Who is more arrogant? BitcoinEXpress or CoinHunter?

[Tomatocage]

With recent light being shed on BitcoinEXpress' true character, it's not unreasonable to draw some lines of similarity between him and CoinHunter.  Whole CoinHunter might be bull-headed, BitcoinEXpress is a piece of s**t thief, stealing not only revenue from some of the Namecoin exchange operators, but he plans on stealing from everybody who currently owns Namecoins.  And he claims to do it all in the name of "science" and to for the advancement of Bitcoin *cough*

Of course it doesn't take much to see through this thin veil of legitimacy and see what a complete douche tool he really is.  So that's what brings us to this poll here.  Who is more arrogant, BE or CH?

[1713904882]

1713904882

[1713904882]

1713904882

[1713904882]

1713904882

[caston]

Yeah if you want to do a double spend attack do it on a testnet. I think namecoin has a testnet.

[Bobnova]

That's a really tough call.

CoinHunter knows what is best for us.
BitcoinEXpress on the other hand is blatantly doing his best to screw people out of money and kill the only coin that has an actual use, and seems to think we should thank him for it.


I think CH wins the arrogance competition by a nose, but BEX wins the douche award by a landslide.

[ArtForz]

Coinhunter. Easily.
While BEX has quite an attitude from time to time, he appears to have the competence to back it up (took me a while to figure out why his improvement of my attack would work so damn well against NMC).
And IMO while CEXes move is a pretty dickish one, it's the only good way to simulate a attack on bitcoin (whole system, not only network).
Any other forkcoin would be pretty much SOL as they lack the size, devs and infrastructure to make for a good guinea pig. (e.g. saying "well, we'll just add a chain lockin" is easy, but so far no one actually tested how hard it'll be to get all major players on a large *coin to update).

[Cosbycoin]

Coinhunter. Easily.
While BEX has quite an attitude from time to time, he appears to have the competence to back it up (took me a while to figure out why his improvement of my attack would work so damn well against NMC).
And IMO while CEXes move is a pretty dickish one, it's the only good way to simulate a attack on bitcoin (whole system, not only network).
Any other forkcoin would be pretty much SOL as they lack the size, devs and infrastructure to make for a good guinea pig. (e.g. saying "well, we'll just add a chain lockin" is easy, but so far no one actually tested how hard it'll be to get all major players on a large *coin to update).

Competance is not only limited to being able to understand conceptual and pragmatic aspects of a block chain and the surrounding issues.

Competence also applies to morals as well. Simply saying that this attack on namecoin is for "research and information" to better bitcoin but then also him claiming its purpose is to see how much of a defense namecoin can amass is contradictory. Testing and attacking and destroying are all difference concepts.

So tell me this:

1. Why can't this test be used on i0coin or ixcoin instead?
2. Once you folks have rewritten history in the namecoin block chain who do you think will want to be a part of a block chain that has been dismantled and will likely be controlled by those who attacked it? (My answer is: No one.)

Those who mine namecoins or bought into namecoins who are going to have their holdings vanish due to this attack (if successful) will likely not participate in that network anymore thus rendering the network useless and leaving a bad taste in users' mouths.

Also why stop at rewriting the blockchain to block 10,000 and just rewrite it to block #2 instead? That way you can mine all of the namecoins and control every aspect of the namecoin network.

Why not just screw everyone and not just the later adopters?

I did also see that recently BitcoinEXpress posted a reply to Gavin's sticky note on this forum about how he thinks that Gavin warning people about alt-chains is in his (Gavin's) best interest and not others. Also if you follow BitcoinEXpress' postings he has advocated that he does not believe bitcoin or any other chain will succeed ultimately and thus could care less about the outcome of all cryptocurrencies currently.

This is also a contradiction because recently, as stated above, he has claimed this attack is for the benefit of bitcoin. That is bullshit.

This is the same guy who also claimed to have made 600BTC profit on ixcoins. This guy has claimed his intentions are purely for profit. He has never advocated that he wanted to better bitcoin or any alt-chain through testing, of which this "attack" is not a test but as he puts it "wanting to see how much of a defense namecoin supports can amass".

One thing I can appreciate is that he did make this public. Thank you for that BitcoinEXpress.

I'm sorry but rewriting over 9000 blocks as opposed to say 100 or 1000 or all 19000, is stupid.

He isn't doing this for the research part of it. Purely if you look at his recent postings this guy is arrogant.

