Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 07:57:50 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: SolidCoin 2 Release - Monday 10th October 23:35 UTC  (Read 19697 times)
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 06:51:17 PM
 #201

Yeah damn shame about that being back over $3 today ... ... ... ...

And you are proud of BTC for reaching $3 again?  Undecided
1481270270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270270
Reply with quote  #2

1481270270
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481270270
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270270

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270270
Reply with quote  #2

1481270270
Report to moderator
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 08:44:05 PM
 #202

@Spacy,

Why don't you just login as Coinhunter, it's impossible to hide the asshole you really are. Nobody's fooled any longer.

Yes I too am glad to see Bitcoin on an upswing.

 Kiss
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:42:57 PM
 #203

The only exchange rate that actually measures "readiness for the Bitcoin collapse" is SC2/BTC, not USD/BTC. If the Bitcoin collapse is because of an inherent problem with cryptocurrency, SC will fold too. If it's because of Bitcoin's decentralization, then the SC2/BTC exchange rate will go up.

There's no point in going back and fourth saying "look at the exchange NOW, bitches!" every time it goes one way or the other.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 23, 2011, 09:54:56 PM
 #204

The only exchange rate that actually measures "readiness for the Bitcoin collapse" is SC2/BTC, not USD/BTC. If the Bitcoin collapse is because of an inherent problem with cryptocurrency, SC will fold too. If it's because of Bitcoin's decentralization, then the SC2/BTC exchange rate will go up.

There's no point in going back and fourth saying "look at the exchange NOW, bitches!" every time it goes one way or the other.

Nicely put.

SolidCoin isn't better than Bitcoin because it is going up in value faster than Bitcoin did, or because thousands of people mined it from the start instead of a handful, or even because it's gaining hashrate and users while Bitcoin is losing them.

These are all things that people like to fixate on but they aren't the real reasons why it's better.

It's better because of the approach that RealSolid is taking with the development. Adding new features that are actually useful, doing proper testing before releases, making plans to promote SolidCoin in the future, and so on.

A lot of people don't like him, I guess because he says bad things about Bitcoin and I guess because he always thinks he knows best? But I think he's a real cool guy who really seems to know what he's doing.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 23, 2011, 10:02:50 PM
 #205

It's better because of the approach that RealSolid is taking with the development.

Secretive closed source is a better approach than open source? What?

Can you show me something similar to this for SolidCoin?

Adding new features that are actually useful, doing proper testing before releases

Features like...?

Proper testing, like...? How do you know that this is occurring? The entire development process is cloaked in secrecy. Also, proper testing doesn't lead to bugs which are fixed, then unfixed, then fixed again (hash rate reporting).

A lot of people don't like him, I guess because he says bad things about Bitcoin and I guess because he always thinks he knows best? But I think he's a real cool guy who really seems to know what he's doing.

Please answer this question. Are you one of the few who were given 1.2 million SC and run a trusted node?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 11:34:58 PM
 #206

SolidCoin isn't better than Bitcoin because it is going up in value faster than Bitcoin did, or because thousands of people mined it from the start instead of a handful, or even because it's gaining hashrate and users while Bitcoin is losing them.

SC isn't going up in value.
SC wasn't mined by thousands of people.  A single botnet made up ~50% of hashing power and total network is <300 CPU.
SC isn't gaining hashing power its hashing power is declining.

So pretty much nothing you said was factual.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 08:24:24 AM
 #207


The only reason you say he is so cool was because you were rewarded for being an ass kisser with GPU mining from the get go as well as being a trusted node for a while. No one believes that GPU mining suddenly appeared three days ago especially when there is a version out there with times stamps all through the code for late September and the first week of October.

Coinhunter and his selected few GPU mined to ensure that a large portion of the SC remained in the hands of SC groupies.

Nice try though.

Completely untrue, but then most of what you say turns out to be completely untrue so I trust that the other people reading this thread (those that aren't your multiple personalities anyway) won't believe any of that.

I can't prove that I didn't get a GPU mining client before anyone else (very hard to prove something that didn't happen), but some file you fabricated and stuck on Rapidshare is hardly proof of anything now is it? So it's my word against yours, and your track record for truth-telling isn't exactly stellar.

