delete

[BitcoinEXpress]

delete

[1713585263]

1713585263

[1713585263]

1713585263

[1713585263]

1713585263

[1713585263]

1713585263

[geek-trader]

Given the improvements such as SC in the difficulty re-targeting algo, the encrypted wallet in the client and address checking among others. How will BTC remain relevant when MtGox and TH start exchanging SC to USD?

Serious question and would appreciate serious answers.

What the hell is "SC" ?

[Sukrim]

* Nearly no security from serious chainsplit attacks in SC (yet?) - too low difficulty
* Far too fast block timing - after all you still have to wait ~1 hour to be sure, no matter if it takes 6 10 minute blocks or 60 1 minute blocks, they are equivalent from a security point of view
* Most of the interface stuff can be anyways ported to the bitcoin client too (which also has a great QT interface in the pipeline)
* Fast difficulty re-targeting can cause huge spikes in difficulty and might lead to even more pump 'n' dump (or on-off mining like namecoin)

[jackjack]

Given the improvements such as SC in the difficulty re-targeting algo

Such algo is only needed if the global hashrate changes dramatically
Which will occur if many people leave the Bitcoin network
So if this algo becomes needed, people would be anyway mining another blockchain...
So this is useless

the encrypted wallet in the client

I love when you altchains supporters use that argument
Do you know this feature is copied from Bitcoin client?
Do you know why it isn't in the official client?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Alpha

address checking among others.

Absolutely useless for Bitcoin (if someone really want to know why: because Bitcoin uses Bitcoin addresses........)

How will BTC remain relevant when MtGox and TH start exchanging SC to USD?

You are convinced it will not, so why even asking? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38453.msg492142#msg492142

[wolftaur]

You are convinced it will not, so why even asking? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38453.msg492142#msg492142

Thought I would get some facts and the above answers are pretty solid.  If you will notice I asked this question AFTER I posted the other. I have seen a lot of baseless attacks on other currencies and thought I would try to gather some facts about the issue.

That's why I asked. Too bad you screwed up what started out as an intelligent answer with basic retardation LOL...

BTC is going to remain relevant because it was first. SC has some differences but many similarities, however, a place that accepts Bitcoins doesn't just automatically accept SolidCoins too. Two different block chains entirely.

Even if SolidCoin is ten times better in every measurable sense, if Bitcoin is accepted at ten times as many places, Bitcoin will keep existing.

This is why Discover isn't dead.

[edit] Er, this is why Discover isn't COMPLETELY dead.

[gw4tt]

no store is really going to take SC/IX/I0 at this stage.

Volatility is even higher than bitcoin.

[Sukrim]

* Far too fast block timing - after all you still have to wait ~1 hour to be sure, no matter if it takes 6 10 minute blocks or 60 1 minute blocks, they are equivalent from a security point of view

Not exactly an accurate statement and a common misconception, while you may need some more transactions to be "fool proof" the real key here is with network propogation, and solidcoin does propogate transactions through the network faster than bitcoin, which does help it become more secure essentially giving the potential attacker less time to initiate a double spend that *MAY* be able to overtake the first.

Why would solidcoin block propagate faster if they are built the same as bitcoin blocks? With similar size they will even be a tiny bit slower, as there are more headers per hour... Generating 60 1-minute blocks is still as hard as generating 6 10-minute blocks. To be as secure as 6 Bitcoin confirmations you still need as many confirmations as the *scamcoin generates per hour on average.

With high block frequency you run into more forks, more scalability issues (propagation really is the key here - and already on Bitcoin with just a few thousand nodes it can take a few seconds until a block has propagated) and SC still doesn't solve the issue that transaction relaying is not rewarded/encouraged in any way.

[bansal]

* Far too fast block timing - after all you still have to wait ~1 hour to be sure, no matter if it takes 6 10 minute blocks or 60 1 minute blocks, they are equivalent from a security point of view

Not exactly an accurate statement and a common misconception, while you may need some more transactions to be "fool proof" the real key here is with network propogation, and solidcoin does propogate transactions through the network faster than bitcoin, which does help it become more secure essentially giving the potential attacker less time to initiate a double spend that *MAY* be able to overtake the first.

Why would solidcoin block propagate faster if they are built the same as bitcoin blocks? With similar size they will even be a tiny bit slower, as there are more headers per hour... Generating 60 1-minute blocks is still as hard as generating 6 10-minute blocks. To be as secure as 6 Bitcoin confirmations you still need as many confirmations as the *scamcoin generates per hour on average.

With high block frequency you run into more forks, more scalability issues (propagation really is the key here - and already on Bitcoin with just a few thousand nodes it can take a few seconds until a block has propagated) and SC still doesn't solve the issue that transaction relaying is not rewarded/encouraged in any way.

The amount of time is irrelevant, it is the amount of blocks you know have made it onto the block chain that gives you confidence.  Six confirmations is six confirmations, weather it took an hour or fifteen minutes.  After six confirmations there is very little risk that your transaction is going to end up on an orphan block, and as long as difficulty is in balance you are not going to have blocks solved every few seconds.