What do any of us think he will likely do with the newly mined namecoins that are going to replace close to half of the currently existing namecoins? The answer is turn a profit.

What he is claiming will happen about centralizing the domain name registering process is the opposite of the whole purpose of the cryptocurrency movement which is DECENTRALIZATION which obviously he has no appreciation for given that he wants to control the network any which way he can.

EDIT: Also by your statement you are saying that it is okay to have an attitude if you have competence which is untrue. No one should have this type of attitude and be considered righteous in doing what he is about to do.

[kjlimo]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

[Cosbycoin]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

The funny thing about his attack is he gets to pick the terms under the attack are being done, which puts him outside of the community effort of this or any other project related to bitcoin. If this was a community based effort in testing the network he would have allowed input from the entire community (mainly namecoin supporter) and then go from there.

EDIT: Just because something can be done doesn't immediately make it right for anyone to do it. Example: His wife is giving birth to their first child. Someone in the hospital staff could say well we want to test a new elixir on the newly born child because it could be the cure for cancer for all of humanity and "it can be done so it should be done". Even if the hospital's motives are for profit there should be a way to protect against this...

Guess it the concept is flawed altogether now huh.

[CoinHunter]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

It's been known about since the start of Bitcoin, there are also test networks for such things. There is only one purpose for attacking "live" chains, and anyone defending them is pretty stupid in my opinion.

[kjlimo]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

The funny thing about his attack is he gets to pick the terms under the attack are being done, which puts him outside of the community effort of this or any other project related to bitcoin. If this was a community based effort in testing the network he would have allowed input from the entire community (mainly namecoin supporter) and then go from there.

I thought I saw a 10 day warning and him calling out people to respond.  Where are the people who should be responding?  Being one invested in alternate currencies, I recognize the risk associated with that.  This is just one of those risks.  

Keep in mind if he has 1 terre hash commited, then thats 1 terre hash less that will be mining bitcoins, so enjoy the lower difficulty for regular bitcoins!

[Cosbycoin]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

It's been known about since the start of Bitcoin, there are also test networks for such things. There is only one purpose for attacking "live" chains, and anyone defending them is pretty stupid in my opinion.

+1 Probably one of the few postings I agree with coinhunter on. But he is right there is only one reason and that is power/control/profit. Anyone who defends someone with such motives and actions is stupid in my opinion as well.

[kjlimo]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

The funny thing about his attack is he gets to pick the terms under the attack are being done, which puts him outside of the community effort of this or any other project related to bitcoin. If this was a community based effort in testing the network he would have allowed input from the entire community (mainly namecoin supporter) and then go from there.

EDIT: Just because something can be done doesn't immediately make it right for anyone to do it. Example: His wife is giving birth to their first child. Someone in the hospital staff could say well we want to test a new elixir on the newly born child because it could be the cure for cancer for all of humanity and "it can be done so it should be done". Even if the hospital's motives are for profit there should be a way to protect against this...

Guess it the concept is flawed altogether now huh.

Alright, I agree that just because something can be done, it doesn't necessarily have to be done.  That's why we have laws and such.  But this is an unregulated decentralized process.  And it needs to be tested if it's gonna survive the long run.  Otherwise, some bigger fish is gonna come along and do the same thing, but be even more evil about it.

Therefore, I will revise my statement that in an unregulated world, anything that can be done will be done.  So it's better for us to experience it sooner rather than later so that we can fix it sooner rather than later.... 

Hopefully, that's better?  It's not great, but I believe my intentions are for the greater good (irrespective of whether his are), heh.

[ArtForz]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

It's been known about since the start of Bitcoin, there are also test networks for such things. There is only one purpose for attacking "live" chains, and anyone defending them is pretty stupid in my opinion.

"51% Attacker can lower difficulty without driving up nTime due to flaw in retargeting algorithm" has been known since the start of Bitcoin? Got any proof of that?

[ElectricMucus]

I see this as sort of a popularity contest or a test for the statement "In a democracy if 51% decide to kill the other 49% it will happen".

..... the interesting thing is there might even be a reason for people to hate namecoin, being to get rid of it before the merged mining start.... a view of the hardcore fanatics or self-appointed defenders of the status quo.

very interesting dynamics to say it in the words of a SA member:

gold, comedy gold.  

[kjlimo]

My point is that we can't depend on good morals supporting the system, we need to rely on the system.  If it has weaknesses, we need to figure out solutions rather than just complaining about the weaknesses.  

