[ANNOUNCE] New Solidcoin Client Fully Open-Source!

[jackjack]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin


diff solidcoin1.03 soldcoin1.04:

Code:

$ diff solidcoin-source-103/src soldcoin-source-104/src
Les sous-répertoires solidcoin-source-103/src/cryptopp et soldcoin-source-104/src/cryptopp sont identiques.
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/init.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/init.cpp
323c323
<             HWND hwndPrev = FindWindowA("wxWindowNR", "SolidCoin 1.03");
---
>             HWND hwndPrev = FindWindowA("wxWindowNR", "SoldCoin 1.04");
Les sous-répertoires solidcoin-source-103/src/json et soldcoin-source-104/src/json sont identiques.
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/main.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/main.cpp
424a425
>         {
425a427
>         }
1241,1247d1242
<     // Get prev block index
<     map<uint256, CBlockIndex*>::iterator mi = mapBlockIndex.find(hashPrevBlock);
<     if (mi == mapBlockIndex.end())
<         return error("AcceptBlock() : prev block not found");
<     CBlockIndex* pindexPrev = (*mi).second;
<     int nHeight = pindexPrev->nHeight+1;
< 
1258a1254,1260
>     // Get prev block index
>     map<uint256, CBlockIndex*>::iterator mi = mapBlockIndex.find(hashPrevBlock);
>     if (mi == mapBlockIndex.end())
>         return true;
>     CBlockIndex* pindexPrev = (*mi).second;
>     int nHeight = pindexPrev->nHeight+1;
> 
1296c1298
<         return error("AcceptBlock() : prev block not found");
---
>         return true;
1374,1379c1376,1378
<         mapOrphanBlocks.insert(make_pair(hash, pblock2));
<         mapOrphanBlocksByPrev.insert(make_pair(pblock2->hashPrevBlock, pblock2));
< 
<         // Ask this guy to fill in what we're missing
<         if (pfrom)
<             pfrom->PushGetBlocks(pindexBest, GetOrphanRoot(pblock2));
---
>         /*mapOrphanBlocks.insert(make_pair(hash, pblock2));
>         mapOrphanBlocksByPrev.insert(make_pair(pblock2->hashPrevBlock, pblock2));*/
>         if (pfrom)  pfrom->PushGetBlocks(pindexBest, GetOrphanRoot(pblock2));   // Ask this guy to fill in what we're missing
1382,1385c1381,1383
< 
<     // Store to disk
<     if (!pblock->AcceptBlock())
<         return error("ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED");
---
>      // Store to disk
>      if (!pblock->AcceptBlock())
>          return error("ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED");
2092,2093c2090
<                 // When this block is requested, we'll send an inv that'll make them
<                 // getblocks the next batch of inventory.
---
>                 // When this block is requested, we'll send an inv that'll make them getblocks the next batch of inventory.
2185c2182,2183
<             printf("storing orphan tx %s\n", inv.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
---
>             pfrom->nShitSent++;
>             printf("got sent orphan tx %s from %s\n", inv.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), pfrom->addr.ToString().c_str());
2187a2186,2194
>         else
>         {
>             printf("got sent badtx from %s\n",pfrom->addr.ToString().c_str());
>             pfrom->nBadtxsent+=5;
>         }
>         if(pfrom->nBadtxsent>10)
>         {
>             pfrom->fDisconnect=true;
>         }
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/net.h soldcoin-source-104/src/net.h
519a520
>     int nBadtxsent;
580a582
>         nBadtxsent=0;
Les sous-répertoires solidcoin-source-103/src/test et soldcoin-source-104/src/test sont identiques.
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/uibase.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/uibase.cpp
595c595
< 	m_staticTextMain = new wxStaticText( this, wxID_ANY, _("Copyright (c) 2011 SolidCoin Developers\n\nThis is software based on bitcoin, improving the network performance and security whilst\nalso making connecting to the SolidCoin network easier for businesses and users.\n\nThis product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the \nOpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/) and cryptographic software written by \nEric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com) and UPnP software written by Thomas Bernard."), wxDefaultPosition, wxDefaultSize, 0 );
---
> 	m_staticTextMain = new wxStaticText( this, wxID_ANY, _("Copyright (c) 2011 SoldCoin Developers\n\nThis is software based on bitcoin, trying but failing to improve the network performance and security whilst\nalso making connecting to the SoldCoin network easier for businesses and users.\n\nThis product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the \nOpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/) and cryptographic software written by \nEric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com) and UPnP software written by Thomas Bernard."), wxDefaultPosition, wxDefaultSize, 0 );
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/uibase.h soldcoin-source-104/src/uibase.h
132c132
< 		CMainFrameBase( wxWindow* parent, wxWindowID id = wxID_MAINFRAME, const wxString& title = _("SolidCoin 1.03"), const wxPoint& pos = wxDefaultPosition, const wxSize& size = wxSize( 723,484 ), long style = wxDEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE|wxRESIZE_BORDER|wxTAB_TRAVERSAL );
---
> 		CMainFrameBase( wxWindow* parent, wxWindowID id = wxID_MAINFRAME, const wxString& title = _("SoldCoin 1.04"), const wxPoint& pos = wxDefaultPosition, const wxSize& size = wxSize( 723,484 ), long style = wxDEFAULT_FRAME_STYLE|wxRESIZE_BORDER|wxTAB_TRAVERSAL );
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/ui.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/ui.cpp
2022c2022
<     m_staticTextVersion->SetLabel(strprintf(_("version 1.03"), FormatFullVersion().c_str()));
---
>     m_staticTextVersion->SetLabel(strprintf(_("version 1.04"), FormatFullVersion().c_str()));
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/wallet.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/wallet.cpp
1002,1005d1001
< 
<     unsigned int nTxSize = ::GetSerializeSize(wtxNew, SER_NETWORK);
<     if(nTxSize>MAX_TX_SIZE) return false;   //new size limits on transactions
< 

[1714173046]

1714173046

[1714173046]

1714173046

[1714173046]

1714173046

[1714173046]

1714173046

[1714173046]

1714173046

[Bobnova]

Code:

~/soldcoin/src$ make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/util.o util.cpp
Assembler messages:
Fatal error: can't create ../obj/nogui/util.o: No such file or directory
make: *** [../obj/nogui/util.o] Error 1

[sd]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin
...

I just said in another thread someone should fork the 1.03 version. It looks like you had the same idea.

Nice work. So nice I'm going to send you a 0.50BTC donation which at the current exchange rate should buy you a beverage or two of your choice.

[smoothie]

Can you compile it? For some reason I'm getting same errors as above.

[jackjack]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin
...

I just said in another thread someone should fork the 1.03 version. It looks like you had the same idea.

Nice work. So nice I'm going to send you a 0.50BTC donation which at the current exchange rate should buy you a beverage or two of your choice.

Nope, I read your post where you said that and then downloaded, diff'd, modified, saved and git'd the files in a hurry
But thanks


As for the binaries, I can provide Linux ones soon
Windows binaries will come a bit later

Edit: I didn't modify the makefile so the problem must be in the solidcoin makefile, I'll try to correct that soon

[smoothie]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin
...

I just said in another thread someone should fork the 1.03 version. It looks like you had the same idea.

Nice work. So nice I'm going to send you a 0.50BTC donation which at the current exchange rate should buy you a beverage or two of your choice.

Nope, I read your post where you said that and then downloaded, diff'd, modified, saved and git'd the files in a hurry



As for the binaries, I can provide Linux ones soon
Windows binaries will come a bit later

Edit: I didn't modify the makefile so the problem must be in the solidcoin makefile, I'll try to correct that soon

Well that definitely gives an advantage to linux users. Why don't you just release both at the same time.

[jackjack]

Weird,

Code:

soldcoin-source-104/src$ make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind

fully works here
Investigating...

@smoothie: I don't think it's a problem because right now there's nearly zero difference between solidcoin 1.04 and SLC 1.04
But if it's a problem ok I'll release them at the same time

[Bobnova]

I'd live Linux binaries.
That would make me very happy.

EDIT:
Jackjack, does your system have anything in the obj directory in soldocoin?  I gitted the git and it has no such things.

[smoothie]

Weird,

Code:

soldcoin-source-104/src$ make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind

fully works here

@smoothie: I don't think it's a problem because right now there's nearly zero difference between solidcoin 1.04 and SLC 1.04
But if it's a problem ok I'll release them at the same time

Thanks!

[jackjack]

I'd live Linux binaries.
That would make me very happy.

EDIT:
Jackjack, does your system have anything in the obj directory in soldocoin?  I gitted the git and it has no such things.

I managed to reproduce the problem: I fixed it by creating an empty "obj" directory, then creating empty "nogui", "gui" and "crypto" directories inside it

Please tell me if it works

[Bobnova]

Gets further, craps out at upnp now. 

Code:

make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/util.o util.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/script.o script.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/db.o db.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/net.o net.cpp
net.cpp: In function ‘void ThreadMapPort2(void*)’:
net.cpp:1085:63: error: too few arguments to function ‘UPNPDev* upnpDiscover(int, const char*, const char*, int, int, int*)’
/usr/include/miniupnpc/miniupnpc.h:53:1: note: declared here
net.cpp:1100:72: error: too few arguments to function ‘int UPNP_AddPortMapping(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)’
/usr/include/miniupnpc/upnpcommands.h:117:1: note: declared here
make: *** [../obj/nogui/net.o] Error 1

I'll try reinstalling miniupnp or whatever it is.

[joulesbeef]

soo is this a new chain? or just a new client? will my coins work here?

[jackjack]

Gets further, craps out at upnp now. 

Code:

make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/util.o util.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/script.o script.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/db.o db.cpp
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/net.o net.cpp
net.cpp: In function ‘void ThreadMapPort2(void*)’:
net.cpp:1085:63: error: too few arguments to function ‘UPNPDev* upnpDiscover(int, const char*, const char*, int, int, int*)’
/usr/include/miniupnpc/miniupnpc.h:53:1: note: declared here
net.cpp:1100:72: error: too few arguments to function ‘int UPNP_AddPortMapping(const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*, const char*)’
/usr/include/miniupnpc/upnpcommands.h:117:1: note: declared here
make: *** [../obj/nogui/net.o] Error 1

I'll try reinstalling miniupnp or whatever it is.

Try:

Code:

make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind USE_UPNP=

Also, please note that I edited my previous post: to compile solidcoind, obj/nogui is needed

soo is this a new chain? or just a new client? will my coins work here?

No, yes, yes

[Bobnova]

Added that myself and turned off miniupnp in the makefile, now it compiles!
On run it ran into the .solidcoin from the previous client and borked, deleted that and now it runs, and I assume is downloading about five billion blocks.

[jackjack]

The new version in github now automatically creates the needed directories

[gw4tt]

Not a fork then just a client, title is misleading.

[smoothie]

Not a fork then just a client, title is misleading.

Yeah definitely misleading, why else would I need a recompile of the client unless it was a fork?

[jackjack]

Not a fork then just a client, title is misleading.

Absolutely, thanks for pointing that out

[Bobnova]

Aww, that's less exciting.
Fork it!  Make it Soldcoin just like the github directory

[smoothie]

Aww, that's less exciting.
Fork it!  Make it Soldcoin just like the github directory

+1000 AGREED

[joulesbeef]

and dont call it version 1.04  coinhunter already has a version 1.04 make it 1.04os or something to differentiate

[smoothie]

I'd live Linux binaries.
That would make me very happy.

EDIT:
Jackjack, does your system have anything in the obj directory in soldocoin?  I gitted the git and it has no such things.

I managed to reproduce the problem: I fixed it by creating an empty "obj" directory, then creating empty "nogui", "gui" and "crypto" directories inside it

Please tell me if it works

Yes that is all that is needed tried to tell the "genius programmer" he thinks he is to create those dirs in the tarball to stop all the complaints but as you can see that lead to nowhere... BTW if you want a universal binary for OSX then I can compile you one up since I have everything already set up for doing that including the work around for that in my build script. PM me if interested.

Not a fork then just a client, title is misleading.

Yeah definitely misleading, why else would I need a recompile of the client unless it was a fork?