I will say this though, I sold the one single powerful GPU I bought for Bitcoin mining some time ago when the price crashed down from $8 to under $5 within the space of a couple of weeks. It had the stench of death about it so I sold up all my coins and got out. This was long before the SolidCoin chain re-opened. So, even if I did have this non-existant early GPU miner you're on about I would not have been able to do anything with it.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 08:47:41 AM
 #208


1. Secretive closed source is a better approach than open source? What?

2. Can you show me something similar to this for SolidCoin?

3. Features like...?

4. Proper testing, like...? How do you know that this is occurring? The entire development process is cloaked in secrecy. Also, proper testing doesn't lead to bugs which are fixed, then unfixed, then fixed again (hash rate reporting).

5. Please answer this question. Are you one of the few who were given 1.2 million SC and run a trusted node?


I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to, hope you don't mind Smiley

1. In this instance, yes. The initial release was closed source for many good reasons. Open source is coming very soon, watch this space!

2. Nope. But when the source comes out you can run a comparison with the Bitcoin code to see the incredible amount of work that RS has put in so far into making SolidCoin "Best in Class" for CrpytoCurrency!

3. Features like multi-wallet, 51% protection, integrated miner in the client, faster confirmations and so much more!

4. Proper testing as in Private beta followed by public beta followed by a full public release which happened at a scheduled, pre-announced time. You obviously haven't spent much time developing software or IT projects, no matter how much testing you do there are always defects in the live code, especially the first release. Good testing just tries to ensure that none of them are "show stoppers"

5. No, absolutely not. And just to clarify, the people who do have the trusted nodes were not given 1.2 million SC, they were given 1.2 million dead token coins which cannot ever be spent on the network. You will be able to verify this later when the source makes its grand debut appearance Cheesy
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 10:14:53 AM
 #209


1. Secretive closed source is a better approach than open source? What?

2. Can you show me something similar to this for SolidCoin?

3. Features like...?

4. Proper testing, like...? How do you know that this is occurring? The entire development process is cloaked in secrecy. Also, proper testing doesn't lead to bugs which are fixed, then unfixed, then fixed again (hash rate reporting).

5. Please answer this question. Are you one of the few who were given 1.2 million SC and run a trusted node?


I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to, hope you don't mind Smiley

1. In this instance, yes. The initial release was closed source for many good reasons. Open source is coming very soon, watch this space!

2. Nope. But when the source comes out you can run a comparison with the Bitcoin code to see the incredible amount of work that RS has put in so far into making SolidCoin "Best in Class" for CrpytoCurrency!

3. Features like multi-wallet, 51% protection, integrated miner in the client, faster confirmations and so much more!

4. Proper testing as in Private beta followed by public beta followed by a full public release which happened at a scheduled, pre-announced time. You obviously haven't spent much time developing software or IT projects, no matter how much testing you do there are always defects in the live code, especially the first release. Good testing just tries to ensure that none of them are "show stoppers"

5. No, absolutely not. And just to clarify, the people who do have the trusted nodes were not given 1.2 million SC, they were given 1.2 million dead token coins which cannot ever be spent on the network. You will be able to verify this later when the source makes its grand debut appearance Cheesy


1. Closed source - there are no good reasons in this situation. In the real world there are only business IP protection reasons (which aren't really well hidden by closed source anyway ... e.g. DVD keys, BluRay code and BluRay keys)

2. Yeah we keep hearing this over and over again and time keeps passing without it happening.
Either he's a shit programmer or he's stuck spending ages trying to hide the crap he put in there before.
I'm gonna love it if someone runs the new code with an empty block chain and finds it can't download it from the start Cheesy

3. The 51% protection we already know about and is a scam.
Bitcoin had integrated miner in the client long ago but they removed it.
Faster confirmations? Oh that old idea?

4. So if this is nothing new for him, why did he totally f*ck it up with SC1.0 Everyone keeps ignore the fact that he's screwed up the previous version yet supposedly he has this long history of great software development ... what happened last time? Still haven't heard an answer to that one.

5. Absolute bullshit. Either they are zero, they can already be used, or they can be used by simply changing the code.
There is NO reason to generate a fake number of coins that can never be used coz that is NO different to generating none and would represent a mind numbingly stupid programming decision to create a large number of coins that can never be used since that would mean they represent absolutely nothing so they should be zero. That is seriously another decision that either shows he has no logical skill or the coins can be used or will be usable in the future.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 11:33:54 AM
 #210


1. Closed source - there are no good reasons in this situation. In the real world there are only business IP protection reasons (which aren't really well hidden by closed source anyway ... e.g. DVD keys, BluRay code and BluRay keys)

2. Yeah we keep hearing this over and over again and time keeps passing without it happening.
Either he's a shit programmer or he's stuck spending ages trying to hide the crap he put in there before.
I'm gonna love it if someone runs the new code with an empty block chain and finds it can't download it from the start Cheesy

3. The 51% protection we already know about and is a scam.
Bitcoin had integrated miner in the client long ago but they removed it.
Faster confirmations? Oh that old idea?

