delete

[BitcoinEXpress]

delete

[smoothie]

@CoinHunter

As someone who was one of the very first people to mine SC and have had a lot of fun doing so I say the following as a SC supporter.

The license change you made will KILL Solid Coin a 100 times faster than anything a few idiots here in this forum could ever do. You are reacting EXACTLY the way they wanted you to and even better.

Without the Bitparking Exchange and Ruxum, especially Bitparking, Solid Coin is terminal.

The remaining three exchanges are pathetic. Mooncoin and Solidcoin24, are you serious???

Your version 1.04 makes some very good changes, but the world will never see it if you don't update your license agreement.

~BCX~

At this point, IMHO, I say it is too late to backpedal.

[joulesbeef]

I agree and i think time is running out to fix things.

jackjack is forking version 1.03
the price is going into terminal areas.

I think something must be done quickly or people will move on. if you wait days to address this, very few people will come back to solid coins. Especially with all the people losing money hands and fists now.

[BCEmporium]

MIT isn't viral, like GPL, so he can do it.
However it's like burying his own project, taken SLC isn't substantially different than BTC.

[fusebox]

Why not just switch to i0coin...

[MrMoon]

Care to explain why my exchange is pathetic? Feedback is appreciated as our project is open source and always looking to improve.

The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source. I believe the project should be open source (and if the community wishes to keep it around they will maintain it under open source) but it appears to me you have conflicting opinions.

[wolftaur]

Care to explain why my exchange is pathetic? Feedback is appreciated as our project is open source and always looking to improve.

The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source. I believe the project should be open source (and if the community wishes to keep it around they will maintain it under open source) but it appears to me you have conflicting opinions.

doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.

You can't compare CoinHunter's apparent support of closed-source to that. He took an open-source application, did almost no real work on it, relied on others' significant prior work, released it as open-source, and then changed it because of a personal dispute, taking the opportunity to attack Bitcoin in the "change" and the text file.

It was a major dickhead move. Add to that his complete unwillingness to listen to user input, his attitude problems, his clear lack of experience, and, frankly?

doublec went closed-source because it was a legitimate business decision.

CoinHunter made his derivative of someone else's work to try and attack the someone else because he's a crybaby.

[MrMoon]

doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.

I don't see anywhere in my post where  make the claim he did not have this right. So this appears to me to be a strawman argument.

You can't compare CoinHunter's apparent support of closed-source to that. He took an open-source application, did almost no real work on it, relied on others' significant prior work, released it as open-source, and then changed it because of a personal dispute, taking the opportunity to attack Bitcoin in the "change" and the text file.

I never made any claim to defend what happen, if anything I explicity said I believe the project should remain open source.

[BCEmporium]

Sorry BCEX, judging business by TLD is more pathetic than your claims... 

[greyhawk]

Sorry BCEX, judging business by TLD is more pathetic than your claims... 

RLY? So how much business would you do with a .tk or .kn domain?

[wolftaur]

doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.

I don't see anywhere in my post where  make the claim he did not have this right. So this appears to me to be a strawman argument.

Straw man argument? Nope.

You used as a point of argument that someone supported doublec's closed source application, and implied that meant their disapproval of the SolidCoin license change was disingenuous. Your exact words: "The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source."

You made a completely invalid "point" and I simply explained why it was invalid.

[MrMoon]

it is possible to like closed source and open source simultaneously LOL. Double C never represented his exchange as open source then closed it, Coinhunter/Realcoin certainly did.

I don't think I made the claim that you couldn't I just thought it just appeared to me that the logic didn't pan out. I could have misunderstood.  Not that I believe Realsolid did the right thing (I certainly support open source), it should be noted that under the MIT license he is capable of doing what he did legally, so if it is successful (which I personally believe it won't be) I don't see why it matters if you don't have a preference. Which appears to me to be your new claim, but I may be misunderstanding again.

and the answer to your original question, Try and use it sometime.

I do use it, even when I'm traveling and it appears to work without flaw for me. Do you have any substantial criticism that would actually help me improve the project? Because I would appreciate it.

Also, trying to run a serious financial site with a .in, are you serious???