Well if every wanting to make changes to the source then you need this.

Right, but as JackJack said they clients should be identical.

[TheLaundryMan]

Nice work. Keep it up. Save us who spent our time mining.

Bringing SC back.

[film2240]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

[smoothie]

My vote is we do a fork and start the network over. But that's just me. 

[gw4tt]

Aww, that's less exciting.
Fork it!  Make it Soldcoin just like the github directory

fork it so it's opensource solidcoin vs coinhunter solidcoin, see which one wins.

[jackjack]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

[platorin]

Have you guys got a new client for windows users yet? If yes, where could we download it from?

[smoothie]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Is that the entire goal? To piss him off?

[Bobnova]

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Good enough for me!  Now we just need an exchange...

I'd rather it was a fully fork though, that'd piss him off even more!

[TheLaundryMan]

There is no reason those who have spent their time mining should lose what they have, only to start another fork, so that the first few miners can get rich quick.


Continue the improvements, and keep it fair.

[ohforf]

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Good enough for me!  Now we just need an exchange...

I'd rather it was a fully fork though, that'd piss him off even more!

There are 3 Exchanges that i know of:
https://btc-e.com/
https://solidcoin24.com
https://moonco.in

[smoothie]

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Good enough for me!  Now we just need an exchange...

I'd rather it was a fully fork though, that'd piss him off even more!

I think starting anew gives their solidcoin clique less of an edge in the same market. Plus yes it would piss him off more if we did a restart/fork.

[jackjack]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Is that the entire goal? To piss him off?

For now yes, until there's a real demand for an opensource slc client

[smoothie]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Is that the entire goal? To piss him off?

For now yes, until there's a real demand for an opensource client

Then don't hold back in the pissing him off process and fork the chain entirely.

[Bobnova]

Thing with continueing is that the blockchain (at least with the "official" client) is something over 2.5GB.  Bit much IMO.
Maybe the new client can trim that down, I don't really know how it works to be honest (Hey I should start my own fork!  I know enough right? ).

Plus, if we continue with the solidcoin blockchain we have to keep listening to CoinHunter and his baby lives.

EDIT:
Crap, I agree with Smoothie.  Or he agrees with me.  Either way I didn't expect that to happen!

[smoothie]

Thing with continueing is that the blockchain (at least with the "official" client) is something over 2.5GB.  Bit much IMO.
Maybe the new client can trim that down, I don't really know how it works to be honest (Hey I should start my own fork!  I know enough right? ).

Plus, if we continue with the solidcoin blockchain we have to keep listening to CoinHunter and his baby lives.

EDIT:
Crap, I agree with Smoothie.

Good point. I dont want to have to hear his crying.

[ohforf]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Is that the entire goal? To piss him off?

For now yes, until there's a real demand for an opensource client

Then don't hold back in the pissing him off process and fork the chain entirely.

Why dont you do  it ? No Skills ?

[joulesbeef]

i'd rather it not fork as I have some sc to sell


jackjack might end up saving sc

Thing with continueing is that the blockchain (at least with the "official" client) is something over 2.5GB.

was already fixed. mine dir is 90 megs

[smoothie]

How do I get this client?Does it affect my mining of SC? Would I need to do anything differently to the official 1.04?

Basically, the only difference between solidcoin 1.04 and soldcoin 1.04 is that if you use soldcoin it will REALLY piss off the "dev", so no: same coins, same gui, same network, same everything
Excluding open-source license

Is that the entire goal? To piss him off?

For now yes, until there's a real demand for an opensource client

Then don't hold back in the pissing him off process and fork the chain entirely.

Why dont you do  it ? No Skills ?

Yeah I have no skills. I'm just supporting someone who chooses not to troll the users that are going to use the fork.

[gw4tt]

it probably will fork though. It's not a hard thing to do, if no one else does I could probably do it.

[TheLaundryMan]

Those who spent their time mining, should be allowed to keep their coins.

It's not about pissing off coinhunter or anyone else. It's about keeping the thousands who have spent their electricity and time mining, with their coins.

[smoothie]

it probably will fork though. It's not a hard thing to do, if no one else does I could probably do it.

I suspect the first person to fork it will likely get the most response from the community given what has transpired with solidcoins in the past 48 hours.

Those who spent their time mining, should be allowed to keep their coins.

It's not about pissing off coinhunter or anyone else. It's about keeping the thousands who have spent their electricity and time mining, with their coins.

Tell that to Jackjack and also you can still use your coins on the exchanges that accept them.

[jackjack]

Those who spent their time mining, should be allowed to keep their coins.

It's not about pissing off coinhunter or anyone else. It's about keeping the thousands who have spent their electricity and time mining, with their coins.

What are you talking about? I only forked the client, the network is exactly the same

[TheLaundryMan]

Those who spent their time mining, should be allowed to keep their coins.

It's not about pissing off coinhunter or anyone else. It's about keeping the thousands who have spent their electricity and time mining, with their coins.

What are you talking about? I only forked the client, the network is exactly the same

I'm disagreeing with smoothie not you. I praise keeping the chain. My apologies for not using the quote option.

[EskimoBob]

Please remove or fix  /doc/readme.txt

[jackjack]

Please remove or fix  /doc/readme.txt

Thanks, fix'd

[film2240]

Those who spent their time mining, should be allowed to keep their coins.

It's not about pissing off coinhunter or anyone else. It's about keeping the thousands who have spent their electricity and time mining, with their coins.

yeah,I share that sentiment.I mined a fair number of coins in less than a week and I don't want my coins to disappear.I don't care what some whining,idiot developer thinks is good for the rest of us,if he screws us around,we'll just create a fork of his works and see how he likes it then.I want to start asap for mining the SC fork so I can profit like I did the 1st time.

What is the new fork called? And where can I mine it?(which pools?)

Thanks

[Oldminer]

Smoothie, you said you made your 205 btc investing at the start, but in reality you sold much too early and made a large mistake. Your merely trying to find another chain so you can get rich quick. Eat a bag of dicks. 

+1

 

[Bobnova]

Those people who mined SC and held them were betting, and they bet wrong.
I'm one of 'em, sucks, but you have to be very naive indeed to believe that you're guaranteed a fantastic return for mining WhateverCoins.

SC folded, it may or may not have been predictable.  If you sold and got out in time, good job guessing right.
If you held and are now looking at a pile of nearly worthless coins, you fucked up.

Nobody but CoinHunter has any moral obligation to keep SC floating.  If someone chooses to do so then they're being very nice and you should thank them, but nobody has the right to demand SC be worked on by people other than coinhunter.

[Lumpy]

The drama with CoinHunter has been going on for days and meanwhile the value of SC has been dropping. Even if SC 'appeared' to be 1.42x (or whatever) more profitable than Bitcoin, it was very risky to throw one's stakes in there. I feel sorry for those who have lost due to CH's foolishness, but it's not as if one couldn't see this coming.

[julz]

Rename the whole shebazzle SaladCoin in honour of the tosser who started solidcoin.

It will be interesting to see if the implementations get into a protocol fight.  
With bitcoin there will presumably be a common set of unit tests for implementers to work against.

With SaladCoin - just throw your code onto the same chopping block and try to keep your fingers clear of the other chefs knives.. don't worry if you're tossing a Waldorf and the other guy's cutting a Caesar - it's all just solid salad in the end!

[The Electric Monk]

I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that.

[sd]

I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that.

Agreed. Keep the SolidCoin client open source so the network still runs. Replace the closed source ( or whatever ) clients with open source versions.

If anyone wants to use SolidCoin they can and the coinhunter loonypath no longer controls anything.

[gw4tt]

I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that. 

It's good for miners to have choices in what coin they mine.

[The Electric Monk]

I don't think another fork is going to help things, plus you'll cause more problems for miners than anyone else if you do that. 

It's good for miners to have choices in what coin they mine.

If you start another blockchain that's an open source version of Solidcoin, you'll essentially replace Solidcoin leaving the same number of options.

[The Electric Monk]

In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.

[gw4tt]

In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.

I haven't mined bitcoin since IXCoin came out. I mined around 20k of those. Mined I0 when it came out (still mining it right now as it's the most profitable). Mined SC as well. But I sell all mined coins same day usually.

[Lumpy]

In the end, a new chain will mess people over who mined and invested, keeping an open source version doesn't.  By messing over people who've mined and invested you are strengthening the arguement that cryptocurrencies are a scam, and that's not good for anyone.  If you want a new chain to mine, IX, IO and SC are all still fairly new.

IMO it's irrelevant. Anyone could start a SolidCoin/Bitcoin fork at any point. Why would it make a difference if someone started a SolidCoin fork ("SoldCoin") now versus some other random fork? Supposedly there's something coming up Sep. 7th, and those who want to mine new forks will do so regardless of what happens here.

[jackjack]

For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god

[SolidCoin]

Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

[wolftaur]

Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

Only CoinHunter dislikes open source. The rest of us here like it just fine.

Why, are you him?

[SolidCoin]

Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

Only CoinHunter dislikes open source. The rest of us here like it just fine.

Why, are you him?

No. I merely want to point out that if the majority use this client it doesnt matter what I or CH thinks if you have the support of more than 51% of the miners.

Ideally you should make another chain instead of trying to fork this one.

Its purely democracy.

[SolidCoin]

For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god

Thanks for providing an alternative. Although its more than about a license imo.

[wolftaur]

For the record, I'd like to state that I don't support solidcoin...
I just hate when a sucker wants to play god

Thanks for providing an alternative. Although its more than about a license imo.

Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.

[johnj]

Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.

That's quite the colorful expression!

/dodge

[wolftaur]

Yeah, competence comes into play too. As does having a face on the project that we don't want to throw water balloons filled with paint at.

That's quite the colorful expression!

/dodge

It was nicer than saying H₂SO₄.

[Artamir]

are the linux binaries up already ?



Tried to compile by myself (have not done that ever yet) but it produces a failure.
I'm guessing it's cause some parts needed are missing on my computer.
Checked for this 'miniupnp' mentioned somewhere above, but could not find it on my system. Later found out it seems that debian hasn't included it in the 'stable' version. Guessing thats the problem why i can't compile myself? At least not do the 'make -f .....' part. Actually no clue what else to do after that then - sorry, totaly new to this and never got to the point: 'searching for a howto compile yourself for newbs' - and then read it.


Wonder if i still could use the 1.02 client to send transactions or if it will screw something up.

[EskimoBob]

If I understand it correctly and please correct me if I am wrong, this is NOT a new blockchain but a real open source (under MIT licence) version off RealSolid's solidcoin client.
As you know, RealSolid added a really stupid home made "licence" to his version and pissed of most of the solidcoin supporters and the major exchange. Thank you RealSolid for trying to convert all the mined  solidcoins to asspennies. "Good" job, boy!
 
We have a new Open source client, please use it!

[wolftaur]

are the linux binaries up already ?



Tried to compile by myself (have not done that ever yet) but it produces a failure.
I'm guessing it's cause some parts needed are missing on my computer.
Checked for this 'miniupnp' mentioned somewhere above, but could not find it on my system. Later found out it seems that debian hasn't included it in the 'stable' version. Guessing thats the problem why i can't compile myself? At least not do the 'make -f .....' part. Actually no clue what else to do after that then - sorry, totaly new to this and never got to the point: 'searching for a howto compile yourself for newbs' - and then read it.


Wonder if i still could use the 1.02 client to send transactions or if it will screw something up.

Check the build-unix.txt file in the docs folder. For the specific problem you are having:

Requires miniupnpc for UPnP port mapping.  It can be downloaded from
http://miniupnp.tuxfamily.org/files/.  UPnP support is compiled in and
turned off by default.  Set USE_UPNP to a different value to control this:
USE_UPNP=   no UPnP support, miniupnp not required;
USE_UPNP=0  (the default) UPnP support turned off by default at runtime;
USE_UPNP=1  UPnP support turned on by default at runtime.

So basically, you want:
USE_UPNP= make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoin

You'll also want to make sure you've installed build-essential, libgtk2.0-dev, libssl-dev -- they actually list the apt-get commands you'll want to run in the build-unix.txt file I mentioned.

