Ruxum SolidCoin Trading....GONE!

[smoothie]

Based on this link they make it sound like something is broken in solidcoin which disables them from wanting to use it until further notice.

http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/articles/147455-solidcoin-faq

[ThomasV]

perhaps they realized that the solidcoin propaganda could hurt their image ?
http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php

[smoothie]

perhaps they realized that the solidcoin propaganda could hurt their image ?
http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php

Yeah that article was priceless.

[Oldminer]

Friggen hilarious. Hmm now I wonder where all those BTC are going to go or did they ever make it to RUXUM for solidcoin trading?

Based on this link they make it sound like something is broken in solidcoin which disables them from wanting to use it until further notice.

http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/articles/147455-solidcoin-faq

Wow what a dumbfuck you are. If you bothered to actually read the forums instead of defecating your spam everywhere you might find the reason why they did this...

Hint (for the mentally challenged): the explanation is in the thread above this one  

[smoothie]

Friggen hilarious. Hmm now I wonder where all those BTC are going to go or did they ever make it to RUXUM for solidcoin trading?

Based on this link they make it sound like something is broken in solidcoin which disables them from wanting to use it until further notice.

http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/articles/147455-solidcoin-faq

Wow what a dumbfuck you are. If you bothered to actually read the forums instead of defecating your spam everywhere you might find the reason why they did this...

Hint (for the mentally challenged): the explanation is in the thread above this one 

Yeah I guess my reading their own official FAQ page is not good info right?

Looks like oldminer is so pissed off with me he will defend any *coin that I come against.

[memvola]

If you bothered to actually read the forums instead of defecating your spam everywhere you might find the reason why they did this...

I don't want to get between you two, and I'm not interested in bashing SolidCoin, but CoinHunter's explanation about the vulnerability and then defense of his work is pretty inconvenient; he doesn't justify any of it. If you really want to see what he fixed, you have to go look at the code yourself. He wants to paint it as if he fixed a problem in the Bitcoin code, but in reality the fix involves a workaround of his original "fix". There is nothing wrong with this from a programming standpoint (though I don't agree with hardcoding tx size, since this fixes only one of the flaws of the fixed fee scheme), but accompanying rhetoric is very disappointing. After the FUD article I put a sell order for all my SCs, and after reading CoinHunter's rhetoric about the fix I sold them at the market price.

[CoinHunter]

If you bothered to actually read the forums instead of defecating your spam everywhere you might find the reason why they did this...

I don't want to get between you two, and I'm not interested in bashing SolidCoin, but CoinHunter's explanation about the vulnerability and then defense of his work is pretty inconvenient; he doesn't justify any of it. If you really want to see what he fixed, you have to go look at the code yourself. He wants to paint it as if he fixed a problem in the Bitcoin code, but in reality the fix involves a workaround of his original "fix". There is nothing wrong with this from a programming standpoint (though I don't agree with hardcoding tx size, since this fixes only one of the flaws of the fixed fee scheme), but accompanying rhetoric is very disappointing. After the FUD article I put a sell order for all my SCs, and after reading CoinHunter's rhetoric about the fix I sold them at the market price.

How did I paint it at fixing BTC code in this instance? The problem is caused by my fixed fee code, I admitted this. The solution put in forces people to send transactions of a certain size, if they cannot fit them in that size they need to send multiple of them and pay more fees. The fixes I'm talking about in other posts aren't anything to do with this current issue which I awoke to today, Bitcoin is buggy as hell.

The current SolidCoin network annoyance is merely one hero "Artforz", a member here, trying to disrupt the SolidCoin network. How is a member here committing a DDoS pushed under the rug? Someone willfully damaging a network and that's just fine? If some people here have such warped morals that they think it's fine to do such things well all I can say is hopefully karma works it out.

[ArtForz]

What DDoS? *one* node sending *one* completely valid transaction when its previous transaction got into a block.
I told you about this problem in private and your response was calling me an idiot because it's a total non-issue.
I demonstrated why it's an issue.

[CoinHunter]

What DDoS? *one* node sending *one* completely valid transaction when its previous transaction got into a block.
I told you about this problem in private and your response was calling me an idiot because it's a total non-issue.
I demonstrated why it's an issue.

You took advantage of a flaw in a distributed system and denied service to thousands of people due to it. You did that, and you will pay the consequences for being malicious.

Your paraphrasing of our conversation is also rather bs.

[Chris Acheson]

The fixes I'm talking about in other posts aren't anything to do with this current issue which I awoke to today, Bitcoin is buggy as hell.

Where are those fixes, exactly?  I didn't notice them in your commit history.  Can you point them out?

[EskimoBob]

What DDoS? *one* node sending *one* completely valid transaction when its previous transaction got into a block.
I told you about this problem in private and your response was calling me an idiot because it'n withs a total non-issue.
I demonstrated why it's an issue.

You took advantage of a flaw in a distributed system and denied service to thousands of people due to it. You did that, and you will pay the consequences for being malicious.

