[ANNOUNCE] New Solidcoin Client Fully Open-Source!

[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?