4. So if this is nothing new for him, why did he totally f*ck it up with SC1.0 Everyone keeps ignore the fact that he's screwed up the previous version yet supposedly he has this long history of great software development ... what happened last time? Still haven't heard an answer to that one.

5. Absolute bullshit. Either they are zero, they can already be used, or they can be used by simply changing the code.
There is NO reason to generate a fake number of coins that can never be used coz that is NO different to generating none and would represent a mind numbingly stupid programming decision to create a large number of coins that can never be used since that would mean they represent absolutely nothing so they should be zero. That is seriously another decision that either shows he has no logical skill or the coins can be used or will be usable in the future.

1+2. Boring. This has been hashed out again and again. The source will be open soon and then we can finally stop talking about this. (yeah right  Wink)

3. I'm glad you know about the 51% protection, it's one of the most important features of SolidCoin and something that no other coin has. I'm pleased you're paying such close attention to our little project Wink But a scam? Care to back up that opinion with any evidence? Who is being scammed exactly?

Bitcoin had an integrated miner back in the CPU mining days, but it was removed when GPU mining came along and made CPU mining irrelevant, which was never Satoshi's plan, he never wanted coins to be exclusively mined by a select few with expensive GPU hardware. Solidcoin addresses this issue with aplomb.

Yes the "old idea" of faster confirmations has been taken into the next generation with SolidCoin, 6 confirms can take as little as 3 minutes. Nobody can claim to have invented the idea that faster = better, but everyone agrees that sending Bitcoins to someone and then having to wait 2-3 hours in some cases for the standard 6 confirms is much, much too slow.

4. Everyone makes mistakes my friend, even our dear leader. The reason SolidCoin 1.04 was discontinued has been discussed many times on these forums but I'll summarise the key events for you nonetheless:

- Solidcoin starts to gain significant traction, Bitcoin holders get VERY worried.
- RS starts issuing bounties for supporters to spread an article via social media about SolidCoin being "Ready for the Bitcoin Collapse", Bitcoin Holders get real mad.
- Artforz / BTCEX / some other trolls start to spam the chain with thousands of tiny transactions, effectively shutting down the chain with massive blocks
- RS codes and releases a hasty patch in a few hours which fixes the issue (1.03), but in doing so prevents large withdrawals from the exchanges
- RS codes and releases another patch which fixes the withdrawal issue (1.04)
- Solidcoin 1 back up and running and perfectly stable, but there is a chunk of very large blocks in the blockchain which bloats the database and slows down initial chain downloads, not ideal.
- BTCEX demonstrates a Bitcoin timewarp hack on GeistGeld and rewrites a portion of the GeistGeld blockchain.
- BTXEX issues a direct threat against SolidCoin, effectively stating that he will use this and other exploits present in Bitcoin to take down Solidcoin. At this time, Solidcoin 1.04 still has most of the Bitcoin code intact, so these threats were very credible.
- RS issues an request to exchanges, pools and users of SolidCoin to stop making any transactions after a certain block, as the chain is being shut down to prevent any damage from these attacks, and will be back soon with better attack protection, hopefully within 2 weeks.
- The vast majority of the users, pools and exchanges voluntarily comply and the chain is effectively "Stopped", while 2.0 is developed.
- 4 weeks later the world's most secure CryptoCurrency, Solidcoin 2.0, is launched.

5. OK I have to concede this one to you. The trusted node token coins could theoretically be used on the network by changing the code in more than half of the clients and more than half of the trusted nodes, yes. I guess how much you believe in SolidCoin depends on how likely / possible you think that scenario is. Personally, I would say it's theoretically possible but highly improbable.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 12:55:34 PM
 #211

I've numbered your points to make them easier to respond to, hope you don't mind Smiley

1. In this instance, yes. The initial release was closed source for many good reasons.

2. Nope. But when the source comes out you can run a comparison with the Bitcoin code to see the incredible amount of work that RS has put in so far into making SolidCoin "Best in Class" for CrpytoCurrency!