[wolftaur]

USE_UPNP= make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoin

Just to clarify: That is USE_UPNP= and then a space. You are specifically setting a temporary shell variable 'USE_UPNP' to blank, then running the make command with that setting. Realized right after I posted that that you might try to correct the "typo" if you're not actually used to building software and have never seen shell variables used to control a build script before.

[Artamir]

thanks for your help wolftaur

By looking into the make-unix.txt and comparing it with the installed .deb packages i knoticed i had missing a lot of packages.

It now starts compiling - i think thats what it does,
but i still get some errors.

most of them according to

../obj/nogui/net.o net.cpp

like: net.cpp:1115: error: 'freeUPNPDevlist' had was not declared in this scope

[jackjack]

thanks for your help wolftaur

By looking into the make-unix.txt and comparing it with the installed .deb packages i knoticed i had missing a lot of packages.

It now starts compiling - i think thats what it does,
but i still get some errors.

most of them according to

../obj/nogui/net.o net.cpp

like: net.cpp:1115: error: 'freeUPNPDevlist' had was not declared in this scope

Are you sure you use "USE_UPNP= "?

Making a new fork would just make people dislike open source.

It will fork anyway if the majority choose to use this client . Just like democracy you dont get a say if 51% imposes their will.

Only CoinHunter dislikes open source. The rest of us here like it just fine.

Why, are you him?

No. I merely want to point out that if the majority use this client it doesnt matter what I or CH thinks if you have the support of more than 51% of the miners.

Ideally you should make another chain instead of trying to fork this one.

Its purely democracy.

I don't fork the chain, please stop spreading FUD

If I understand it correctly and please correct me if I am wrong, this is NOT a new blockchain but a real open source (under MIT licence) version off RealSolid's solidcoin client.

You understood correctly

[dishwara]

When will windows compiled binary client will be released?

[jackjack]

I'll try it in a few hours
I never compiled anything on windows though so don't wait for it too hardly


Also if anyone wants to contribute just send me pull requests on github

[flower1024]

hi jackjack

i like your fork very much - and i think its a good thing that you did not fork the blockchain.

BUT: CoinHunter,RealSolid and OldMiner are really bad for bitcoin (and for solidcoin in the longterm); as they are continuing to tell anybody how bad bitcoin is (they just dont realize that people will start thinking ALL cryptocurrencies are bad).

so my idea: is it feasable to fork the blockchain in a future block?

i am pretty sure most people will use your fork.
if you dont have the ressources to manage this fork properly i am sure you'll find many people in this forum (including me) which would like to assist you.

[jackjack]

That's doable but I want to be sure there's a majority of people wanting this change
So in a week I can post a poll and see the results

[jackjack]

This thread is about the only open-source solidcoin client
Please complain else where

[flower1024]

Now let's put blame where blame is due, when solidcoin was started Coinhunter/RealSolid issued a much more "agreeable" rhetoric where both coins could coexist side by side, he did mention there were problems that needed fixed so he took it upon himself to move in the right direction and start making those fixes.

ok, but the start time has finished and now we have a different situation

From Day 1 he got trolled viciously on a daily basis by various members around here, well it's probably not the best reaction but it sours one's mood I would imagine, so unfortunately Coinhunter/RealSolid tried to educate the tard muffins and they didn't like it and the trolling got stronger until another representative of the Bitcoin crew decided to undertake a Malicious attack on the solidcoin network.

thats just no (completly) true.

yes he got trolled by ArtForz (and i think this was a very stupid thing) but why do you think ArtForz is a representative of bitcoin?
gavin stated clearly that he things this guy is smart; NOTHING more. i do consider most hackers/crackers as smart - and i would take advice from them - that does not mean they are representing me in any way!

So in conjunction in reprimanding Coinhunters behavior here why don't you get realistic and reprimand the rest of the asshats around here that sit around their parents basements with their thumbs up their asses conceiving of new ways to treat people like shit while watching gay porn clips on the internet?

i think coinhunter (and his others names) should just stop to care.
its their job (btw it WAS their job) to make a currency.

a currency is build on trust.

i dont trust anybody who just sits their and cries "whooo you are so bad; you attacked my coins whaa".
come on....just take it as a man and concentrate on make your coins better. but dont forget who made it possible for solidcoin to start.

[flower1024]

This thread is about the only open-source solidcoin client
Please complain else where

you are right. apologize.

what do you think about a blockchain fork in a future block?

[EskimoBob]

hi jackjack

i like your fork very much - and i think its a good thing that you did not fork the blockchain.

BUT: CoinHunter,RealSolid and OldMiner are really bad for bitcoin (and for solidcoin in the longterm); as they are continuing to tell anybody how bad bitcoin is (they just dont realize that people will start thinking ALL cryptocurrencies are bad).

so my idea: is it feasable to fork the blockchain in a future block?

i am pretty sure most people will use your fork.
if you dont have the ressources to manage this fork properly i am sure you'll find many people in this forum (including me) which would like to assist you.

Lets vote!

[jackjack]

I answered that just before his post, you didn't see it or it doesn't answer your question?

That's doable but I want to be sure there's a majority of people wanting this change
So in a week I can post a poll and see the results

[Moray]

Looking forward to it.   

[thirdlight]

No need to vote, no need to fork.

jackjack has helpfully provided an open source version of a closed source client. Thankyou.

If jackjack wants to make an alternative blockchain, he is welcome to do so. I'm sure he would do it well & I'd be interested to see it.

jackjack has expressed no desire to do this, and certainly no desire to try to resurrect SolidCoin.

Can we just thank him for his client & let him go back to all the useful things he already does ?

If someone really wants to fork SolidCoin, that is their choice.

[BitcoinPorn]

jackjack has expressed no desire to do this,

Or ignore the part where he said he would assist and it be put to a vote.

Thanks jackjack btw.

[flower1024]

I answered that just before his post, you didn't see it or it doesn't answer your question?

That's doable but I want to be sure there's a majority of people wanting this change
So in a week I can post a poll and see the results

ok, i missed that.

thank you very much for your work!
looking forward to see

(btw. the phrase "That's doable but I want to be sure there's a majority of people wanting this change" just gave me the feeling you are the right person for this job!)

[ArtForz]

I'd re-enable handling orphan blocks (add a size limit on the orphan blocks list if you are afraid of orphan floods), or the SC network will soon be quite dead (it's already starting to fork ...).

[wallet.dat]

Are there any binaries yet?

[sd]

I'd re-enable handling orphan blocks (add a size limit on the orphan blocks list if you are afraid of orphan floods), or the SC network will soon be quite dead (it's already starting to fork ...).

Anyone want to offer a bounty to fix this?

If we actually fix things in the open source client we might end up with something better than coinhunters broken BitCoin.


I'd offer a bounty myself but I sent my last .50BTC to the spaghetti monster guy when he created the open source fork.

[Gavin Andresen]

Y'all probably want this:
  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491

However, I don't think you can fix all the problems that a fixed transaction fee cause; the real problem is that basic economics says that you need to let the price of a scare resource change, ideally in a market, to match the underlying real costs.

(bitcoin's fee structure isn't right either, and fixing it to create a market between miners and clients is high on the TODO list)

[Artamir]

Actually his basic idea of doing a fix fee, and making it that 'high' was to get higher income to miners.

As the whole basic plan was:

- Shorter time for blocks
- lower increase in difficulty
- way higher difficulty drop than raise
- additional higher income through the fees (which bring way more once there are enough transactions)

This all was about being able to mine faster, get the coins faster and reach the coin max faster - which btw was lower so each mined coin would in the end be more worth.

What he then later realised that just by mining you don't make money, you NEED someone who is willing to buy them, cause either speculation or being able to use them for someting.
This was when he - at least he said he did - contacted ruxum and mtgox. Cause just by producing something you don't make money. And i realy hoped - after he realized that - that this will become some project with possibly perspectives for the future.

But in the end everyone should realize that all this was born out of the wish to maximize potential income through mining. All this "improvements" where miner focused!

[dserrano5]

Code:

~/soldcoin/src$ make -f ../build/makefile.unix solidcoind
g++ -c -O2 -Wno-invalid-offsetof -Wformat -g -D__WXDEBUG__ -DNOPCH -DUSE_SSL -DUSE_UPNP=0 -o ../obj/nogui/util.o util.cpp
Assembler messages:
Fatal error: can't create ../obj/nogui/util.o: No such file or directory
make: *** [../obj/nogui/util.o] Error 1

I'm probably late to this but I fixed and published this problem. Look into my last posts, it should appear within the last week or so.

[CoinHunter]

I'd re-enable handling orphan blocks (add a size limit on the orphan blocks list if you are afraid of orphan floods), or the SC network will soon be quite dead (it's already starting to fork ...).

"It's already starting to fork"  . Haha, what a laugh. I was wondering why you had never really helped out the Bitcoin project but it's becoming obvious. You don't know C++ well.

To the OP it is fine if you want to develop a "open source" alternative to my "open source" program. Good luck with outpacing my development though. Just wondering when you are going to add more vuln. fixes, network improvements and multiwallet support like that which is due out in SolidCoin in a few days? Thanks for the support of SolidCoin, and good luck with your project.

[smoothie]

I'd re-enable handling orphan blocks (add a size limit on the orphan blocks list if you are afraid of orphan floods), or the SC network will soon be quite dead (it's already starting to fork ...).

"It's already starting to fork"  . Haha, what a laugh. I was wondering why you had never really helped out the Bitcoin project but it's becoming obvious. You don't know C++ well.

To the OP it is fine if you want to develop a "open source" alternative to my "open source" program. Good luck with outpacing my development though. Just wondering when you are going to add more vuln. fixes, network improvements and multiwallet support like that which is due out in SolidCoin in a few days? Thanks for the support of SolidCoin, and good luck with your project.

I think this is funny because now Coinhunter is thanking Artforz for his support of solidcoin.

[CoinHunter]

I also forgot to add, make sure your new client is compatible with the API changes that exchanges and businesses will be using soon. I'm not sure how you can get those specs until I've released them, but nevertheless you can probably try!

[wolftaur]

I also forgot to add, make sure your new client is compatible with the API changes that exchanges and businesses will be using soon. I'm not sure how you can get those specs until I've released them, but nevertheless you can probably try!

Have fun getting those to become relevant if the open-source client has more than 51% of the mining user base. Which is likely since pools often apply patches that didn't come from you.

[CoinHunter]

I also forgot to add, make sure your new client is compatible with the API changes that exchanges and businesses will be using soon. I'm not sure how you can get those specs until I've released them, but nevertheless you can probably try!

Have fun getting those to become relevant if the open-source client has more than 51% of the mining user base. Which is likely since pools often apply patches that didn't come from you.

Yeah the only problem with that is I have solved the 51% problem and that is also coming out very soon. Oops, did SolidCoin just protect itself a lot better than Bitcoin?

Furthermore when anyone new to SolidCoin google searches for it, guess which site they'll be getting? So yes please go convince the mining pools to abandon the official version in favour of some featureless fork of SolidCoin from an earlier version because they'll be removed off the site, no longer get new visitors and earn the distrust of the whole SC community. ie They'll die like SCGuild and Bitparking.

[smoothie]

I also forgot to add, make sure your new client is compatible with the API changes that exchanges and businesses will be using soon. I'm not sure how you can get those specs until I've released them, but nevertheless you can probably try!

Have fun getting those to become relevant if the open-source client has more than 51% of the mining user base. Which is likely since pools often apply patches that didn't come from you.

Yeah the only problem with that is I have solved the 51% problem and that is also coming out very soon. Oops, did SolidCoin just protect itself a lot better than Bitcoin?

Furthermore when anyone new to SolidCoin google searches for it, guess which site they'll be getting? So yes please go convince the mining pools to abandon the official version in favour of some featureless fork of SolidCoin from an earlier version because they'll be removed off the site, no longer get new visitors and earn the distrust of the whole SC community. ie They'll die like SCGuild and Bitparking.

Yeah bitparking is dying with its 3 other exchanges and three other pools. So is btcguild with their giant bitcoin mining pool. They are definitely dying.

[the joint]

CoinHunter, you really need to drop that aura of arrogance.

If you've done any reflection in the past several days I think you might realize it's a good idea.