Your paraphrasing of our conversation is also rather bs.

RealSolid, stop pissing on people who actually help you. When they all turn around and start piss on you... you figure out the rest.
 
ArtForz finds a flaw and test it out. He actually helps the entire *coin community and dip shit like you just goes apeshitt. It was probably not even your fuck up, but a flaw in btc code to begin with.  Problem is, that your head is so high up in the clouds so only way to get a message across to you, is stick your nose in it. That's exactly what happened.  LOL

I personally have no idea who ArtForz is but one thing I am sure of, he is not a malicious attacker in this particular case..
 
I like SC but with a retarded "lead" like this... pff. For now, I am not going to make any moves to including SC in our services.
Lets hope someone with better manners and clearer head forks this code and build a real solid coin out of it.

[doublec]

Where are those fixes, exactly?  I didn't notice them in your commit history.  Can you point them out?

Just to clarify, that's my commit history, grouping changes from a source code diff of the released zipped source files, since CoinHunter didn't provide a git history himself. I didn't go into detail in the GUI commits to break out individual fixes for example.

[ThomasV]

Lets hope someone with better manners and clearer head forks this code and build a real solid coin out of it.

Ever heard of BitCoin ? it's a new cryptocurrency, see http://bitcoin.org
I don't know if the creator has better manners; he is quite silent actually.

[aq]

Bitcoin: The first five times you think you understand it, you don't.

So someone forked Bitcoin and changed a few lines to call it SolidCoin. As this fees issue reveals, we can now safely estimate that this was a solid way before his fifth time...

[johnj]

http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php

Oh wow.  Just wow.  I've never seen such poorly and hastily thrown together NLP before.  

For 10 BTC I can rewrite it without all the noob errors.

Edit: Your first paragraph leads with the involvement of the FBI with crytocurrencies, but you *never* distance SC from that.  That's a freebie.


This one however made me laugh

[sd]

You took advantage of a flaw in a distributed system and denied service to thousands of people due to it. You did that, and you will pay the consequences for being malicious.

People will do that you know. The code and protocol has to be able to handle it. And no it's not easy, it's really, really hard to protect from everything.

Look at bittorrent. Huge money wants that dead and you can bet that huge money has armies of coders who check the common clients and protocol for exploits. So far the best they have is trivial attacks that only slow torrent networks down a little. BitCoin/SolidCoin/WhateverCoin has to be at least that robust because it's dealing with money, not stolen movies.

You should be working with the BitCoin people to build a better client and/or network, not against them. They are your friends, not your enemies.

[memvola]

How did I paint it at fixing BTC code in this instance? The problem is caused by my fixed fee code, I admitted this. The solution put in forces people to send transactions of a certain size, if they cannot fit them in that size they need to send multiple of them and pay more fees. The fixes I'm talking about in other posts aren't anything to do with this current issue which I awoke to today, Bitcoin is buggy as hell.

As I already posed as a question to you elsewhere, your comments seem to be constructed in a way to steer things in the direction you want without directly saying much. Take this demagogy as an example:

I was aware of the "issue" of the fees allowing someone to create rather large transactions without much penalty, but I wasn't expecting someone to attack it within the current time frame. Poor judgement on my part. But it's fixed now, and handled better than Bitcoin.

"Handled better than Bitcoin" doesn't mean anything technically, does it? And even if it does, where is the justification of such a comment? And one of your users post this as a reply:

Bitcoin is still vulnerable to the same Attack...
Lets see how long it takes until this is fixed in Bitcoin.
If the Developers really care (they dont), this would be fixed in a few Days.

Which is completely false. Isn't it understandable that SolidCoin users are not fully aware of the facts? Among all the forum smog, I see genuine technical questions about SC which are usually left unanswered.

The current SolidCoin network annoyance is merely one hero "Artforz", a member here, trying to disrupt the SolidCoin network. How is a member here committing a DDoS pushed under the rug? Someone willfully damaging a network and that's just fine? If some people here have such warped morals that they think it's fine to do such things well all I can say is hopefully karma works it out.

That is not a DDoS and you know it perfectly well. Why are you going after Artforz?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, but you would probably be aware of these flaws if you had a more open development strategy.

[Bobnova]

It's not a DDoS, just a DoS.  Does that really make it better though?

[johnj]

What DDoS? *one* node sending *one* completely valid transaction when its previous transaction got into a block.
I told you about this problem in private and your response was calling me an idiot because it's a total non-issue.
I demonstrated why it's an issue.

You took advantage of a flaw in a distributed system and denied service to thousands of people due to it. You did that, and you will pay the consequences for being malicious.

Your paraphrasing of our conversation is also rather bs.

Wait, he gave you a heads up before demonstrating a flaw in your system?


You know lots of folks *pay* for services like that?  Why are you so butthurt?

[EskimoBob]

...
You should be working with the BitCoin people to build a better client and/or network, not against them. They are your friends, not your enemies.

+1