If that takes someone "attacking" to build the next cryptocurrency that protects against it, then unfortunately that's natural selection...

Another way to look at it is that all of the alternate cryptocurrencies are test grounds.  Bitcoin's the only "true" cryptocurrency, for now... until someone builds a better one (that can withstand attacks).  If the attacks protect bitcoin, then I guess bitcoin figured out something that keeps it safe (being first and bigger).

As long as this is the only weakness of a newer cooler cryptocurrency, then we could all "agree" by switching to the better/cooler cryptocurrency.  Otherwise bitcoin will continue to "win."

[Cosbycoin]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

The funny thing about his attack is he gets to pick the terms under the attack are being done, which puts him outside of the community effort of this or any other project related to bitcoin. If this was a community based effort in testing the network he would have allowed input from the entire community (mainly namecoin supporter) and then go from there.

EDIT: Just because something can be done doesn't immediately make it right for anyone to do it. Example: His wife is giving birth to their first child. Someone in the hospital staff could say well we want to test a new elixir on the newly born child because it could be the cure for cancer for all of humanity and "it can be done so it should be done". Even if the hospital's motives are for profit there should be a way to protect against this...

Guess it the concept is flawed altogether now huh.

Alright, I agree that just because something can be done, it doesn't necessarily have to be done.  That's why we have laws and such.  But this is an unregulated decentralized process.  And it needs to be tested if it's gonna survive the long run.  Otherwise, some bigger fish is gonna come along and do the same thing, but be even more evil about it.

Therefore, I will revise my statement that in an unregulated world, anything that can be done will be done.  So it's better for us to experience it sooner rather than later so that we can fix it sooner rather than later.... 

Hopefully, that's better?  It's not great, but I believe my intentions are for the greater good (irrespective of whether his are), heh.

The funny thing is that in about 250 block namecoin will be using merged mining. Now if there was no solution to the difficulty or security of the network then yes your comment above is correct. So how do you justify his timing of wanting to attack the network? The guy initially thought that merged mining would occur at block 25,000. So much for his competence on being up and up on the current status of the namecoin network huh.

[kjlimo]

To be fair, if it can be done, it should be done, so that we can figure out a way to fix/ protect against it.  Even if he's out there for profit, there should be a way to protect against this....

If not, then I guess we lose... time to go back to playing progressquest instead of bitcoin quest...

Better to have one of our own attack us (and tell us about it), rather than some random and have us all very confused.

The funny thing about his attack is he gets to pick the terms under the attack are being done, which puts him outside of the community effort of this or any other project related to bitcoin. If this was a community based effort in testing the network he would have allowed input from the entire community (mainly namecoin supporter) and then go from there.

EDIT: Just because something can be done doesn't immediately make it right for anyone to do it. Example: His wife is giving birth to their first child. Someone in the hospital staff could say well we want to test a new elixir on the newly born child because it could be the cure for cancer for all of humanity and "it can be done so it should be done". Even if the hospital's motives are for profit there should be a way to protect against this...

Guess it the concept is flawed altogether now huh.

Alright, I agree that just because something can be done, it doesn't necessarily have to be done.  That's why we have laws and such.  But this is an unregulated decentralized process.  And it needs to be tested if it's gonna survive the long run.  Otherwise, some bigger fish is gonna come along and do the same thing, but be even more evil about it.

Therefore, I will revise my statement that in an unregulated world, anything that can be done will be done.  So it's better for us to experience it sooner rather than later so that we can fix it sooner rather than later.... 

Hopefully, that's better?  It's not great, but I believe my intentions are for the greater good (irrespective of whether his are), heh.

The funny thing is that in about 250 block namecoin will be using merged mining. Now if there was no solution to the difficulty or security of the network then yes your comment above is correct. So how do you justify his timing of wanting to attack the network? The guy initially thought that merged mining would occur at block 25,000. So much for his competence on being up and up on the current status of the namecoin network huh.

Very sorry, I'm not up on the facts either.  I haven't read up on merged mining yet.  At least nothing that completely explained it to me yet.

Agreed, timing could be crucial to this end and one more exception to my statement.

So do you expect merged mining to bring back namecoins?

[Cosbycoin]

My point is that we can't depend on good morals supporting the system, we need to rely on the system.  If it has weaknesses, we need to figure out solutions rather than just complaining about the weaknesses.  

If that takes someone "attacking" to build the next cryptocurrency that protects against it, then unfortunately that's natural selection...