[wolftaur]

CoinHunter, you really need to drop that aura of arrogance.

If you've done any reflection in the past several days I think you might realize it's a good idea.

I think the only 'reflection' he's been doing is watching himself masturbate in the mirror to stroke his ego at the same time he's stroking his tiny cock.

[aq]

To the OP it is fine if you want to develop a "open source" alternative to my "open source" program. Good luck with outpacing my development though. Just wondering when you are going to add more vuln. fixes, network improvements and multiwallet support like that which is due out in SolidCoin in a few days? Thanks for the support of SolidCoin, and good luck with your project.

Wow! I think this is the first time he writes about himself in singular!

[wolftaur]

To the OP it is fine if you want to develop a "open source" alternative to my "open source" program. Good luck with outpacing my development though. Just wondering when you are going to add more vuln. fixes, network improvements and multiwallet support like that which is due out in SolidCoin in a few days? Thanks for the support of SolidCoin, and good luck with your project.

Wow! I think this is the first time he writes about himself in singular!

Maybe he's started taking his Haldol again. We can only hope that means he'll be less of a self-deluded moron as time passes.

[ArtForz]

Oh, and if you think the orphan block handling "improvements" (aka completely disabling it) in 1.031 doesn't hurt anything (well, other than nodes not catching up to the current block under certain circumstances)...
grep your debug.log for "getblocks".
Notice some nodes appear to be sending a GetBlocks for *every single block they get* while downloading the chain?
Notice the block #s are nowhere near the "bad evil hacker" blocks?
You got 3 guesses which versions are exhibiting that broken behaviour.

[johnj]

Oh, and if you think the orphan block handling "improvements" (aka completely disabling it) in 1.031 doesn't hurt anything (well, other than nodes not catching up to the current block under certain circumstances)...
grep your debug.log for "getblocks".
Notice some nodes appear to be sending a GetBlocks for *every single block they get* while downloading the chain?
Notice the block #s are nowhere near the "bad evil hacker" blocks?
You got 3 guesses which versions are exhibiting that broken behaviour.

Can anyone explain what that means?

[doublec]

Can anyone explain what that means?

It means some of the changes that CoinHunter/RealSolid's made in the commits below  are buggy:

https://github.com/doublec/solidcoin/commit/dd35c2a8876e7a5b2dee602911a0f4d3e9ef5323
https://github.com/doublec/solidcoin/commit/1f61387e8291d1c054c45d1b1517a3385cc1f45a

[johnj]

Can anyone explain what that means?

It means some of the changes that CoinHunter/RealSolid's made in the commits below  are buggy:

https://github.com/doublec/solidcoin/commit/dd35c2a8876e7a5b2dee602911a0f4d3e9ef5323
https://github.com/doublec/solidcoin/commit/1f61387e8291d1c054c45d1b1517a3385cc1f45a

Ahh yeah I gathered that, I just have no idea how to read or follow code. Why is it a bad thing if nodes do that GetBlock thing while downloading the chain?

[greyhawk]

I also forgot to add, make sure your new client is compatible with the API changes that exchanges and businesses will be using soon. I'm not sure how you can get those specs until I've released them, but nevertheless you can probably try!

Have fun getting those to become relevant if the open-source client has more than 51% of the mining user base. Which is likely since pools often apply patches that didn't come from you.

Yeah the only problem with that is I have solved the 51% problem and that is also coming out very soon. Oops, did SolidCoin just protect itself a lot better than Bitcoin?

Furthermore when anyone new to SolidCoin google searches for it, guess which site they'll be getting? So yes please go convince the mining pools to abandon the official version in favour of some featureless fork of SolidCoin from an earlier version because they'll be removed off the site, no longer get new visitors and earn the distrust of the whole SC community. ie They'll die like SCGuild and Bitparking.

I think we need some new termonology to classify posts like this. Something like: "doing a Bruce Wagner".

[wolftaur]

Can anyone explain what that means?

Because of network latency, two miners may publish a block roughly simultaneously and both blocks will be distributed through the network before they collide. Any given miner must pick one of the two blocks. The longest chain, in terms of proof-of-work performed, will always win. Ties are broken by whichever block a given node has seen first when mining.

If you have two competing blocks at the same count and one miner publishes a block after, it will lengthen only one of the two chains because it must pick one of the two blocks as its antecedent. Once this has propagated through the network, the preceding block that "lost" is an orphan.

Because of network latency, especially at 3 minutes per block, you can't prevent orphans from happening. Orphans are expected, and handled correctly -- by all Bitcoin and friends clients except CoinHunter's newest versions.

The reason why there is a 120 block confirmation on mined coins is because the generated coins in any orphan are invalid, and the client provides a lengthy wait to make sure that if there are two competing chains that forked several blocks in the past (due to, say, a broken network connection between two parts of the globe) they can be merged before the coins are spent. This is why sometimes a pool's solved block may suddenly show up as invalid 3 hours later -- it just took that long for it to lose.

CoinHunter broke the handling of orphan blocks. As a result you aren't just downloading a block chain, you're basically getting a block tree, and that's not how the system is meant to work...

[johnj]

Can anyone explain what that means?

Because of network latency, two miners may publish a block roughly simultaneously and both blocks will be distributed through the network before they collide. Any given miner must pick one of the two blocks. The longest chain, in terms of proof-of-work performed, will always win. Ties are broken by whichever block a given node has seen first when mining.

If you have two competing blocks at the same count and one miner publishes a block after, it will lengthen only one of the two chains because it must pick one of the two blocks as its antecedent. Once this has propagated through the network, the preceding block that "lost" is an orphan.

Because of network latency, especially at 3 minutes per block, you can't prevent orphans from happening. Orphans are expected, and handled correctly -- by all Bitcoin and friends clients except CoinHunter's newest versions.

The reason why there is a 120 block confirmation on mined coins is because the generated coins in any orphan are invalid, and the client provides a lengthy wait to make sure that if there are two competing chains that forked several blocks in the past (due to, say, a broken network connection between two parts of the globe) they can be merged before the coins are spent. This is why sometimes a pool's solved block may suddenly show up as invalid 3 hours later -- it just took that long for it to lose.

CoinHunter broke the handling of orphan blocks. As a result you aren't just downloading a block chain, you're basically getting a block tree, and that's not how the system is meant to work...

Ahh gotcha.  I had read as much on how bitcoin handles orphans, just didn't know that CH broke it.

Offtopic:  Just saw RS boot doublec from #solidcoin for talking about this.  What a trip.

[greyhawk]

Offtopic:  Just saw RS boot doublec from #solidcoin for talking about this.  What a trip.

What? How retarded can one person possibly be? 

[wolftaur]

Offtopic:  Just saw RS boot doublec from #solidcoin for talking about this.  What a trip.

What? How retarded can one person possibly be? 

Believe it or not, much, much, much worse than this. I'd hold up the owner of the company I worked for in 2007/2008 as an example but I'd be listing the stupids for the next three months even as fast as I type.

[sd]

Yeah the only problem with that is I have solved the 51% problem and that is also coming out very soon. Oops, did SolidCoin just protect itself a lot better than Bitcoin?

Furthermore when anyone new to SolidCoin google searches for it, guess which site they'll be getting? So yes please go convince the mining pools to abandon the official version in favour of some featureless fork of SolidCoin from an earlier version because they'll be removed off the site, no longer get new visitors and earn the distrust of the whole SC community. ie They'll die like SCGuild and Bitparking.

We are the SolidCoin community and we no longer trust your so called 'official' version due to the bugs you keep introducing, your unacceptable license change, and your erratic, insulting manner.

You think you can make changes to keep things incompatible with open source? You will exhaust yourself trying, fail, and still end up with an implementation that no-one is going to use. Everyone will forget you even exist when the next IOCoin comes out.

[wolftaur]

We are the SolidCoin community and we no longer trust your so called 'official' version due to the bugs you keep introducing, your unacceptable license change, and your erratic, insulting manner.

You think you can make changes to keep things incompatible with open source? You will exhaust yourself trying, fail, and still end up with an implementation that no-one is going to use. Everyone will forget you even exist when the next IOCoin comes out.

If he tries, do the usual 'net response.

Treat his censorship as damage and route around it.

Specifically, modify the client to reject his closed-source software's blocks. He wants incompatibility, let him have it. Odds are the closed-source block chain will be the one to die.

In the name of all that is sane, don't ever let CoinHunter have commit access to the git repository of the fork...

[smoothie]

We are the SolidCoin community and we no longer trust your so called 'official' version due to the bugs you keep introducing, your unacceptable license change, and your erratic, insulting manner.

You think you can make changes to keep things incompatible with open source? You will exhaust yourself trying, fail, and still end up with an implementation that no-one is going to use. Everyone will forget you even exist when the next IOCoin comes out.

If he tries, do the usual 'net response.

Treat his censorship as damage and route around it.

Specifically, modify the client to reject his closed-source software's blocks. He wants incompatibility, let him have it. Odds are the closed-source block chain will be the one to die.

In the name of all that is sane, don't ever let CoinHunter have commit access to the git repository of the fork...

Should be interesting for those who choose not to update to his new release that adds 1000 blocks to the chain. I'm not updating.

[julz]

We are the SolidCoin community and we no longer trust your so called 'official' version due to the bugs you keep introducing, your unacceptable license change, and your erratic, insulting manner.

You think you can make changes to keep things incompatible with open source? You will exhaust yourself trying, fail, and still end up with an implementation that no-one is going to use. Everyone will forget you even exist when the next IOCoin comes out.

If he tries, do the usual 'net response.

Treat his censorship as damage and route around it.

Specifically, modify the client to reject his closed-source software's blocks. He wants incompatibility, let him have it. Odds are the closed-source block chain will be the one to die.

In the name of all that is sane, don't ever let CoinHunter have commit access to the git repository of the fork...

Should be interesting for those who choose not to update to his new release that adds 1000 blocks to the chain. I'm not updating.

Even though that's just a joke - he attempts to wield so much control over the direction of the thing, that the chain is untrustworthy simply because he *could* do this if people actually used his system.

[BitcoinPorn]

I can put 60 GH/s on creating a new fork.

I am going to personally attempt to just let you guys play without judgement.  I can see that nearly all hate toward SolidCoin advancement is almost desired, it is hard to see things otherwise.   This is not saying that it will fail, in fact, going through some of your guys' tests may make it the strongest coin ever.  Doubt it, but I am not fully convinced SC is such the failure people make it out to be.

[wolftaur]

I am going to personally attempt to just let you guys play without judgement.  I can see that nearly all hate toward SolidCoin advancement is almost desired, it is hard to see things otherwise.   This is not saying that it will fail, in fact, going through some of your guys' tests may make it the strongest coin ever.  Doubt it, but I am not fully convinced SC is such the failure people make it out to be.

Because a still-open copy is being worked on, I didn't liquidate my SC. Having a non-closed client gives the currency some chance of succeeding despite the problems its original creator brought to the table. I won't take much of a loss if it crashes to zero, either.

[wallet.dat]

Thanks jackjack for your efforts.  Hopefully it's enough to get SC back on track since I really like some of the concepts and features behind it.

[smoothie]

I can put 60 GH/s on creating a new fork.

I am going to personally attempt to just let you guys play without judgement.  I can see that nearly all hate toward SolidCoin advancement is almost desired, it is hard to see things otherwise.   This is not saying that it will fail, in fact, going through some of your guys' tests may make it the strongest coin ever.  Doubt it, but I am not fully convinced SC is such the failure people make it out to be.

You are right. It is the founder who was the failure. We all can agree on that.

[sd]

Specifically, modify the client to reject his closed-source software's blocks. He wants incompatibility, let him have it. Odds are the closed-source block chain will be the one to die.

It's a dead cert the closed source client will die if we keep a open source and honest version available. We totally have to do this. If he still has the power to add blocks he can flood the exchanges now or at any time in the future. It's bad enough we can't revoke coins he already pre-mined.

I may be wrong but this looks like coinhunter:
https://twitter.com/#!/feydr

You can see from the twitter photos he is a quick buck/blag artist type, or at least that's the impression I get.