[vapourminer]

Even if SolidCoin is ten times better in every measurable sense, if Bitcoin is accepted at ten times as many places, Bitcoin will keep existing.

true, this.

look what happened with betamax vs VHS. basically, betamax was better in every way yet VHS won out

[Pieter Wuille]

The amount of time is irrelevant, it is the amount of blocks you know have made it onto the block chain that gives you confidence.  Six confirmations is six confirmations, weather it took an hour or fifteen minutes.  After six confirmations there is very little risk that your transaction is going to end up on an orphan block, and as long as difficulty is in balance you are not going to have blocks solved every few seconds.

To revert a part of the block chain, you need to do as much work (in terms of hashing power) as was done to create the part of the block chain you're trying to revert. It does not matter whether this corresponds to one or to one million blocks. The frequency of blocks has nothing to do with security - it is only a trade-off between convenience and frequency of stale blocks (caused by network latency).

However, if you do not care about the security the block chain offers you (for example when you trust the sender not to try a double-spending attack), faster blocks are more useful.

[wolftaur]

Even if SolidCoin is ten times better in every measurable sense, if Bitcoin is accepted at ten times as many places, Bitcoin will keep existing.

true, this.

look what happened with betamax vs VHS. basically, betamax was better in every way yet VHS won out

The irony is back then, Sony was against copy protection...

[BitcoinPorn]

Well done SolidCoin advertisement

[jackjack]

ITT: people think mining 6 1-minute blocks in a row is as difficult as mining 6 10-hours blocks in a row

[ArtForz]

ITT: people think mining 6 1-minute blocks in a row is as difficult as mining 6 10-hours blocks in a row

Unless I missed something, then that's correct, but only if you interpret it in a certain way.
With the same relative hashpower vs. the rest of the network, over the same # of blocks, chances of finding X blocks in a row are the same, doesn't matter if avg. time/block is 10 seconds or 10 days.
But... wouldn't a theoretical attacker care more about how much time it takes to get a successful double-spend instead of how many blocks?

[skubeedooo]

Even if SolidCoin is ten times better in every measurable sense, if Bitcoin is accepted at ten times as many places, Bitcoin will keep existing.

true, this.

look what happened with betamax vs VHS. basically, betamax was better in every way yet VHS won out

Presumably you'll have multi-protocol clients developed that can support the various flavours and blockchains that exist.  So in that case a merchant who takes the time to incorporate btc into his site will just incorporate all the different flavours in one go at no extra cost.

IMHO the key is volatility.  Since transaction fees are all negligible and if we assume all the different versions are equally secure, the only thing a merchant would care about is the volatility of the different versions.  You're always going to want the one that is least likely to fluctuate w.r.t your outgoings.  e.g. if you are reselling cars that you bought with USD, you want to receive whatever will fluctuate least against USD.

[ThomasV]

Given the improvements such as SC in the difficulty re-targeting algo, the encrypted wallet in the client and address checking among others. How will BTC remain relevant when MtGox and TH start exchanging SC to USD?

Serious question and would appreciate serious answers.

thank you for this serious question.
did you receive the 25 SC bounty after posting it ?

(see http://solidcoin.info/bounties.php )

[bansal]

ITT: people think mining 6 1-minute blocks in a row is as difficult as mining 6 10-hours blocks in a row

Unless I missed something, then that's correct, but only if you interpret it in a certain way.
With the same relative hashpower vs. the rest of the network, over the same # of blocks, chances of finding X blocks in a row are the same, doesn't matter if avg. time/block is 10 seconds or 10 days.
But... wouldn't a theoretical attacker care more about how much time it takes to get a successful double-spend instead of how many blocks?

Either way you would have to put together 51% of the hashpower of the network to pull it off, I guess longer blocks could make the attack more inconvenient, but they would probably still do it if they had the capability.

Bottom line is this, ten minutes is too long.  If you want to just keep trading these things among yourselves fine, if you want these to actually be widely used in the real world this problem has to be solved.  And no I'm not letting anyone walk off with my stuff with zero confirmations, or even just one confirmation.  And my customer isn't going to sit there for an hour to wait to leave with the stuff he's trying to buy.  Bitcoin with 10 minute confirmations is a niche currency for certain internet transactions, at best.

[barbarousrelic]

Even if SolidCoin is ten times better in every measurable sense, if Bitcoin is accepted at ten times as many places, Bitcoin will keep existing.

true, this.

look what happened with betamax vs VHS. basically, betamax was better in every way yet VHS won out

Not every way, iirc, VHS could record longer on one tape than Betamax, which was a crucial reason that it won.

[barbarousrelic]

We should have an "Obvious attempts at false market rumors" subforum and move these posts there.

[Lupus_Yonderboy]

Perhaps maintaining the codebase on a network that performs $M of transactions per day is too much for a handful of unpaid volunteers? A common mantra around here is that "the market will take care of it." When needs are not being met, then a competitor will eventually emerge that attempts to satisfy those needs. What we should all be afraid of is a large international megacorporation (Google, Amazon, Citi, Apple) deciding they can fill those needs better with teams of highly paid programmers and unlimited funds.

That the world's foremost cryptocurrency cannot reliably encrypt its most important file is just...sad. Also, it seems that a couple months have gone by and *still* nobody has gotten their collective shit together to get defensive trademarks for Bitcoin, despite evidence that lawyers around the world are doing so. The inability of this project to adapt and change will eventually result in Bitcoin 1.0 in becoming a footnote in Wikipedia.