that that has been more or less proven untrue, discussion is back open.

[BitcoinEXpress]

@SaltySpitoon

For the record I 100% believe you in the original reason for the ban. You went on the most up to date information at the time. Even the coin dev thought so before it was thoroughly researched.

My only reason in debating this was to prevent the circulation of ulterior motive rumors once it was disproved. I also do not think for a second that any Bitcoin Staff fears this catching on in any way and competing with Bitcoin SHA even on a 1/100,000 scale.

Now that all being said, I think "The Ban", subsequent stickied thread and the deleting of all post related to it has done factorial more to keep it alive than anything the coin or the coin dev has done to date.

If I were Staff on this forum, I would go with a disclaimer placed by a mod on every thread Bitcoin Scrypt related and let this thing die like the other 150 scrypt clones launched in the past few months. If you ban it, it will become stronger as it will be the small guy verses the giant and in ways become what Bitcoin SHA256 was created to be in the first place, the stand against central control.


~BCX~


Added later:

Proof that this thread has done more to promote Bitcoin Scrypt than the original [ANN] Thread.

-This thread 4734 views with 120 replies

-Original [ANN] Thread 641 views with 7 replies
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291021.0