[CoinHunter]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

[wallet.dat]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

I don't think anybody has any real issue with the concept of SolidCoin itself.  In fact I like it the most of all alt *coins and would like to see it succeed.

[sd]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

It's the blockchain I want to see keep running, the client is only a means to do that. And I totally don't trust your changes to BitCoin, you made too many too fast and introduced many bugs doing it.

EDIT: I should add you told WAY too many lies and that destroyed any trust we had in you personally.

[wolftaur]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

SolidCoin isn't poor. You're just pathetic.

[CoinHunter]

SolidCoin isn't poor. You're just pathetic.

So someone pathetic created something which isn't poor? Nice.

[sd]

SolidCoin isn't poor. You're just pathetic.

So someone pathetic created something which isn't poor? Nice.

Your meds are wearing off dude. Take another handful of lithium before your next post.

[CoinHunter]

Oh, and if you think the orphan block handling "improvements" (aka completely disabling it) in 1.031 doesn't hurt anything (well, other than nodes not catching up to the current block under certain circumstances)...

Under certain circumstances. Heh. You could say this with many things currently in Bitcoin.

I'm adding orphan storage to 1.10 but doing it properly,  ie will only store a certain amount on a rotating buffer to get around attacks people like you have created. The same issue you're talking about exists if you're flooding a node with shit, so it's not a complete solution is it? The reason I didn't implement a more thorough solution is I wanted to protect the users from the attacks you and others have created immediately, which it has done to this point.

grep your debug.log for "getblocks".
Notice some nodes appear to be sending a GetBlocks for *every single block they get* while downloading the chain?
Notice the block #s are nowhere near the "bad evil hacker" blocks?
You got 3 guesses which versions are exhibiting that broken behaviour.

Broken behaviour? A few extra getblock requests isn't going to hurt anything and in a lot of instances increases the speed of initial block downloading. Your FUD about chain forks is ridiculous. The people who are on the latest block (most of the network outside initial downloaders) won't be affected by orphan storage removal. In instances where multiple blocks are generated fast they still get the blocks quickly, it's just not as entirely efficient as 1.10 will be with it.

[BitcoinPorn]

Oh my, CoinHunter and ArtForz in civil 'tech' conversation.  Surely I am in Bizzaro world :p

[johnj]

So someone pathetic created something which isn't poor? Nice.

You created bitcoin?  Oh wow, I didn't know you were....


Oh.  You adjusted a few variables.  *pats on head*

[simonk83]

Yeah the only problem with that is I have solved the 51% problem and that is also coming out very soon. Oops, did SolidCoin just protect itself a lot better than Bitcoin?

Furthermore when anyone new to SolidCoin google searches for it, guess which site they'll be getting? So yes please go convince the mining pools to abandon the official version in favour of some featureless fork of SolidCoin from an earlier version because they'll be removed off the site, no longer get new visitors and earn the distrust of the whole SC community. ie They'll die like SCGuild and Bitparking.

We are the SolidCoin community and we no longer trust your so called 'official' version due to the bugs you keep introducing, your unacceptable license change, and your erratic, insulting manner.

You think you can make changes to keep things incompatible with open source? You will exhaust yourself trying, fail, and still end up with an implementation that no-one is going to use. Everyone will forget you even exist when the next IOCoin comes out.

Let's not forget that the people seemingly involved with the new "fork" are much, much smarter than Coinhunter is (if the mess he's made of things so far are anything to go by). 

[wolftaur]

It's a dead cert the closed source client will die if we keep a open source and honest version available. We totally have to do this. If he still has the power to add blocks he can flood the exchanges now or at any time in the future. It's bad enough we can't revoke coins he already pre-mined.

Yes we can.

Simply tell the client to reject as an input any transaction whos output is a generation in the relevant blocks, starting at block now.

[simonk83]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

You're just completely blind to your own idiocy aren't you.   Nobody has anything in for SolidCoin, it's YOU that's pissing everyone off and causing this whole thing.  

[wolftaur]

You're just completely blind to your own idiocy aren't you.   Nobody has anything in for SolidCoin, it's YOU that's pissing everyone off and causing this whole thing.  

You'll never convince him. He's too stupid and delusional. He started with some pretty good community support: a pool over at BTCguild, an exchange at bitparking and at Ruxum...

He of course insists it's all ArtForz' fault, but it wasn't ArtForz' demonstration that caused two exchanges and a pool to go pretty much all at once:

It was his own actions, and his giant attempt to blame it on Bitcoin core developers.

And for all of his claims about how much smarter he is...

Hey, CoinHunter, if you're right and this is all ArtForz' and Gavin's fault, guess the degree to which it blew up in your face and hurt your currency proves they're way smarter than you are.

[dayfall]

I have 1Ghash that I will *not* be putting towards a Solidcoin fork.

[SolidCoin]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

[smoothie]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

Perhaps the cook should stay in the kitchen and stop coming out into the dining room to confront those who don't agree with him.

[SolidCoin]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

And when you go to the restaurant you don't deal with the asshole chef or go in the kitchen you deal with the staff of the establishment who are usually very helpful or people don't go back no matter how good the food...

That is true. However that doesnt excuse the fact people want to exclude the first 30 000 coins mined which ARE ALL BOUNTY COINS.

[smoothie]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

And when you go to the restaurant you don't deal with the asshole chef or go in the kitchen you deal with the staff of the establishment who are usually very helpful or people don't go back no matter how good the food...

+1 The cook shouldn't be the waiter, greeter, cashier, etc. They should just cook and that's all.

[wolftaur]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

Actually, my suggestion was that the prohibition on spending his pre-mined coins should be implemented at the current block. The people who PREVIOUSLY took bounty money in good faith before CoinHunter screwed up big time and lost control of his project should not be penalized.

[simonk83]

Well, this appears to be the Number 1 viewed thread over the last 24 hours, by a fair margin

http://bitcoinx.com/charts/

Topic                                                                                                     Score
[ANNOUNCE] New Solidcoin Client Fully Open-Source!                                      584
Bitcoin in France: first legal decision directly related to Bitcoin?                      206
[ANNOUNCE] SolidCoin - new and improved block chain. Secure from pools      188
Mooncoin - Solidcoin/Namecoin to BTC Exchange                                      176
Why BTC is losing value.                                                                      166
comrades, is bitcoin a great leap forward for international socialism?              130
Here we go again, bitcoin exchange rates have been doing just fine              105
bitcoin bear commentary, what happens if bitcoin breaks $8?                       62
at 7$ per btc i need to pull the plug                                                               60
Exchange accidentally sent 512 bitcoins after coding error                               60

[EskimoBob]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

CoinHunter, are you galactically stupid? You have to understand that community has no problem with the idea of solidcoin as a btc fork. Problem is the retarded monkey in solidcoin kitchen, who keeps damaging not only his own image and reputation (if there is anything left to damage) but keeps throwing shit at the entire BTC community. Unstable idiot like RealSolid (IRC) are the problem, not the software!
Remove the mad monkey, his home made "licence" and we all can move on.
Those idiots (RealSolid and his sock puppets) have pissed of exchanges, developers, investors etc. Sooner those unstable jokers are removed from the project, better it is for all of us.

Keep up the work with the fully open-source. Thank you.

[wolftaur]

CoinHunter, are you galactically stupid?

I think I know him well enough to answer for him.

FUCK YEAH.

[wallet.dat]

I will gladly run my whole farm on a new fork to get it going.

Remove the Bounty Coins and the inserted blocks. For all we know CoinHunter still holds a bunch of bounty coins.

I see a new fork a coming!

That would only serve to piss off more people than you probably want to just to get back at one guy.

[itsagas]

well actually, a fork WOULD test out his "new 51% attack prevention solution"

[SolidCoin]

So youre going to hurt all the people who got a bounty just because someone was abrasive ?

Some of the best chefs in the world are complete assholes yet you dont see people refusing to eat at their restaurants. Dont want to get hurt feelings? Dont go in the kitchen...

Actually, my suggestion was that the prohibition on spending his pre-mined coins should be implemented at the current block. The people who PREVIOUSLY took bounty money in good faith before CoinHunter screwed up big time and lost control of his project should not be penalized.

I think thats wise if you go down that path.

However who gets to choose who owns what coins ?

[SolidCoin]

well actually, a fork WOULD test out his "new 51% attack prevention solution"

You are assuming compatibility with the current system. The longer fork would have to be accepted by the existing clients.

[Detritus]

Who has the skills to start a new fork?

Starting a new chain involves changing one line of code. The one holding the genesis block.
 Recompiling and handing out the code.

[davout]

Starting a new chain involves changing one line of code. The one holding the genesis block.
 Recompiling and handing out the code.

Actually a couple of lines : the genesis timestamp, nonce, merkle root, and the actual block hash that you need to compute. But yes, it's not very hard, also don't forget to remove and hardcoded checkpoints

[wolftaur]

Starting a new chain involves changing one line of code. The one holding the genesis block.
 Recompiling and handing out the code.

Actually a couple of lines : the genesis timestamp, nonce, merkle root, and the actual block hash that you need to compute. But yes, it's not very hard, also don't forget to remove and hardcoded checkpoints

Don't forget to disable handling of orphans, if you're trying to be as stupid as CoinHunter. Also don't forget to provoke ArtForz and then the rest of the community all in 48 hours.

[wolftaur]

Starting a new chain involves changing one line of code. The one holding the genesis block.
 Recompiling and handing out the code.

Actually a couple of lines : the genesis timestamp, nonce, merkle root, and the actual block hash that you need to compute. But yes, it's not very hard, also don't forget to remove and hardcoded checkpoints

Don't forget to disable handling of orphans, if you're trying to be as stupid as CoinHunter. Also don't forget to provoke ArtForz and then the rest of the community all in 48 hours.

I'm serious, let's fork Solidcoin, invalidate all his premined and added blocks and run with it.

I vote to consider all unspent pre mined blocks invalid starting at, say, block 30,000. Use some common sense here: invalidating _ALL_ of them with no warning potentially fucks people who bought his pre mined coins on exchanges, or people who bought SC from whoever got bounties and cashed them out. CoinHunter did actually give some coins to SCguild for being the first pool to hit a certain size, and I got something like SC0.2 of that. I wouldn't care about losing 0.2 coins, but what about people who bought them legitimately, or took them as payments? And for that matter, since the coins all mix at exchanges, invalidating the blocks _PERIOD_ means random people could lose many of their LEGITIMATELY acquired coins.

Starting at block 30,000, we simply don't let them be spent. Then nobody who took coins in good faith is harmed, but CoinHunter still is.

Yes, I know we're past block 30,000, but the fork's going to be testing CoinHunter's claim about his 51%-proofing. And we'll probably have much more mining power than him.

[TheLaundryMan]

Keep the chain going and fork it. I don't know if backwards compatability is possible but, everyone who got coins whether premined or not shouldn't suffer.

[Detritus]

Don't forget to disable handling of orphans, if you're trying to be as stupid as CoinHunter. Also don't forget to provoke ArtForz and then the rest of the community all in 48 hours.

I think that a lot of us, with some minor effort, could produce a new block chain, again, and again, and again.

I just hope the same people are wise enough not too.

[wolftaur]

I just hope the same people are wise enough not too.

With proper handling of block lock-in that becomes much, much harder. But it's a good step towards securing a legitimate chain if things are forked.

[Detritus]

With proper handling of block lock-in that becomes much, much harder. But it's a good step towards securing a legitimate chain if things are forked.

Better off to let it die and be done with the whole sorry affair.

[wolftaur]

Better off to let it die and be done with the whole sorry affair.

It's ixcoins that really need to die. 580,000 pre-mined coins. Ugh. And some people actually believe it's not a scam.

[aq]

Better off to let it die and be done with the whole sorry affair.

It's ixcoins that really need to die. 580,000 pre-mined coins. Ugh. And some people actually believe it's not a scam.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

[wolftaur]

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Pffft. Einstein only said that because he never saw CoinHunter's ego.

[Oldminer]

Better off to let it die and be done with the whole sorry affair.

It's ixcoins that really need to die. 580,000 pre-mined coins. Ugh. And some people actually believe it's not a scam.