3. Features like multi-wallet, 51% protection, integrated miner in the client, faster confirmations and so much more!

4. Proper testing as in Private beta followed by public beta followed by a full public release which happened at a scheduled, pre-announced time. You obviously haven't spent much time developing software or IT projects, no matter how much testing you do there are always defects in the live code, especially the first release. Good testing just tries to ensure that none of them are "show stoppers"

5. No, absolutely not. And just to clarify, the people who do have the trusted nodes were not given 1.2 million SC, they were given 1.2 million dead token coins which cannot ever be spent on the network. You will be able to verify this later when the source makes its grand debut appearance Cheesy


1. Reasons like...?

2. "Best in Class" only because it is not in the same class as Bitcoin, as it is not a decentralized no-trust-necessary network.

3. Multi wallet: lol. It takes an amazing programmer to swap out berkley DB files by combo box selection... 51% protection comes at the cost of decentralization, faster confirmations is not a feature as the amount of computing power (and thus security) represented by it is smaller. I'll give you that the miner integration into the client is nice, but after playing with it, it seems very cluttered and bolted on after the fact.

4. Ah, assumptions, you know what they say, right? I actually develop software for a living, and while I understand bugs happen, the hash rate reporting "bugs" were far too convenient and do not seem like a coincidence.

5. They are not dead tokens, because a number of them every block are transferred to CoinHunter's "fund". Anyway, if they are dead, then how does that create an incentive for the controllers of the wallets to protect the network? His theory for trust is that those with a large amount of wealth can be trusted... if it's not real wealth, from where does that trust come?
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 01:55:26 PM
 #212


1. -Snip-

2. "Best in Class" only because it is not in the same class as Bitcoin, as it is not a decentralized no-trust-necessary network.

3. Multi wallet: lol. It takes an amazing programmer to swap out berkley DB files by combo box selection... 51% protection comes at the cost of decentralization, faster confirmations is not a feature as the amount of computing power (and thus security) represented by it is smaller. I'll give you that the miner integration into the client is nice, but after playing with it, it seems very cluttered and bolted on after the fact.

4. Ah, assumptions, you know what they say, right? I actually develop software for a living, and while I understand bugs happen, the hash rate reporting "bugs" were far too convenient and do not seem like a coincidence.

5. They are not dead tokens, because a number of them every block are transferred to CoinHunter's "fund". Anyway, if they are dead, then how does that create an incentive for the controllers of the wallets to protect the network? His theory for trust is that those with a large amount of wealth can be trusted... if it's not real wealth, from where does that trust come?

1. I answered 1 in a previous reply.

2. Haha! Nice retort. Yes, a "no-trust-necessary" network is a nice ideal. However, you still have to trust Deepbit not to perform a 51% attack, trust Mt. Gox not to run away with your dollars, trust any retailers (if any existed) not to run away with your Bitcoin and trust your pool not to keep back some mined coins or merged mine without telling you. There is a lot of trust required to live and operate in the real world, even with Bitcoin, that's life I'm afraid... There is a slightly larger amount of trust required in SolidCoin, you're right, and it does differ from Bitcoin in that respect. Is that inherently a bad thing? I don't think so, you may disagree but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

If you want and need a "no-trust-neccessary" network: You already have one, it's called Bitcoin. Go use it to buy shit with, god knows nobody else is...

3. Sorry, but I don't recall saying that all of the new features brought by SolidCoin 2.0 were "amazing" or required an "amazing" programmer. Some of the smaller improvements like Multi-Wallet could and should have been introduced to the mainline Bitcoin client long ago as even a noob developer like Gavin should have been able to manage them. The fact is Bitcoin development is stagnant so you don't see any new features, "amazing" or otherwise.

I'm sorry to hear you don't like the GUI layout for the integrated miner, but do bear in mind that it was one improvement of many that were all developed in the space of 4 weeks. Now that the chain is up and running again RS is not under quite so much pressure to develop at incredible speed, so non-essential things like the GUI look and feel can be focussed on.

On a positive note, the development team is planning for Solidcoin to have a much improved integrated miner in a future version which will include hybrid GPU & CPU Mining all within the client! Pretty exciting stuff I think you'll agree and another world first Cheesy

4. Ok, well you kind of just have to trust me on this one, it was an error. I'm really not sure what the project would have to gain by everyone thinking they had a lower hashrate than they really did? Certainly this was an embarrassing oversight for a coder of RealSolid's high caliber. You seem have a problem with the word and the concept of trust, so I doubt there's anything I can really say to make you believe that this wasn't a massive conspiracy to erm... trick people somehow?  Huh

5. Sometimes people.. you know... talk to one another, share ideas and feelings and genuinely make a connection with one another. I know you'd rather live in a world where that didn't happen but we are in fact humans, not robots. RealSolid has chosen a few core supporters that he believes to be loyal to the project and given the trusted nodes to them. They have earned the trust of the project leader. So far it has been working perfectly.

