SolidCoin v2.0 Public Beta

[bulanula]

I find it extremely disturbing how people jump in to mine without having the source or even knowing the generation algorithm. It's like an early adopter mental disorder or something.

Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it.

You can learn a lot more far more quickly about how secure / full of trojans / likely to open up backdoors a program is by running it in a Virtual Machine and inspecting what it does while running.

But of course you know this. These accusations are simply FUD, anyone with half a brain can see that.

He has found a new way of trolling SC2. He just scared that his crapixtenescam is going to end before he gets the chance to dump 7.7 mils of scamcoins. Just wait and see which one wins SC2 or tenecrapixfailbrix.

[1714008446]

1714008446

[1714008446]

1714008446

[Lolcust]

bulanula, Ten wasn't even responding to me

Or is John me now, too

Like I said, I am quite sure that nothing foul is going on, but that makes concealment of sources even more pointless and perplexing...

[Ten98]

bulanula, Ten wasn't even responding to me

Or is John me now, too

Like I said, I am quite sure that nothing foul is going on, but that makes concealment of sources even more pointless and perplexing...

I think you already know the reason for witholding the source prior to release, and I think we both know why you are the loudest voice demanding it.

[bulanula]

bulanula, Ten wasn't even responding to me

Or is John me now, too

Like I said, I am quite sure that nothing foul is going on, but that makes concealment of sources even more pointless and perplexing...

I think you already know the reason for witholding the source prior to release, and I think we both know why you are the loudest voice demanding it.

Care to share that with us !? I honestly don't know the reason.

[Lolcust]

I think you already know the reason for witholding the source prior to release, and I think we both know why you are the loudest voice demanding it.

To be honest - and I am being absolutely sincere  - I can not imagine a legitimate reason to conceal sources.

If the PoW algorithm is sound, if the system is secure, and no nefarious components are being present, then availability of sources can not in any way harm SC2 and in fact can only benefit it, since everyone will be able to be personally impressed by the...ahem...solidness of the code.

I don't doubt that code is sound, so I am extremely perplexed by the fact that it is being withheld.

[k9quaint]

I find it extremely disturbing how people jump in to mine without having the source or even knowing the generation algorithm. It's like an early adopter mental disorder or something.

Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it.

You can learn a lot more far more quickly about how secure / full of trojans / likely to open up backdoors a program is by running it in a Virtual Machine and inspecting what it does while running.

But of course you know this. These accusations are simply FUD, anyone with half a brain can see that.

He may not know what to look for, but I do. If I were to find something, I could post the filename, the line number, and why it is a problem. Then others can validate what I posted. Then you would have a measure of confidence that there was a problem. I couldn't prove the code to be secure, but I would have the opportunity to prove the code to be insecure (if any flaws exist). It is the difference between "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence". Security through obscurity mistakes one for the other.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't activate any trojans until after a cooling off period has expired. Gotta suck in the fish before you pull the net closed. 

[bulanula]

I find it extremely disturbing how people jump in to mine without having the source or even knowing the generation algorithm. It's like an early adopter mental disorder or something.

Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it.

You can learn a lot more far more quickly about how secure / full of trojans / likely to open up backdoors a program is by running it in a Virtual Machine and inspecting what it does while running.

But of course you know this. These accusations are simply FUD, anyone with half a brain can see that.

He may not know what to look for, but I do. If I were to find something, I could post the filename, the line number, and why it is a problem. Then others can validate what I posted. Then you would have a measure of confidence that there was a problem. I couldn't prove the code to be secure, but I would have the opportunity to prove the code to be insecure (if any flaws exist). It is the difference between "evidence of absence" and "absence of evidence". Security through obscurity mistakes one for the other.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't activate any trojans until after a cooling off period has expired. Gotta suck in the fish before you pull the net closed.  REAL SMART MAN !!!

[Ten98]

Reading the source is a terribly inefficient way of checking for backdoors. Unless you *really* know what to look for, you could read source code 100 times and never realise that there was a backdoor in it.

That's the weakest excuse I've ever heard of for not releasing source code. Also who said anything about backdoors? I'm more interested in checking the reward algorithm, number of pre-mined coins, the fix for the 51% attack and the 5% tax that goes directly to Coinhunter.