MtGox.com, Bitparking.com, btc-e.com, ruxum.com, tradehill.com, paypal.com, libertyreserve.com.......See a pattern here?

Maybe it's just me but .in and anything financial is huge red flag.

Do you really think having a different tld then what is currently (and it won't be once the DNS servers open up every possible combination) makes my site any less secure? If this is your only real legitimate criticism I feel like I'm doing well.
 

You asked, I responded

That is what typically happens in civil discussions but I have this suspicion you are not interested in a civil discussion.

[BCEmporium]

No shit! You guys are like implying that someone with a .com domain is automatically "honest" or "trustworthy".

That's not even pathetic, that's overwhelming pathetic.
People just tend to look after .com if they're total newbies, the same noobs who when you ask their email address they will start: www.(...) - those folks seams to believe everything in the web starts with www. and ends with .com

You can do your business with whatever TLD, with .TK, unless paid, you'll have a hard time due the spam and pop-ups it will bring up, not because "tk is bad".

[wolftaur]

Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.

[BCEmporium]

Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.

Now those would be interesting TLD's; .con / . scam / .ponzi / .hyp...

[wolftaur]

Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.

Now those would be interesting TLD's; .con / . scam / .ponzi / .hyp...

We also need .troll as the companion to .me if you think about it.

[MrMoon]

You used as a point of argument that someone supported doublec's closed source application, and implied that meant their disapproval of the SolidCoin license change was disingenuous. Your exact words: "The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source."

You made a completely invalid "point" and I simply explained why it was invalid.

I really don't mean to be rude but I believe your comprehension of that statement is faulty. In your first post you seemed to interpret my statement as meaning as absolutely that I believe it was wrong for doublec to have his exchange closed, which is not what I said at all. So when you defended the statement that I didn't make by saying

"doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business."

You were in fact arguing a point I never made, which is by definition a strawman argument. I invite you to read this article on the subject if you are interested in the specifics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Now this most recent post seems to argue something completely different, and it still seems to fail to understand my statement. So please let me clarify: Clearly he believes that it possible for closed source software to be functional and successful. To me it reads that he shows no preference long as the software is good. Even though what realsolid is doing is clearly a bad move its not breaking any laws so long as he continues to maintain it I don't understand why someone with that position would care what the licensing of the software is.

Regardless I have no interest in being involved in this discussion unless it is either civil or at the very least results in substantial feedback which I can use to improve the open source project which work on.

[wolftaur]

Back on topic

SolidCoin's decision to close the license will kill and probably already has killed SC. Without Bitparking and Ruxum there are no exchanges worth trading on.

No way to trade, means no future.

Well, except as an internet currency with its own inherent value not tied to another currency.

Oh, wait. That's what Bitcoin is, and Bitcoin is actually open source, not "open source until the guy who first mined in what I copied pissed me off."

Yer right. No future!

[MrMoon]

As far as TLD's go, it's not a matter of actually being more secure or functional or whatever. Functionally they are all equal.

It is a matter of PERCEPTION

Seriously, if you see a .tk,.kn, .ru, .in or .lv I bet you are a little more leary about it on first glance more than a .com.

Why do you think Mtgox is mtgox.com and NOT mtgox.jp ?

Like it or not, this is a fact and denial doesn't change it.

Back on topic

SolidCoin's decision to close the license will kill and probably already has killed SC. Without Bitparking and Ruxum there are no exchanges worth trading on.

No way to trade, means no future.

That argument is extremely shallow. It is the equivalent to judging a site purely on the layout/style rather then the underlying code - it is in general a bad idea.

I do agree that this decision to move away from open source does threaten the future of solid coin. My site though is not tied to the success of SC, our primary currency has been bitcoin and will continue to be. However to be fair my exchange is now up to 85k volume for today so there is still a way to trade.

If you ever come up with some legitimate criticism of my exchange feel free to email me and I will try to resolve it as fast as possible.

[wolftaur]

However to be fair my exchange is now up to 85k volume for today so there is still a way to trade.

You're the only place where the people who realize that BitcoinExpress is right can go to SELL SELL SELL!

Your SC volume is really just an epitaph for CoinHunter's series of arrogance-fueled fuckups.