Another way to look at it is that all of the alternate cryptocurrencies are test grounds.  Bitcoin's the only "true" cryptocurrency, for now... until someone builds a better one (that can withstand attacks).  If the attacks protect bitcoin, then I guess bitcoin figured out something that keeps it safe (being first and bigger).

As long as this is the only weakness of a newer cooler cryptocurrency, then we could all "agree" by switching to the better/cooler cryptocurrency.  Otherwise bitcoin will continue to "win."

Once again there is a solution in the immediate future of namecoin. As I asked, how is this attack justified given the merged mining concept is complete but not currently in action because of the block number chosen by the namecoin community?

Funny how he conveniently chooses to attack namecoin right before the solution that has been implemented is to take place huh. Sounds like he isn't here to save us from an outsider who will attack the network but is in it for the control/power/profit part of it plain and simple.

[Cosbycoin]

Very sorry, I'm not up on the facts either.  I haven't read up on merged mining yet.  At least nothing that completely explained it to me yet.

Agreed, timing could be crucial to this end and one more exception to my statement.

So do you expect merged mining to bring back namecoins?
[/quote]

It will solve the security problem in terms of the amount of terahashes pointed at it.

[kjlimo]

My point is that we can't depend on good morals supporting the system, we need to rely on the system.  If it has weaknesses, we need to figure out solutions rather than just complaining about the weaknesses.  

If that takes someone "attacking" to build the next cryptocurrency that protects against it, then unfortunately that's natural selection...

Another way to look at it is that all of the alternate cryptocurrencies are test grounds.  Bitcoin's the only "true" cryptocurrency, for now... until someone builds a better one (that can withstand attacks).  If the attacks protect bitcoin, then I guess bitcoin figured out something that keeps it safe (being first and bigger).

As long as this is the only weakness of a newer cooler cryptocurrency, then we could all "agree" by switching to the better/cooler cryptocurrency.  Otherwise bitcoin will continue to "win."

Once again there is a solution in the immediate future of namecoin. As I asked, how is this attack justified given the merged mining concept is complete but not currently in action because of the block number chosen by the namecoin community?

Funny how he conveniently chooses to attack namecoin right before the solution that has been implemented is to take place huh. Sounds like he isn't here to save us from an outsider who will attack the network but is in it for the control/power/profit part of it plain and simple.

Yep (see previous response).  I agree now that he's a douche, cuz I'm sure he's aware of this merged mining thing.  

By the way, how's that gonna save namecoin?  And if it was gonna save namecoin, why did they pick a block in the future?  Did it need to coinicide with some difficulty change or something from a programing perspective?

[Cosbycoin]

My point is that we can't depend on good morals supporting the system, we need to rely on the system.  If it has weaknesses, we need to figure out solutions rather than just complaining about the weaknesses.  

If that takes someone "attacking" to build the next cryptocurrency that protects against it, then unfortunately that's natural selection...

Another way to look at it is that all of the alternate cryptocurrencies are test grounds.  Bitcoin's the only "true" cryptocurrency, for now... until someone builds a better one (that can withstand attacks).  If the attacks protect bitcoin, then I guess bitcoin figured out something that keeps it safe (being first and bigger).

As long as this is the only weakness of a newer cooler cryptocurrency, then we could all "agree" by switching to the better/cooler cryptocurrency.  Otherwise bitcoin will continue to "win."

Once again there is a solution in the immediate future of namecoin. As I asked, how is this attack justified given the merged mining concept is complete but not currently in action because of the block number chosen by the namecoin community?

Funny how he conveniently chooses to attack namecoin right before the solution that has been implemented is to take place huh. Sounds like he isn't here to save us from an outsider who will attack the network but is in it for the control/power/profit part of it plain and simple.

Yep (see previous response).  I agree now that he's a douche, cuz I'm sure he's aware of this merged mining thing.  

By the way, how's that gonna save namecoin?  And if it was gonna save namecoin, why did they pick a block in the future?  Did it need to coinicide with some difficulty change or something from a programing perspective?

1. it needed to be tested on solo miners and a pool.
2. All namecoin miners needed to be aware of the update giving them ample time to get the udpate prior to the release of merged mining.
3. Rushing things allows for mistakes as has been seen on the solidcoin network which Coinhunter has provided quick updates to. We all seen what happened to the quick development and not enough testing prior to launch/update.

These three reasons are ample enough to debunk the claim that developers of namecoin are taking too long and are a "prime network for such an attack".