Ruxum SolidCoin Trading....GONE!

[phelix]

[...]
Bitcoin is buggy as hell.
[...]

care to elaborate?

ArtForz: Excellent work. I assume bitcoin does not have this vulnerability?

[1715375532]

1715375532

[1715375532]

1715375532

[1715375532]

1715375532

[1715375532]

1715375532

[1715375532]

1715375532

[1715375532]

1715375532

[ArtForz]

ArtForz: Excellent work. I assume bitcoin does not have this vulnerability?

Well, it does have this vulnerability, but at *way* higher cost.
old SC rules:
Spamming the network with transactions, 0.0005BTC/kB vs. 0.000025SC/kB.
Filling blocks to 250kB, same fees. Beyond 250kB it gets exponentially more expensive for BTC, stays the same for SC.
current SC rules:
0.0025SC/kB.
imo way better, but still a tad low (and legit users are hitting the 4kB tx limit).
also maybe one point to consider, back when BTC was worth about as much as SC is today, the fee was 0.01BTC/kB.

Btw, some nodes crashing was probably due to running out of disk space (as it seems to have mostly affected small VPSes), as somehow 28MB of transactions in blocks produced 5GB of database commit journals. That *is* caused by a bug/lack-of-optimization in bitcoins block processing and the devs have been notified.

Also maybe worth noting: making all nodes forward, process and store those 28MB of transactions cost 0.78SC, even with the fixed rules it's 78SC... that's still only about $6. So better not piss off any bored kids with pocket change until reasonable tx limiting rules are in place.

[memvola]

ArtForz: Excellent work. I assume bitcoin does not have this vulnerability?

Well, it does have this vulnerability, but at *way* higher cost.
old SC rules:
Spamming the network with transactions, 0.0005BTC/kB vs. 0.000025SC/kB.
Filling blocks to 250kB, same fees. Beyond 250kB it gets exponentially more expensive for BTC, stays the same for SC.
current SC rules:
0.0025SC/kB.
imo way better, but still a tad low (and legit users are hitting the 4kB tx limit).
also maybe one point to consider, back when BTC was worth about as much as SC is today, the fee was 0.01BTC/kB.

Btw, some nodes crashing was probably due to running out of disk space (as it seems to have mostly affected small VPSes), as somehow 28MB of transactions in blocks produced 5GB of database commit journals. That *is* caused by a bug/lack-of-optimization in bitcoins block processing and the devs have been notified.

Also maybe worth noting: making all nodes forward, process and store those 28MB of transactions cost 0.78SC, even with the fixed rules it's 78SC... that's still only about $6. So better not piss off any bored kids with pocket change until reasonable tx limiting rules are in place.

Thanks for your investigation and for the explanation.

[sd]

[...]
Bitcoin is buggy as hell.
[...]

care to elaborate?

CoinHunter makes outrageous claims about BitCoin all the time. It's a FUD attack to get more people using SolidCoin, nothing more.

[FlipPro]

I think it's hilarious reading these comments of people talking crap about this "vulnerability" , when the SAME EXACT THING can happen on the Bitcoin network... Only difference is that the Bitcoin network is "to big to fail" and the SC network is just getting started leaving it vulnerable to spam attacks.

[Syke]

I think it's hilarious reading these comments of people talking crap about this "vulnerability" , when the SAME EXACT THING can happen on the Bitcoin network... Only difference is that the Bitcoin network is "to big to fail" and the SC network is just getting started leaving it vulnerable to spam attacks.

When the cost to spam BTC is 2000x as costly as spamming SC, then I'd say that's not "the SAME EXACT THING".

[joulesbeef]

so you decided to expose this vulnerability which effects all chains by taking down the solidcoin network?

That's pretty dickish and probably illegal. Its one thing to prove it exists, it is another to enact on it.

I wonder if anyone has contacted the authorities, at least we have the perp admitting it in the forums.

[ArtForz]

No p2p broadcast network is 100% secure against flooding, it's always a matter of degree.
Doing the EXACT SAME THING (80 400kB transactions) on the bitcoin network would have cost about 80BTC in fees.
80BTC vs. 0.80SC @ 0.01BTC or so, nearly the same thing except for that tiny 4 orders of magnitude difference.

[BitcoinPorn]

The guy did a dick move, but I don't think it is illegal.

[FlipPro]

The guy did a dick move, but I don't think it is illegal.

Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?

[BitcoinPorn]

"investments" ?

What is SolidCoin recognized as?  Is the value of it regulated in any way?

[FlipPro]

"investments" ?

What is SolidCoin recognized as?  Is the value of it regulated in any way?

Is the value of Bitcoin regulated in anyway? The value is given by how much people are willing to pay for it, and thousands of people have put their money in to make a new/tested product and someone is using illegal practices to try to kill it. I'm pretty sure if there was a group of attackers attacking the Bitcoin network, there would be many people up in arms rushing to sue...