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

I can hear Wolfman's brain cells popping trying to figure that one out 

[TheLaundryMan]

There is no reason not to keep going with solidcoin as an open source project. The bugs have been fixed. Quit taking your hate about a developer too far. Hes arrogant and an asshole, but the software is now fine to use and many people wish to continue it. He is not the head of the project anymore with this open source release. Mining pools should open back up and other exchanges that closed should open up again.

[Spacy]

There is no reason not to keep going with solidcoin as an open source project. The bugs have been fixed. Quit taking your hate about a developer too far. Hes arrogant and an asshole, but the software is now fine to use and many people wish to continue it. He is not the head of the project anymore with this open source release. Mining pools should open back up and other exchanges that closed should open up again.

+1

OSS wins most of the time...

[wolftaur]

There is no reason not to keep going with solidcoin as an open source project. The bugs have been fixed. Quit taking your hate about a developer too far. Hes arrogant and an asshole, but the software is now fine to use and many people wish to continue it. He is not the head of the project anymore with this open source release. Mining pools should open back up and other exchanges that closed should open up again.

CoinHunter made a public claim that he's come up with a "defense" to keep "his" block chain from being affected by a majority of users being on the open source client. He also bragged about his plans to deliberately alter his client to "break" the open source one.

I suspect it's going to take a while for the dust to settle and I doubt Ruxum or bitparking is going to go with an open-source fork until such time as any attempt CoinHunter has made to break the fork has been proven to be a failure.

[Isepick]

Just let it die already. The SolidCoin brand is way too tainted now. And there is no guarantee that Mr. "Imma copyright everything" isn't going to start doing shit like trademarking "SolidCoin", etc etc which will screw people over on the open source side. Let it die. If you insist on needing an altcoin, then make a new one, with a new chain and a new name. This one is so horribly corrupted that none of the larger exchanges will ever touch it. Nor would any merchant that spent 30 seconds on google. Way too much confusion with, "No we are the *other* SolidCoin, not the bad one!"

[BitcoinPorn]

Best part about most of what you guys seem to be making out as his 'crazy talk', will be 'holy fuck he was a genius talk' after he succeeds.

This post made with ego stroking purposes only as a way to attempt to deflect all the hate. I do not fully believe what I typed

[aq]

Best part about most of what you guys seem to be making out as his 'crazy talk', will be 'holy fuck he was a genius talk' after he succeeds.

This post made with ego stroking purposes only as a way to attempt to deflect all the hate. I do not fully believe what I typed

Well, if coinhunter succeeds someday we are all domed, because coinhunter has the intelligence of Pinky and the attitude of Brain.

[BitcoinPorn]

because coinhunter has the intelligence of Pinky and the attitude of Brain.

I am so using this today on someone, and I'll sadly feel clever when I do it.


Edit, from Eskimo Bob

[The Electric Monk]

Isn't it funny how "poor" SolidCoin is yet we have people writing open source clients for it, wanting to try to take control of it. If it was worthless they wouldn't want to, something to consider for the sane minds reading this thread.

You:
-Had some good ideas
-Created a currency who's success depends on more than 50% of users supporting it
-Seemingly pissed off more than 50% in all different ways

What did you think was going to happen?

I don't see you as a victim to trolls anymore, you have some control over this.  If you issued a sincere apology to the BTC community, the exchanges and guild operators, take down the hateful btc bullshit from your site, make your project truly open source again (according to standards), stop telling people to f*ck off if they don't like it and people will have less reason to create another SC chain.

[The Electric Monk]

Who are you kidding? They are a bunch of ass hats ... I once believed somewhat their way toward what was going on with IxCoin, then the fucktards go and make I0Coin, now they are doing the same shit here....  the real scammers are these douchebags, maybe they felt they missed the window or they are jealous, whatever, your all a bunch of lame fucks and cryptocurrency will suffer as a whole because of this community, if this is the public face of bitcoin it won't be long for the world.

 Can you explain to me how the open source chain is a scam?  It sounds like mined SCs are still good in it.

[FractalUniverse]

.. and cryptocurrency will suffer as a whole because of this community, if this is the public face of bitcoin it won't be long for the world.

yup

[The Electric Monk]

Not the way the rhetoric is going with these tards, and they don't care about an alternate coin, they are f'ing lying in the first place that Coinhunter is their only issue, they were bitching from the get-go, smoothie wishes he made more that 32 BTC off his early coins, wolftaur is just retaurded, Artforz is a just a dumbass who hurt a lot of people yet he is championed by the douche bags around here as some kind of hero.

It's a scam in the basis of this work is a lie, it isn't even about Coinhunter, just now that these fucks have villianized him this is their claim but go back and read the history of the posts, then go back and look at the history of the IxCoin posts ... you see a STARTLING resemblance in both.  These dumbasses have to be in control of the whole sha-bang.

I don't disagree some things Coinhunter said shouldn't have been said... the whole solid coin here when bitcoin fails article, I didn't publicize it, at that time I could see both in existence, but my experiences with these retarded people out here is changing my mind.  A good community would police it's own, and there have been and still are people in the true solid coin community speaking out against the license changes, and the article on solidcoin.info .... bitcoin on the other hand, that community is  just a bunch of fucks in the middle of a massive circle jerk.

I don't think you can group everyone here together like that, there's trolls on every board.  People seemed generally more interested in SC before the immature propaganda site went up.  None of those trolls went to the lengths of making an anti SC website, that I know of.  He's villainized himself.

If he'd ignored the trolls and treated everyone else with respect it would be doing much better.  The mining guild I was in and 2 of the three exchanges I used shut down.  I read the way CoinHunter chatted with Gavin, who hasn't done anything to him.  CH didn't invent Bitcoin, but he used the source then shit on everyone who worked on it.  Are you seriously going to argue that we should leave that guy in charge?  He doesn't know how to respect others, he's a PR nightmare for both BTC and SC, and he can't be reasoned with.

[The Electric Monk]

If you think he can be reasoned with, go back to the SC boards and try to make SC better instead of coming here and protesting the open source version.

[smoothie]

Not the way the rhetoric is going with these tards, and they don't care about an alternate coin, they are f'ing lying in the first place that Coinhunter is their only issue, they were bitching from the get-go, smoothie wishes he made more that 32 BTC off his early coins, wolftaur is just retaurded, Artforz is a just a dumbass who hurt a lot of people yet he is championed by the douche bags around here as some kind of hero.

It's a scam in the basis of this work is a lie, it isn't even about Coinhunter, just now that these fucks have villianized him this is their claim but go back and read the history of the posts, then go back and look at the history of the IxCoin posts ... you see a STARTLING resemblance in both.  These dumbasses have to be in control of the whole sha-bang.

I don't disagree some things Coinhunter said shouldn't have been said... the whole solid coin here when bitcoin fails article, I didn't publicize it, at that time I could see both in existence, but my experiences with these retarded people out here is changing my mind.  A good community would police it's own, and there have been and still are people in the true solid coin community speaking out against the license changes, and the article on solidcoin.info .... bitcoin on the other hand, that community is  just a bunch of fucks in the middle of a massive circle jerk.

I did make more than 32 BTC. I made 205. 

[ArtForz]

*ponders writing a response*

*checks viperjbms post history*

*wanders off*

[aq]

And before I am accused of vehemently supporting SLC because of loosing money, jokes on you because I have not spent a dime of my money on either coin system, I just want to promote the technology.  And since both coin systems are loosing money hand over foot now it doesn't matter much which you are in.

So basically you say, you are just one of coinhunters disciples?

[dishwara]

Politics bullshits everyone & everything & brings THE END.

[johnj]

Trolls show up everywhere, free speech should be allowed (unless RS kicks you out of IRC), ideas should flow (unless you take a previous open project, screw up the code and then close it again) - Solidcoins public face has become 70% troll and they have become intent on crushing their own coin.

FTFY.

[TwistedPair]

There is no reason not to keep going with solidcoin as an open source project. The bugs have been fixed. Quit taking your hate about a developer too far. Hes arrogant and an asshole, but the software is now fine to use and many people wish to continue it. He is not the head of the project anymore with this open source release. Mining pools should open back up and other exchanges that closed should open up again.

How are you so sure Solidcoin is "now fine"? The one and only developer is adding other people's untested commits to the original Bitcoin client and adding his own sauce.

For example, how long was the testing period between when 1.04 was implemented and released?

Advertising Solidcoin as a safer alternative to Bitcoin is a specious.

so alternate forks should be promoted to a certain degree where they are providing solutions and further data to analyse to determine the best values for these, having only a single chain is like having all our eggs in one basket.

And why should Gavin actively promote *coins? He probably has a bunch of btcs so he's incentive is to promote Bitcoin, not other chains.

Solidcoin is set up in a manner to improve general adoption by trying out parameters that could help enable businesses to be more willing to use cryptocurrency and help end users have a better and safer experience,

By adding other people's untested patches and randomly adding their own stuff with no peer review? That isn't aligned with common business practices. Parroting Coinhunter's FUD doesn't make it true.

An interface with a nice icon and a bigger font for the wallet total does not make for more adoption long term. A safer, more scalable client does. And that's what Gavin is focusing on. It doesn't matter how pretty your safe is, if it can be broken into with a butter knife.

Face it, Solidcoin was a interesting attempt but hubris and lack of testing killed it. You're better of with i0coin/ixcoin as they have less changes to the original Bitcoin client.

[grndzero]

Are there any list of actual features that differentiate solidcoin from Bitcoin?
Any that actually have merit?

If it was all fluff and hype then let it die.

[johnj]

Are there any list of actual features that differentiate solidcoin from Bitcoin?

It gets mandatory updates every other day.

[The Electric Monk]

I think we should rename SolidCoin if we go through with this.  There's going to be all kinds of confusion, and CoinHunter is right that people will come across his site first on Google for now.  

I vote for Space Credits.  I've posted this before, but I think it might be good for publicity.  'Space Credits' sound familiar to most people, especially geeks who'll be earlier adopters.  The other reason is media attention helps the popularity of coins:  Space credits could be an ideal outside currency to the new Starwars mmo.  From what I've read it's a WOW killer, and these coins are ideal for trading in games.  My buddies and I already use small amounts in minecraft.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll128/chucknorrisfan/spacecredits.png

[sd]

I think we should rename SolidCoin if we go through with this.  There's going to be all kinds of confusion, and CoinHunter is right that people will come across his site first on Google for now.

I agree. A new name is needed. Space Credits does sound cool.

We also need to make sure open source clients don't accept any of coinhunters non-mined cheat blocks or anything else weird he tries to abuse the blockchain with.

[johnj]

Are there any list of actual features that differentiate solidcoin from Bitcoin?
Any that actually have merit?

If it was all fluff and hype then let it die.

Yes several.  To name a couple I got to experience first hand:

Fixed fees - in usage it was very nice, you always knew what you were going to pay and you didn't have to hit send to find out that you didn't have enough fees in you wallet to cover a transaction and then scale back a little and the fee gets changed so now you are left with coins in your wallet etc.  Additionally, fees are removed from the equation of transaction priority in this way so even when Dumbass Extraordinaire Artforz attacked this feature, people could still make transactions they were just coming in slower than they should have.

Quicker Block Times - 10 minute rule is highly theoretical with no real model behind it, yet somehow it became the f'ing gospel around here, don't believe me, go back and look at Satoshi's own posts.  It was a nice round number that he felt which seemed to be a reasonable time.  3 minutes was and is much more user friendly, when I would transfer coins between exchanges and what not to do some "day trading" it was much more pleasant to do it with SLC than with BTC, unfortunately I had to do it with BTC on occasion and waiting an f'ing hour or more to get the minimum confirmations was rediculous.  Even Ruxum who had the strictest SLC minimum confirmations time I could have them in and usable in about 30 minutes tops.

Better handling of difficulty changes - Between controlled ascent and descent, faster block times, and more frequent difficulty updates the SLC network responded FAR better than the others with rising and falling hash rates, not once did SLC get in a situation where it would take months to get a difficulty change and not once did it ever take more than an unreasonable number of minutes to get confirmations... prior to SLC all the other cryptocurrencies had this problem.

