delete

[Snapman]

I can confirm. This guy has got almost infinite power and $$$ and tons of connections in all areas ( he was threatening to downrank solidcoin.info on SEO etc. ). He is dangerous and not just blowing hot air.

How can you "confirm" that he is rich and powerful? You actually have to know something to confirm it.

That is the impression I got. Guy owns like 30k of namecoins and 100 000 of Bitcoins etc. He is like ArtForz guy but more black hat type etc. Early adopter and made a fortune. Now he can afford to kill any chain he pleases etc.

like artforz? I thought he was artforz...

Maybe he is. We can never be sure.

O gawd, dont start this crap again.

[1713585555]

1713585555

[1713585555]

1713585555

[1713585555]

1713585555

[1713585555]

1713585555

[simonk83]

Do us a favor and stfu till you cough up some source code.  We've heard an awful lot of "if you saw the code you'd piss yourself" out of you, but you seem to be afraid to actually show us the code.

If you want to champion a retards cause .

That's what solidcoin.info is for.

[simonk83]

I stayed up all night BUT IT WAS WORTH IT

Tenebrix is shit. 7.7 million pregenerated scam => GTFO.

Uhhhh, SC2 - 13 million pregenerated...

 

[Yahkin]

Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual.

Geist Geld - Two successful attacks
Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks.
Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack
Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit.
I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them
Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX

Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there.

This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another.

His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry.

He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it.

Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there.

Doesn't sound like BS to me.

Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism?  Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist?  Patriot?  What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network?  If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems.  Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live.

[BitterTea]

Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism?  Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist?  Patriot?  What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network?  If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems.  Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live.

Exploits often are overlooked and not fixed unless they are first exploited. He has been very open about his attacks, so I don't see a problem. If he openly attacked Bitcoin, I would feel the same way. If it cannot withstand an attack by one individual who does so openly, it is not worth protecting.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why does the BTC community support what essentially equates to cyber terrorism?  Just because he hasn't attacked BTC, he's a good terrorist?  Patriot?  What happens when the BTC community wrongs him somehow and he points his "mass resources" and "Industry connections" at the BTC network?  If he's really a "good" guy, he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems.  Right now he's just a kid with a magnifying glass deciding which ants get to live.

Cyber terrorism?  ROFL.

There is no security through obscurity.  

If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions.  An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked.  If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing.

If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency.

" he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. "
Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem.  People use to point flaws out to Microsoft.  Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications.  Microsoft promptly ignored them.  Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster.

Think of it as software evolution.  Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked.  Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with.

[Spacy]

Why do some people repeat that BTX hacked or exploited SC2 in any way? He failed with 51% attack. He says he bought a lot of EC2 instances to drive blockrate up. Eh yeah, usual behavior if global blockrate is high, diff is low and retargeting algo has a raise limit. The only thing that could be true is, that he mined some SC2, he said some hundreds of thousands, but hasn't shown any proof yet. So everything was working as the protocol intended.

[localhost]

Why do some people repeat that BTX hacked or exploited SC2 in any way? He failed with 51% attack. He says he bought a lot of EC2 instances to drive blockrate up. Eh yeah, usual behavior if global blockrate is high, diff is low and retargeting algo has a raise limit. The only thing that could be true is, that he mined some SC2, he said some hundreds of thousands, but hasn't shown any proof yet. So everything was working as the protocol intended.

I think another explanation is that the mining looked so screwed up at the beginning that he thought he messed it up. While it was in fact a design. Designed to be screwed up during the first day. Who could have guessed?

[Yahkin]

Cyber terrorism?  ROFL.

There is no security through obscurity.  

If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions.  An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked.  If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing.

If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency.

" he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. "
Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem.  People use to point flaws out to Microsoft.  Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications.  Microsoft promptly ignored them.  Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster.

Think of it as software evolution.  Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked.  Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with.

Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source.  We have to rely on them to fix bugs.  BTC is open source.  We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code.

I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that.  BCX's methods are childish.  The proof of concept was GG.  Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap.  DDOS attacks?  These are not helpful to evolution of software.  Taking bribes to not attack chains?  Really?  Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods.  He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.

[BitterTea]

Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source.  We have to rely on them to fix bugs.  BTC is open source.  We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code.

I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that.  BCX's methods are childish.  The proof of concept was GG.  Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap.  DDOS attacks?  These are not helpful to evolution of software.  Taking bribes to not attack chains?  Really?  Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods.  He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.

SolidCoin is closed source too...

I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code.

Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck.

[Spacy]

If you want proof of SC2 failure, simply look at the exchanges.

Tennebrix had an 1800 BTC market depth at point, SC2 peaked at 40 BTC (ROFL) and is less than 25BTC at the moment.

SC2 first 24 hour volume is less than 20,000 compared to IXcoin that 385,000 volume first 24 hours.

Yes Viperjbm FAILURE is the right word.

Buy orders:
BTC-E: SC2 total BTC: 294, TBX total BTC 238.
SC24: 230 BTC

It's the trend that counts.

[Yahkin]

SolidCoin is closed source too...

Ok.  What does that have to do with BCX's tactics?  That's what I'm talking about.

I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code.

Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

noun
1.  The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Do you have a better word?  Cyber Assault?  Extortion?  Cyber Bullying?  It certainly isn't ethical hacking.

[sd]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror.

Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense.

[Yahkin]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror.

Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense.

Ah, the internet.  Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word.  God forbid I should misspell something as well.  Then the gloves would be off.

The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo.

[BitterTea]

Ah, the internet.  Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word.  God forbid I should misspell something as well.  Then the gloves would be off.

The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo.

If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying.

In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show.

If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress.

[Yahkin]

If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying.

In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show.

If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress.

Since when does support require money?  Defending his actions is supporting him.  I really have no idea whether you personally have or not as I'm not going to go review all of your posts.  Hell, I don't know who I'm replying to with half of these because the second I said something negative about BCX people came out of the woodwork to defend his actions.

The word is as close to accurate as I could get to what he has done.  But because it's a scary word, people got all worked up and made it all about the word.  Short attention spans I guess.  Yes, I know what I am saying.  He's walking around with a big stick picking winners and losers, and for some odd reason most people here want to be his friend.  Do we support and defend thieves because their actions have lead to better security systems?  Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs?  No!  Feel free to acknowledge that the nefarious actions led to improvements, but those actions should at the same time be condemned. We should work towards fixing problems in a more mature and productive way.

You bring politics into this discussion? Why?

[DeathAndTaxes]

Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs?

And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts.  Not exactly a record but nice confirmation!



Via the Corollary you automatically lose.  Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument.

[BitterTea]

Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs?

Did the Jews say to Hitler: "our race is extermination-proof, go a head and try!"?

As for "support", which definition are you using?

sup·port  (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
  a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
  b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).

[MaGNeT]

There seemed to be quite a few that were upset he was banned including me.

Has he been unbanned yet?

Is BitCoinEXpress banned?

[Yahkin]

And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts.  Not exactly a record but nice confirmation!

Via the Corollary you automatically lose.  Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument.

Thank you for adding to the conversation.  You are truly a visionary.