EDIT: It's not a smart thing to do, especially when the same exact flaw exists in Bitcoin...

[Syke]

so you decided to expose this vulnerability which effects all chains by taking down the solidcoin network?

That's pretty dickish and probably illegal. Its one thing to prove it exists, it is another to enact on it.

I wonder if anyone has contacted the authorities, at least we have the perp admitting it in the forums.

Oh, you're referring to ArtForz? I thought you were talking about CoinHunter. CoinHunter is the one that actually killed the network by putting out a bad "manditory" update.

[Syke]

Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?

LOL. By that logic everyone who sells their coins and causes the price to drop is doing so illegally.

[FlipPro]

so you decided to expose this vulnerability which effects all chains by taking down the solidcoin network?

That's pretty dickish and probably illegal. Its one thing to prove it exists, it is another to enact on it.

I wonder if anyone has contacted the authorities, at least we have the perp admitting it in the forums.

Oh, you're referring to ArtForz? I thought you were talking about CoinHunter. CoinHunter is the one that actually killed the network by putting out a bad "manditory" update.

The network isn't dead moron.

http://solidcoin.kicks-ass.org/graphs/graphs.html

It's actually MORE than alive and kicking...

And the price has barley moved since this entire "debacle" started. It has been blown way out of proportion by Solidcoin haters who have some sort of personal vendetta against it's supporters and the currency itself.

[FlipPro]

Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?

LOL. By that logic everyone who sells their coins and causes the price to drop is doing so illegally.

There is a big difference between trying to "manipulate" the market by selling your coins, and sending thousands of miniature transactions from a node, simply with the intention to CAUSE HARM to EVERYONE.

[ArtForz]

so you decided to expose this vulnerability which effects all chains by taking down the solidcoin network?

That's pretty dickish and probably illegal. Its one thing to prove it exists, it is another to enact on it.

I wonder if anyone has contacted the authorities, at least we have the perp admitting it in the forums.

1. it's *A*ffects, not *E*ffects, unless it *caused* those chains.

2. No, it doesn't affect all chains, at least not as seriously. As such a large transaction (rightfully) incurs large fees on the any network using bitcoins original fee rules.

3. Nothing got taken down. A few SC nodes apparently crashed because they ran out of disk space due to the database journal growing to a *massive* 6GB. Something in bitcoins block processing seems to produce DB writes scaling O(N**2) with # of tx inputs/outputs. Note that the network was still happily processing transactions and finding blocks the whole time and most users saw nothing except slightly increased CPU and bandwidth use.

4. 80 transactions. Valid according to the network rules. Spread out over 12 hours. Maybe you should report coinhunter for hurting your private investment by first changing bitcoin rules without considering the consequences, then telling people that try to tell him why it's a bad idea to fob off, then "fixing" it by changing the rules half-assedly and potentially breaking every exchange and pool.

edit: Did I mention the "anyone still running 1.02 or earlier now runs the risk of creating transactions that will sit at 0/unconfirmed forever" part? I'm pretty sure someone else didn't when releasing 1.03...

[FlipPro]

Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?

LOL. By that logic everyone who sells their coins and causes the price to drop is doing so illegally.

+1 lol

Smoothie you are like a circus clown. I have no respect for you.

And I care about you having no respect for me because why? LOL

"You can't do that it's illegal to exploit a bug in an open-source piece of software. Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?"

What you gonna do to ArtForz put him in solidcoin prison? BWAHAHAHAHA

LOL

It's a bug in the Bitcoin client that you choose to sweep under the rug.

But it doesn't matter, the spamming stopped with 1.03. We are now moving forward, and anticipating the release of 1.04 which should be out tomorrow. As of right now I advise anyone to take advantage of the ultra low difficulty that just dropped!

http://solidcoin.kicks-ass.org/graphs/graphs.html

[smoothie]

Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?

LOL. By that logic everyone who sells their coins and causes the price to drop is doing so illegally.

+1 lol

Smoothie you are like a circus clown. I have no respect for you.

And I care about you having no respect for me because why? LOL

"You can't do that it's illegal to exploit a bug in an open-source piece of software. Deliberately hurting the private investments of thousands is not illegal?"

What you gonna do to ArtForz put him in solidcoin prison? BWAHAHAHAHA

LOL

It's a bug in the Bitcoin client that you choose to sweep under the rug.

But it doesn't matter, the spamming stopped with 1.03. We are now moving forward, and anticipating the release of 1.04 which should be out tomorrow. As of right now I advise anyone to take advantage of the ultra low difficulty that just dropped!

http://solidcoin.kicks-ass.org/graphs/graphs.html

Should be interesting to see what his fix is to the cap on the size of a transaction and how to deter from spammers.

[ArtForz]

Can't wait to see what dear leader will break this time and how the apologists are going to explain it away again.