Eventually, the fake coin trusted nodes will be replaced by genuine SolidCoin Millionaires. Will someone with a million real SolidCoins in a wallet wish to use their position as a Trusted Node to destroy the chain and make their million coins worth less (or indeed worthless)? Well we don't know that for sure, but we're banking on a universal human constant holding true here: Greed.

Greed is why the hackers restrict their attacks to alt chains. They own a lot of Bitcoins so, although they easily could, they don't attack Bitcoin directly and devalue their own asset (although they do stupidly attack the pools as "punishment" for adopting merged mining which is indirectly attacking Bitcoin itself Roll Eyes).

Someone with a large asset will typically do everything reasonable to protect it, and we expect that someone with that many coins will naturally want to run a trusted node to keep the network fast and secure and protect the value of their own coins, even though it is of no benefit to them directly.
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:14:43 PM
 #213


but we're banking on a universal human constant holding true here: Greed.


This is the same reason SC 2.0 will never go anywhere. We're banking on a universal human constant holding true here: Greed. No one with 13m premined coins will just 'throw them away' if sc 2.0 goes -anywhere-.

Checkmate '98 Wink  Thanks for making that so easy to communicate, now that you're on board as well.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:15:26 PM
 #214

1. I answered 1 in a previous reply.

Care to link it? I've not seen any "good reasons".

2. Haha! Nice retort. Yes, a "no-trust-necessary" network is a nice ideal. However, you still have to trust Deepbit not to perform a 51% attack, trust Mt. Gox not to run away with your dollars, trust any retailers (if any existed) not to run away with your Bitcoin and trust your pool not to keep back some mined coins or merged mine without telling you. There is a lot of trust required to live and operate in the real world, even with Bitcoin, that's life I'm afraid... There is a slightly larger amount of trust required in SolidCoin, you're right, and it does differ from Bitcoin in that respect. Is that inherently a bad thing? I don't think so, you may disagree but everyone's entitled to an opinion.

None of the things you mentioned are integral to the Bitcoin network. I don't have to use exchanges, mining pools will be abandoned if they harm the network (or people will switch to a p2p pool), and I can use escrow or purchase things face to face. I cannot do anything about having to trust CoinHunter's friends which are an integral part of the network.

If you want and need a "no-trust-neccessary" network: You already have one, it's called Bitcoin. Go use it to buy shit with, god knows nobody else is...

FUD. I am and others are.

Some of the smaller improvements like Multi-Wallet could and should have been introduced to the mainline Bitcoin client long ago as even a noob developer like Gavin should have been able to manage them. The fact is Bitcoin development is stagnant so you don't see any new features, "amazing" or otherwise.

Multi-wallet is a hack implemented by someone who doesn't understand the problem he's trying to solve (more intelligent/manual unspent output selection algorithm is the proper solution). No new features, huh? Not even the password encrypted wallet that CoinHunter copied from Bitcoin?  Roll Eyes

On a positive note, the development team is planning for Solidcoin to have a much improved integrated miner in a future version which will include hybrid GPU & CPU Mining all within the client! Pretty exciting stuff I think you'll agree and another world first Cheesy

If SolidCoin grows as you desperately wish it will, mining will become a specialized activity just like it has for Bitcoin. In that case, what good will mining built in to the client provide? None, as larger scale miners won't want to micromanage their mining machines.

4. Ok, well you kind of just have to trust me on this one, it was an error. I'm really not sure what the project would have to gain by everyone thinking they had a lower hashrate than they really did? Certainly this was an embarrassing oversight for a coder of RealSolid's high caliber. You seem have a problem with the word and the concept of trust, so I doubt there's anything I can really say to make you believe that this wasn't a massive conspiracy to erm... trick people somehow?  Huh

What reason do I have to trust you? I suspect you have ulterior motives for promoting SolidCoin. RealSolid had an incentive to make people think they were mining faster than they were. When it was suspected that this number was inflated, he "found a bug" which meant the hash rates in the beta were wrong. Whoops. Then, when developing a GPU miner with the intent that it is "equal" to the CPU miner, he magically discovered that CPU hash rates were being under reported. I posit that the first bug was introduced by him to make CPU mining artificially attractive, and was fixed to cover his ass. Further, the second bug was "discovered" (introduced) by him to make it appear that CPU and GPU mining are on equal footing, when in fact they are not.

