[ANNOUNCE] New Solidcoin Client Fully Open-Source!

[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!

[1715681159]

1715681159

[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.