It's not an excuse for witholding the source, it's a defence against the argument "We need the source to check for trojanz!!" I accept that there could indeed theoretically be a secret ticking time bomb in there somewhere waiting to be activated, but I trust RealSolid enough to believe that there isn't. I accept that many people don't, won't or can't reach that level of trust, but then nobody is forcing those people to be part of SolidCoin, in fact we'd prefer it if you weren't.

In any case, surely if I were that clever and nefarious to plant some advanced, remotely activated, undetectable trojan like that in the client, I wouldn't be so stupid as to leave it in the source code? So how exactly would the source code help you there?

I'm sure the SolidCoin community is breathing a sigh of relief knowing that you're on their side and ready to validate the various improvements RealSolid has made, and I'm sure RS is flattered at your interest in his little project, but I do have to ask why you're so keen to validate the good work RS has done when you've made it so perfectly clear you dispise him?

[Lolcust]

Let's keep personal attitude toward RS at bay here.

The question of "why would a sane man who has produced benign, secure code for a free software product conceal the sources" is purely academic one.

[Ten98]

Let's keep personal attitude toward RS at bay here.

The question of "why would a sane man who has produced benign, secure code for a free software product conceal the sources" is purely academic one.

The quest for academic knowledge is truly a noble one, and it heartens me to see someone so inspired by it. I do hope you publish a paper containing your findings. I would be more than happy to peer review it. However, I still believe that you do already know the answer to this question, despite your claims of ignorance.

I have been wrong before though, and am prepared to entertain the possibility that you could indeed be so naive as to not realise the true reason for the secrecy. Perhaps, once the client is released into the world and SolidCoin 2 is flourishing, RealSolid may yet explain his reasoning to you.

[Lolcust]

However, I still believe that you do already know the answer to this question, despite your claims of ignorance.
 

A claim most peculiar.

I am not telepathic (so can't have any awareness of anyone's motives here beyond their written claims and third party evidence) and really do not see how (inherently unsustainable) ignorance of a beta version's internals could possibly benefit a project, assuming it is both technically sound and benign.

It is extremely odd.

[coblee]

What is it with CoinHunter that brings out the worst of people?

You see it's not CH/RS... he has posted all of a couple times out here but these tools swarm like white on rice.  All I can guess is that they are bored at the very least.

But what I'm seeing is that somehow CoinHunter causes people to go towards extreme ends. You either hate him or you love him, there's no in between. This is a trait of some natural born leaders. I have to give him credit for that. He does manage to get very loyal followers.

[FlipPro]

GREAT RELEASE COINHUNTER!

[Ten98]

I assume once the final client, the source code and RS' "white paper" (lol) on his encryption algo are released, everyone will be happy? Of course not, you're just looking for reasons to dislike / distrust SolidCoin because of the threat he poses to Bitcoin.

I don't care if you don't join the party though, just leaves more SolidCoins for me

[film2240]

I'm getting this error when solo mining:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

can someone upload the right settings file,or upload right settings for me to put into a file? Does solo mining use GPU or CPU?If CPU how long with 10MHash/s to get a block? And how many SC do I get per block?

Thank you

[sd]

I assume once the final client, the source code and RS' "white paper" (lol) on his encryption algo are released, everyone will be happy? Of course not, you're just looking for reasons to dislike / distrust SolidCoin because of the threat he poses to Bitcoin.

I don't care if you don't join the party though, just leaves more SolidCoins for me

You misunderstand. People don't mistrust SolidCoin because of the threat it poses to BitCoin; they mistrust it because they have no faith in the lead developer, and the design as we understand it is no longer true peer to peer but a form of indirect central control.

CoinHunter has a proven history of introducing fixes with unintended side effects because he doesn't fully appreciate why BitCoin is designed the way it is. He may even be a good programmer but he is a bad designer.

[Red]

Only thing I care about is seeing the inflation algorithm and if the claim that the chain is invulnerable to 51% attacks is true (probably bullshit).

Has any description of the algorithm for preventing 51% attacks been posted anywhere? I can't seem to find anything but the claim in their forum. Am I looking in the wrong place?

If anyone has seen even a cursory description of that mechanism please post a link. I'm not expressing skepticism. I'm just genuinely interested.

[Red]

"Source code dependent upon the trolls" sounds like an excuse that will be used for not releasing it ever.

Yes, very odd language. I'd be happy with a white paper explanation for starters at least.

Does that require trolling or not trolling?

[bulanula]

It requires no trolling 

[Red]

It requires no trolling 

OK, then.

If you wouldn't mind PMing me when either the white paper or code is released. I would greatly appreciate it!