There are more, but those are the ones I experience first hand.  And you know what? they worked and worked well.  Dumbass Extraordinaire attacking the system the way he did is not proof fixed fees are bad, it just found a bug that is in all current cryptocurrencies, it just costs more to execute in BTC... so ya hate the feature if you want but it is necessary for a user/merchant friendly system and there are other solutions to that problem than making it expensive to execute....

Fixed fees?  Block timers?  Those are variables guy.  The fixed fee 'improvement' is what brought down SC the first time wasn't it?  Quicker block times brings lower secerity.  The difficulty algo has already been demonstrated to cater to card-farms while the 'little guy' has to do more work and gets paid less.

So... what were you saying?

[johnj]

Fixed fees?  Block timers?  Those are variables guy.  The fixed fee 'improvement' is what brought down SC the first time wasn't it?  Quicker block times brings lower secerity.  The difficulty algo has already been demonstrated to cater to card-farms while the 'little guy' has to do more work and gets paid less.

So... what were you saying?

Do you at this point even know what you are talking about?  Security is NO WORSE OFF, this system is not based on the time of the blocks, if the chosen time works it becomes a race for confirmations from a legit and nonlegit source, if the network works at 1 second blocks it would have the same security as blocks over 10 days.... the whole smaller block times is less secure is the f'ing king garbage argument around here ---- seriously go and look at what satoshi himself said on the topic it wasn't much more than a guess on an ideal number to balance block size and network efficiency, security wasn't an issue with the time.

Fixed fees were attacked by king douche for sure, but the fees were NOT the bug, they just made the bug cheaper to execute and the bug lives on in BTC, are you really that dumb to not realize this?

Cater to card farms?.... how the f so?  because for a short while they are hashing at below optimal difficulty?  The 'little guy' is hurt already with the advent of pools, at this stage in BTC unless you are in a pool or have immense resources of your own solo mining is not feasible, at least with the difficulty algo changes in SLC the 'little guy' won't get his difficulty raped out from under him immediately and when the 'card farm' jumps ship the 'little guy' will get back to reasonable difficulty much faster.

Caters to cartels https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40772.msg501511#msg501511

The fixed fee was his way of not understanding what was going on.  It took what, 1SC total to bring it down?  At the time that was 10 cents.  Great securty there fella.  Next time I drop some change I'll give ya'll a heads up.

[jackjack]

Wow, it seems my thread got much attention

I quickly read all the posts but can't reply to all, actually I just want one answer: where did CH said he will make weird changes to his client so that it will be impossible to use the open-source one?
If that guy really wants a blockchain split, he could have just asked it here

Also guys, please don't feed them too much

[johnj]

Wow, it seems my thread got much attention

I quickly read all the posts but can't reply to all, actually I just want one answer: where did CH said he will make weird changes to his client so that it will be impossible to use the open-source one?
If that guy really wants a blockchain split, he could have just asked it here

Also guys, please don't feed them too much

More taunting
 

To the OP it is fine if you want to develop a "open source" alternative to my "open source" program. Good luck with outpacing my development though. Just wondering when you are going to add more vuln. fixes, network improvements and multiwallet support like that which is due out in SolidCoin in a few days? Thanks for the support of SolidCoin, and good luck with your project.

[sd]

We MUST stop him at ANY cost.
His probable "success" will bring down the entire idea of cryptocurrency forever.

Also if he will fail epically, it will be the lesson to next greedy morons in line.

We should stop him by ensuring the open source client is used by over by 51% of miners and almost all users and by ensuring it rejects any weird blocks he injects into the blockchain. Once that is done we should forget this project ever existed and let it die in peace.

However don't expect this to stop the next greedy moron, the world produces these guys at an amazing rate.

[wolftaur]

Are there any list of actual features that differentiate solidcoin from Bitcoin?

It gets mandatory updates every other day.

I wouldn't call a mandatory updates to fix a series of errors that made the block chain either vulnerable to attack, or useless for transferring more than, what, $20 worth of SC, to be "features."

But I suppose if you're using the Microsoft or Adobe playbooks, yeah, those are kickass features and CoinHunter is a genius.

[wolftaur]

Fixed fees?  Block timers?  Those are variables guy.  The fixed fee 'improvement' is what brought down SC the first time wasn't it?  Quicker block times brings lower secerity.  The difficulty algo has already been demonstrated to cater to card-farms while the 'little guy' has to do more work and gets paid less.

So... what were you saying?

Nothing of value, relevance, or usable fact.

Join ArtForz and I in just not even responding to this guy's obvious bias and lack of understanding of what he's talking about.

[coblee]

Y'all probably want this:
  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491

However, I don't think you can fix all the problems that a fixed transaction fee cause; the real problem is that basic economics says that you need to let the price of a scare resource change, ideally in a market, to match the underlying real costs.

(bitcoin's fee structure isn't right either, and fixing it to create a market between miners and clients is high on the TODO list)

CH/RS should really learn from Gavin instead of criticizing him for being a hacker supporter. When ArtForz approached CH/RS with the vulnerabilities in SolidCoin, he was basically told to get lost. So ArtForz got upset and did a fairly nice attack on the SolidCoin chain to prove his point. He sent these large transactions one at a time, which slowed down the network and actually showed another vulnerability in both Bitcoin and SolidCoin. He could have done a lot worse if he released a ton of these huge transactions at the same time. If he did that, it would have likely killed all the clients.

I assume ArtForz approached Gavin with this out of space vulnerability in Bitcoin. And instead of telling ArtForz to get lost, Gavin worked with him to fix the vulnerability. That's how a mature and competent lead on a big open source project is supposed to act. If someone is nice enough to come to you to tell you about a potential vulnerability, you work with him to fix it instead of pissing him off so that he would actually try to attack your chain with that vulnerability.

[smoothie]

SC/RS should really learn from Gavin instead of criticizing him for being a hacker supporter. When ArtForz approached SC/RS with the vulnerabilities in SolidCoin, he was basically told to get lost. So ArtForz got upset and did a fairly nice attack on the SolidCoin chain to prove his point. He sent these large transactions one at a time, which slowed down the network and actually showed another vulnerability in both Bitcoin and SolidCoin. He could have done a lot worse if he released a ton of these huge transactions at the same time. If he did that, it would have likely killed all the clients.

I assume ArtForz approached Gavin with this out of space vulnerability in Bitcoin. And instead of telling ArtForz to get lost, Gavin worked with him to fix the vulnerability. That's how a mature and competent lead on a big open source project is supposed to act. If someone is nice enough to come to you to tell you about a potential vulnerability, you work with him to fix it instead of pissing him off so that he would actually try to attack your chain with that vulnerability.

The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even.  Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility.  He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin).  Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville....  says a lot about this community.....

Please do us all a favor and take your crying elsewhere. Thank you very much.

[wolftaur]

The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even.  Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility.  He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin).  Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville....  says a lot about this community.....

I'm not saying ArtForz is a hero. But I'd pick ten of him over CoinHunter any day.

[coblee]

CH/RS should really learn from Gavin instead of criticizing him for being a hacker supporter. When ArtForz approached CH/RS with the vulnerabilities in SolidCoin, he was basically told to get lost. So ArtForz got upset and did a fairly nice attack on the SolidCoin chain to prove his point. He sent these large transactions one at a time, which slowed down the network and actually showed another vulnerability in both Bitcoin and SolidCoin. He could have done a lot worse if he released a ton of these huge transactions at the same time. If he did that, it would have likely killed all the clients.

I assume ArtForz approached Gavin with this out of space vulnerability in Bitcoin. And instead of telling ArtForz to get lost, Gavin worked with him to fix the vulnerability. That's how a mature and competent lead on a big open source project is supposed to act. If someone is nice enough to come to you to tell you about a potential vulnerability, you work with him to fix it instead of pissing him off so that he would actually try to attack your chain with that vulnerability.

The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even.  Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility.  He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin).  Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville....  says a lot about this community.....

I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it.

Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn.

I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt.

[simonk83]

The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even.  Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility.  He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin).  Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville....  says a lot about this community.....

I'm not saying ArtForz is a hero. But I'd pick ten of him over CoinHunter any day.

Welcome to douche bag ville....

I'd take Richard the Lionheart over the f'ing court jesters... he may not be generally liked but at least he is doing something productive....

Maybe one day there will be a winston ch. in charge but until then you goons are fricken hillarious....

You're not fooling anyone, and you're just coming across as a dick.  Go away.

[ArtForz]

... he should be banned from these forums at a very minimum and Gavin as the de-facto head around here should denounce his actions.  Above all else I'll shut up completely as soon as I see as many posts out here complaining about Coinhunter also complaining about Artforz and calling the scum sucker to be banned from these forums ...

For which part?
Telling RS/CH/His Royal Highness that his changed fee rules were allowing massive tx for nearly free?
Using the system within said rules after getting told that those rules are perfectly fine?
Finding a lack of optimization inherited from bitcoin in the process?
Informing the bitcoin developers about said lack of optimization and submitting a patch that (well, at least partially...) fixes it?
</troll>

[cgpgroup]

I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it.

Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn.

I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt.

I am defending Solidcoin as a viable alternative.  Public statements made by Coinhunter should not have been made, I don't denounce that, to me it's a non-issue because he IS doing good work outside of that and that is all I care about.  MORE-SO are the dumb asses out here who vilified him even before they had reason to (Smoothie-in-his-ass, wolftaurd, King Douchebag, the whole lot of them)... this is the part that makes me sick you guys are letting those guys run the show out here when you should be just as often letting them know that they are fucked up one side and down the other as well.

And here's the kicker and the ultimate point I am trying to make, I don't care if Artforz "revealed his real self", what Artforz did was f'ing dispicable ... he should be banned from these forums at a very minimum and Gavin as the de-facto head around here should denounce his actions.  Above all else I'll shut up completely as soon as I see as many posts out here complaining about Coinhunter also complaining about Artforz and calling the scum sucker to be banned from these forums and as much public association with Bitcoin as possible.  He hurt innocent bystanders directly, it wasn't just a bug gone wrong it would have been criminal if cryptocurrency was in fact legally recognized currency, for that at least and unfortunately we probably can't bring him up on charges.  And to note... I didn't loose anything because of the scum sucker, but he did something far worse than Coinhunter ever did.

Dude blame CoinHunter for what ArtForz did to solidcoins. ArtForz went to him and told him there is a problem, and that he needs to fix it. and he basically told ArtForz to fck himself.

Coinhunter could have avoided the whole thing with a simple statement "Thanks for pointing this out, I will fix it as soon as possible, please keep this confidential until after the fix is made". but noooooooo he wanted to be his douchy self.... "I know what I am doing biaaatch"

[BitcoinPorn]

Dude blame CoinHunter for what ArtForz did to solidcoins. ArtForz went to him and told him there is a problem, and that he needs to fix it. and he basically told ArtForz to fck himself.

Coinhunter could have avoided the whole thing with a simple statement "Thanks for pointing this out, I will fix it as soon as possible, please keep this confidential until after the fix is made". but noooooooo he wanted to be his douchy self.... "I know what I am doing biaaatch"

Never forget, Art still did a dick move.

[smoothie]

Please do us all a favor and take your crying elsewhere. Thank you very much.

Not crying just trying to ensure people see how stupid the douche trio is in this mess ... Artforz, smoothie and wolftaurd that is ... I'm not even defending Coinhunter per se.  But to leave him to follow you lot is like overthrowing Richard the Lionheart (not a very well liked guy but he was a leader) and following the f'ing court jesters.

What exactly did I do? Did i speak my mind and piss you off?

Sorry free speech is allowed here.

[wolftaur]

Never forget, Art still did a dick move.

<Art> Hey, I found a problem with SolidCoin.
<CH> You must think you're so cool.
<Art> I found a problem in your genius bitcoin-killing code so yeah.
<CH> You're full of shit. And I still got a bigger log than you.
<Art> *typetypetype* You do now.

[smoothie]

I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it.

Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn.

I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt.

I am defending Solidcoin as a viable alternative.  Public statements made by Coinhunter should not have been made, I don't denounce that, to me it's a non-issue because he IS doing good work outside of that and that is all I care about.  MORE-SO are the dumb asses out here who vilified him even before they had reason to (Smoothie-in-his-ass, wolftaurd, King Douchebag, the whole lot of them)... this is the part that makes me sick you guys are letting those guys run the show out here when you should be just as often letting them know that they are fucked up one side and down the other as well.