Will someone with a million SolidCoins in a wallet wish to use their position as a Trusted Node to destroy the chain and make their million coins worth less (or indeed worthless)?

But you said that the millions of coins are "fake" and not worth anything!

Greed is why the hackers restrict their attacks to alt chains.

What alternate reality are you living in?

They own a lot of Bitcoins so, although they easily could, they don't attack Bitcoin directly and devalue their own asset (although they do stupidly attack the pools as "punishment" for adopting merged mining which is indirectly attacking Bitcoin itself Roll Eyes).

Bitcoin is not susceptible to the attacks used against SolidCoin, both because of a lack of a centralized "trusted" nodes, and much higher computing power securing the network.
terrytibbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:23:03 PM
 #215

Some of the smaller improvements like Multi-Wallet could and should have been introduced to the mainline Bitcoin client long ago as even a noob developer like Gavin should have been able to manage them.
The reason why Gavin prefers not to implement low priority updates, such as multi-wallet functionality (other than the fact that the idea in itself is utterly stupid), is because there is only so much testing you can do before sending an update out into the wild - and who knows, maybe it'll turn out the hashrate reporting went bad.
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:23:26 PM
 #216

Actually johnj... if what was discussed in solid irc, and I have no reason to doubt the validity at this time.  The 1.2 million coin addresses essentially cease to work once they fall below 1 million.... so given that statement is true, the address holders will have no choice to have them thrown away and the pre-mined economic impact is 2 million coins that get reverted back over to the CPF fund over a long course of time of which in that time if not enough "independently wealthy" solidcoin owners have been found the CPF will be forced to have to recycle coins into the propped up millionaire accounts and these coins will have to go through the same process again.

What is this new bullshit?

So if the pre-mined 1.2 million SC wallets go below 1 million, then they no longer function as a trusted node, but the coins still flow back to CoinHunter?
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:25:43 PM
 #217

Where is the source code?
How do you know the coins can't be spent or moved?

100% implicit trust in a single fallable human.  Yeah that is a great basis for a decentralized peer to peer network.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 02:32:40 PM
 #218

You really need to learn to read, or take some comprehension classes, or just go to a psychologist for chronic lying.

The addresses are dead when they fall below 1 million... so with 10 x 1.2 million accounts, there is only 10 x .2 million coins that can be used as tariff to pay into the cpf.  10 million coins will be dead when these accounts are no longer being used and they will be unspendable/unusable/nontransferable without malicious activities.  Now for the .2 million in each account the make up 50% of the CPF payments over a long period of time.  Should it be the case that independent solidcoin millionaires don't start cropping up by they time they are all dead, then the CPF will have to refund the accounts and the coins will have to go through the same process.

Once again based on what assurances?  How do you KNOW (not just believe) funds can't be trusfered out of those accounts?

....

...

...

You don't.  The system only works if you have 100% implicit trust in a single human being.  A king of the network if you will (one who also collects a 10% tax into perpetuity, has the private keys to all 12 million SC trusted nodes, has complete control of source code, has kept things like GPU mining from general public, can kill the network at will, etc).
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 03:14:52 PM
 #219

Is anyone arguing that SolidCoin is decentralized? I thought its centralization was the whole point, what distinguishes it from other cryptocurrencies. Like halfway between Bitcoin and e-gold.

I'm actually hoping that the value of SolidCoin goes up, just to see what happens. We already have reason to believe RealSolid is in Australia, I wonder what other organizations are better at finding people than we are...
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
October 24, 2011, 04:00:34 PM
 #220

Is anyone arguing that SolidCoin is decentralized? I thought its centralization was the whole point, what distinguishes it from other cryptocurrencies. Like halfway between Bitcoin and e-gold.

The only truly "centralized" part is the CPF, the Arbiter nodes work the same way as regular mining but are indiscriminately limited by miner wallet balance values.  And the CPF is planned to be overseen by a non-profit, just not at that level yet, but it will take some time.

Isn't the official block chain defined by RealSolid and his trusted nodes? He could take down the whole network again and start SC3.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!