And here's the kicker and the ultimate point I am trying to make, I don't care if Artforz "revealed his real self", what Artforz did was f'ing dispicable ... he should be banned from these forums at a very minimum and Gavin as the de-facto head around here should denounce his actions.  Above all else I'll shut up completely as soon as I see as many posts out here complaining about Coinhunter also complaining about Artforz and calling the scum sucker to be banned from these forums and as much public association with Bitcoin as possible.  He hurt innocent bystanders directly, it wasn't just a bug gone wrong it would have been criminal if cryptocurrency was in fact legally recognized currency, for that at least and unfortunately we probably can't bring him up on charges.  And to note... I didn't loose anything because of the scum sucker, but he did something far worse than Coinhunter ever did.

So please explain to me how I "vilified" him? The guy was a dick from the start. Any comments that disagreed with him or sometimes even agreed with him he would talk down to and belittle.

Once again please take your whining and crying to your precious solidcointalk.org site. We don't need anymore babies on this forum that can't handle hearing the truth.

thanks for coming.

[Mousepotato]

My only question is: With the real possibility of a viable open-source SC client with good peeps helping the dev movement, should we hang on to our Solidcoins or dump them like Smoothie advised?

[smoothie]

My only question is: With the real possibility of a viable open-source SC client with good peeps helping the dev movement, should we hang on to our Solidcoins or dump them like Smoothie advised?

I've already unloaded all of mine. I am sure there will be alternative block chains in the near future that have much more to offer than solidcoin has.

[wolftaur]

My only question is: With the real possibility of a viable open-source SC client with good peeps helping the dev movement, should we hang on to our Solidcoins or dump them like Smoothie advised?

I've already unloaded all of mine. I am sure there will be alternative block chains in the near future that have much more to offer than solidcoin has.

But they'll have smaller logs.

[ArtForz]

Never forget, Art still did a dick move.

Not disagreeing with you here. Though I do regret not noticing the massive txdb journal growth earlier, or I would have stopped the "attack" a lot sooner than I did.

[coblee]

The unintended consequences of king douche bag's attack is though that he hurt a lot of people beyond Coinhunter even.  Thats where the ass hat looses 100% respect and credibility.  He also apparently know about other underlying bugs in the cryptocurrency systems which inadvertently killed peoples nodes (also from Bitcoin).  Yet the scum out here champions him as some great Hero of douche bag ville....  says a lot about this community.....

I'm not sure why you are defending CH/RS so much on these forums. It just seems like you are his minion or something OR that you get some benefit for doing it.

Did ArtForz hurt a lot of people's coins? Yes. But those were speculators speculating on a risky currency. They knew what they got into or should have known. The fact that it's risky is because the new currency is untested. With the code CH/RS put into it, you can't be sure it's not full of bugs. And they obviously had no idea that CH/RS will self destruct like that. So live and learn.

I actually believe that what ArtForz did was best for SolidCoin. It showed what kind of person CH/RS really is. It made a lot of people wise up and sell their SolidCoins before it was too late. If ArtForz did not expose SolidCoin's vulnerability *and* CH/RS's real self, SolidCoin's would have lasted a bit longer. More people would have bought in and be invested in this coin. All this (vulnerabilities and CH/RS's incompetence in fixing issues and his behavior) will inevitably come out at a later point. And when that happens, more people would have been hurt.

I actually take that back about ArtForz hurting a lot of people. He really didn't. His attack was pretty mild. It slowed down processing of blocks. It yielded an unintended side effect (that ArtForz was not previously aware of) of causing the transaction logs to grow too big. This caused some nodes to crash if they were running low on disk space. What hurt solidcoin more was CH/RS's half-ass buggy fix that did more damage than it fixed AND his other half-ass fix to fix his first fix. And according to ArtForz, the latest fix introduced yet another vulnerability of the blockchain growing uncontrollably. CH/RS's incompetence is hurting solidcoin more than ArtForz's attack.

And in the end, none of this hurt the price of solidcoins much at all. So no one was materially hurt by any of this until CH/RS decided to change the open source license. Was that a revenge move? This pissed off doublec enough to shutdown the largest exchange and it pissed off eleuthria enough to shutdown the largest pool. THAT was what caused the price to plummet, which hurt people. So I would argue that CH/RS hurt his own solidcoin supporters by making this dumbass move. Maybe we should investigate if he sold all his coins before the move, and bought them back cheap!

[ArtForz]

I dont know of any recent fix making the blockchain growing uncontrollably.
The only issue I am currently aware of is that under certain circumstances the disabling of orphan block storage can possibly cause nodes to never catch up to the current head of the chain and under similar circumstances can also cause them to spam 1000s of "GetBlocks" requests while downloading the chain.

[EskimoBob]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin


diff solidcoin1.03 soldcoin1.04:

Code:

$ diff solidcoin-source-103/src soldcoin-source-104/src
Les sous-répertoires solidcoin-source-103/src/cryptopp et soldcoin-source-104/src/cryptopp sont identiques.
diff solidcoin-source-103/src/init.cpp soldcoin-source-104/src/init.cpp
323c323
<             HWND hwndPrev = FindWindowA("wxWindowNR", "SolidCoin 1.03");
---
>             HWND hwndPrev = FindWindowA("wxWindowNR", "SoldCoin 1.04");
... 

I like the new name "soldcoin". It's probably just a typo but so what.

BTW, lots of people are asking (in freenode ) for the windows version. I have no Windows so I can not help them.
Can someone please help those good people, who do not like the evil mad monkey license, and push the compiled exe's to git or something.

One more thing. I started a #solidcoin-fos channel in freenode for chitchat so this forum thread can have more useful content and less of that 0 value blaa blaa blaa

Edit: added the missing 'i'

[BitcoinPorn]

they should cast you out from here.

lol, what in the hell, you have to be a thespian or something.

I'll give Art one thing, he admits his dick moves so far.

[sd]

Shouldn't have done it in the first place, you didn't get vengeance against Coinhunter even, you took it out on the end users and that is worse than EVERYTHING you all have accused Coinhunter of.... If you were a decent human being you should be ashamed of yourself, and if the rest of these clowns cared about this technology (Cryptocurrency in general) they should cast you out from here.

The thing is someone was going to do it sooner or later, it was only a matter of time. In the real world things get attacked all the time. You are better knowing about it sooner so you can fix it.

At least this clearly demonstrated that SolidCoin was technically broken and by extension CoinHunters claims to have made a better BitCoin were false.

[phelix]

+1 for ArtForz' actions and making them public

it was all according to the codex 

Anybody attacking him has not thought about how a bad guy would have done it. ArtForz did a service and a favor to everybody associated with solidcoin and whole the cryptocurrency community.

[dishwara]

Never forget, Art still did a dick move.

Not disagreeing with you here. Though I do regret not noticing the massive txdb journal growth earlier, or I would have stopped the "attack" a lot sooner than I did.

Shouldn't have done it in the first place, you didn't get vengeance against Coinhunter even, you took it out on the end users and that is worse than EVERYTHING you all have accused Coinhunter of.... If you were a decent human being you should be ashamed of yourself, and if the rest of these clowns cared about this technology (Cryptocurrency in general) they should cast you out from here.

If instead of ART someone to GAIN PROFIT had done what ART did then who can u blame?
ART did huge that too ONLY ONE tx that clearly showed the bug.
What if some one came to know this & secretly did some 100 tx & gained profit & totally brought down all the crytocurrencies, then no one will be here scolding each other. Most will be crying for loosing all their coins & some even life.

ART did one thing which showed a vulnerability in the client.
A REAL DEVELOPER MUST take whatever feedback from his client users & if some negative feedback comes then he MUST solve it, instead of calling others fuck off.
If no one gave feedback abt how fucking shit was Windows Vista & M$ never took feedback & scold, insulted those who gave feedback, then Windows 7 wouldn't be released at all.
DEVELOPERS job is to DEVELOP & give error free software. Not to scold who gives feedback.

[EskimoBob]

Code:

[quote author=EskimoBob link=topic=41345.msg510468#msg510468 date=1315347039]
[quote author=jackjack link=topic=41345.msg504115#msg504115 date=1315157431]
This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin
... 

[/quote]

I like the new name "soldcoin". It's probably just a typo but so what.

BTW, lots of people are asking (in freenode ) for the windows version. I have no Windows so I can not help them.
Can someone please help those good people, who do not like the evil mad monkey license, and push the compiled exe's to git or something.

One more thing. I started a #solidcoin-fos channel in freenode for chitchat so this forum thread can have more useful content and less of that 0 value blaa blaa blaa

Edit: added the missing 'i'
[/quote]


Any news on windows version?  I have no Windows so I can not help those poor souls

[simonk83]

Little bump for you

[EskimoBob]

1.04 crashes every time if: select address book> select address> edit> add name> OK > crash and burn
After restart, account has the added comment.
 

[Spacy]

1.04 crashes every time if: select address book> select address> edit> add name> OK > crash and burn
After restart, account has the added comment. 

One bug regarding the address book is already fixed in the code, so this should probably fine in the next release.

[Kolbas]

Does your client download those huge blocks very slow too? Can it be cured somehow?

[johnj]

Does your client download those huge blocks very slow too? Can it be cured somehow?

Nope.  Once you download them and close the client it'll go back to a more 'managable' size, but that first time downloading it is going to be multiple gb of space.

[ArtForz]

The slow processing? Can't be fixed for now (not unless you pull in some rather... experimental... bitcoin changes).
The txindex journal bloat? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491

[dserrano5]

Does your client download those huge blocks very slow too? Can it be cured somehow?

Oh, the *downloading* is as fast as everything else . It's the processing what takes its time. It's worth to keep a backup of blk*.dat!

[CoinHunter]

I've created a thread on the SolidCoin forum that you "open source" client people may want to vote "no" on .

http://solidcointalk.org/topic/186-do-you-want-realsolid-to-be-lead-developer/

[makomk]

The slow processing? Can't be fixed for now (not unless you pull in some rather... experimental... bitcoin changes).
The txindex journal bloat? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491

Yep. I'd do a build with that for Windows and Linux using my new-found gitian powers, but RealSolid monkeyed around with the build process a lot and it looks like fixing gitian support again would be quite hard.

[dayfall]

I've created a thread on the SolidCoin forum that you "open source" client people may want to vote "no" on .

Why not put the poll here?

[EskimoBob]

I've created a thread on the SolidCoin forum that you "open source" client people may want to vote "no" on .

Why not put the poll here?

Let's have this poll in a neutral site: Please vote here: Do you want RealSolid to be lead developer

Have fun and don't be a cheating asshole! Vote only once. Ego's depend on it!

[EskimoBob]

This fork uses SolidCoin 1.03 and fixes all the recent problems in the code
Here's Soldcoin (SLC) 1.04:
https://github.com/jackjack-jj/soldcoin

JackJack, can you use this fix for solidcoin?

The timetraveller eviction fix can be trivially copypasted from Geist Geld git.

[penix]

I suggest "Solidcoin v3.0" as the name for the project.

Is this project continuing, or is it dead in the water?

[Bitcoin Oz]

I opened an old solidcoin client te other day. After 1 month it still hasnt downloaded the block chain. Fail.

[m3ta]

I opened an old solidcoin client te other day. After 1 month it still hasnt downloaded the block chain. Fail.

Not having a functioning client won't effect your profitabilty with Solidcoin in the slightest! 

~BCX~

Elementary school bit you hard.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

[Bitcoin Oz]

I opened an old solidcoin client te other day. After 1 month it still hasnt downloaded the block chain. Fail.

Not having a functioning client won't effect your profitabilty with Solidcoin in the slightest! 

~BCX~

I think the reason theres no Mac client is because you work there lol.







Elementary school bit you hard.

http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

LOL, the desperation of the Solidcoin sockies is amusing at best. FYI English isn't my primary language moron. 哈 哈 

[Tomatocage]

So is there any further development being done with this?  I liked the original SolidCoin and wouldn't mind seeing it stage a comeback.