SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues

[Red]

I have to admit I thought the trusted nodes as vector clock idea was clever.
Did you build in any additional logic to help resolve chain forking due to network partitioning?

Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.

If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.

I really have to disagree here though. You system would have been trivial to implement without the million SC accounts. All you need is a dozen people to say, "Hi, I'm Fred. I'm watching the system. If something goes wrong. Sue me at this address." That is basically what you did by giving out million plus SC accounts. Except you're not telling anyone who the account holders are. So if they collaboratively misbehave, there is no one to sue.

[1713530334]

1713530334

[1713530334]

1713530334

[1713530334]

1713530334

[CoinHunter]

I have to admit I thought the trusted nodes as vector clock idea was clever.
Did you build in any additional logic to help resolve chain forking due to network partitioning?

Indeed, I agree the initial startup isn't as optimal as if we had million dollar account holders from the get-go, where they can stay anonymous. However there's not like there is much alternative.

If people want a secure network (which I and others believe many do) then some compromises have to be made. If they don't then SC will not do well and something else will pass it.

I really have to disagree here though. You system would have been trivial to implement without the million SC accounts. All you need is a dozen people to say, "Hi, I'm Fred. I'm watching the system. If something goes wrong. Sue me at this address." That is basically what you did by giving out million plus SC accounts. Except you're not telling anyone who the account holders are. So if they collaboratively misbehave, there is no one to sue.

So a mixture of licensed mining and money? I'm not sure a more complicated approach is better. This is simple for general people to understand "money = security" . The amount of time it would take those trusted nodes to pass out their money is massive, and they stop passing money out when they go under a million dollars. So think of it more like 200K*10 going back to CPF over a very long period of time.

There have been large changes to handle reorgs and whatnot, and more to come.

[simonk83]

Question, for CoinHunter. Who runs the trusted peers? Are they all yours?

I have control of one of the accounts currently, I'm not sure if I will end up with any, just for now it's easier this way. I won't say how many are in the wild yet but we are increasing the presence on the network of them.

The people I'm giving them to are ardent SC supporters, who have families, assets and things to lose if they do anything inappropriate with it, combined with having excellent knowledge about system running.

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

[CoinHunter]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

[BitterTea]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

[johnj]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower.  Or other pools can grow and compete.  That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

[CoinHunter]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

Oh right, why aren't people leaving him now when they know it's a flaw in BTC that the network can be attacked in that manner?

Can BTC recover if deepbit doublespends in multiple exchanges, businesses, etc ? That's an interesting theory, sure they may stop mining at deepbit after it comes out the attacks are carried out but by then the damage is done isn't it?

[bulanula]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Exactly. Anyone who believes BTC is decentralized is an idiot. Gavin, MtGox, Deepbit, "the manipulator" etc. pull all the shots in this closed system.

[CoinHunter]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower.  Or other pools can grow and compete.  That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

Because it's highly relevant to this discussion of centralization.

Currently BTC is nearly 50% controlled by a single entity. Please tell me how decentralized this is, 50% > 10%.

[simonk83]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

It's duplicitous.  Seems clear now why these few weirdos that float around these threads blindly defending you, do so.   Pretty decent incentive.  You've already proved in the past you're not against getting people to spam positive comments to drum up support of SC.  

Whatever, enjoy it while it lasts.

[Raoul Duke]

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol

yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol

oops, there went your argument... fool

[johnj]

I wonder who those people might be!   You're so transparent  

Do you know the deepbit (owners) ? If you want to talk about centralization let's look at how one group has nearly 50% control of BTC network.

That is more centralization than 10x trusted accounts equally having control (for now).

Why do you constantly defer to other peoples actions to justify your own.
Fact is, deepbit can lose hashpower.  Or other pools can grow and compete.  That's far more decentralized than 10 hand-picked, only-known-to-you nodes to receive 1.2m coins each, and control every other block.

Because it's highly relevant to this discussion of centralization.

Currently BTC is nearly 50% controlled by a single entity. Please tell me how decentralized this is, 50% > 10%.

Your super nodes are constantly, forever 50%.  You hand picked those, you designed your bait-and-switch around it.

Deepbit is not. Deepbit is big right now because miners have chosen to mine there.  Your scamchain has pre-dictated who the chosen 'trust' nodes are.

Your 'deepbit' angle is shallow, and your deferment to every other chain but your own tells of the scam you're performing.

[Red]

So a mixture of licensed mining and money? I'm not sure a more complicated approach is better.

No, I mean simpler than that. You have a rule that says, "only accounts with one million plus SC, can sign these even blocks."
You might just as well said, only humans with real name validated verisign certificates could sign. It's the non-anonymity that makes the trust. Not the money.

This is simple for general people to understand "money = security" .

Which makes this a very ironic statement. Since at this very moment, people are camping in the streets protesting the anonymous rich! I dare you to go down to wall street and tell everyone, "Those with the most money should be in charge of your security!"

[BitterTea]

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol

yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol

oops, there went your argument... fool

Isn't the whole argument for SC 2.0's trust model that those with significant investment will not misbehave? Operating the largest mining pool seems like a more significant investment than being handed a 1.2 million SC wallet...

Logic'd

[coblee]

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol

yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol

oops, there went your argument... fool

The owner of deepbit makes a lot of money each day if he does not cheat the system. If he cheats the system, he might make a lot of money at once. So would he kill his golden goose?

And CoinHunter, you are using the same logic to bootstrap SC2, where million sc owners have incentives to behave. So you can't go and attack deepbit. You can't have the cake and eat it too. So which is it?

[CoinHunter]

Which makes this a very ironic statement. Since at this very moment, people are camping in the streets protesting the anonymous rich! I dare you to go down to wall street and tell everyone, "Those with the most money should be in charge of your security!"

Well I understand your view. However being "anti bank" and "anti system" my hope is that similar people rise to power within the SC network. Not the traditional "rich types" if you know what I mean. Since we are starting fresh and most people with money couldn't care less right now we have a good chance of that happening I think. You have people who can create SolidCoin businesses and compete with the bigger businesses who are afraid of such things.

I want SolidCoin to defeat the current system, destroy the banks, and have something that everyone can use rather cheaply around the world. Mixed with something like precious metals for currency when "real life" doesn't have the internet.

The ideal people who rise to power and have the most SC will hopefully be those type of people too, and hopefully the world may become a better place to live without so much emphasis on greed.

[Raoul Duke]

Isn't the whole argument for SC 2.0's trust model that those with significant investment will not misbehave? Operating the largest mining pool seems like a more significant investment than being handed a 1.2 million SC wallet...

Not really sure about that. There are entities that have large investments made just to scam others. Who tells you that deepbit, or even mtgox, isn't one of those cases?

Take Bruce Wagner, for instance, everybody said he was incorporated, so, not anonymous, and yet all that was made to scam.

A little consensus on the way you guys think would work wonders.

And take notice: I'm not defending Solidcoin or anything like it. I just find amusing that almost nobody liked when the goons came to tell us that bitcoin is a big scam, and now we have this...

[CoinHunter]

Not really. People could leave Deepbit tomorrow for some other pool, were he to misbehave. What recourse do SC users have against misbehaving trusted accounts. The answer of course is "your promise".

And in the meantime you are expecting the guy not to misbehave... And take action when he does misbehave lol

yet, here you are, giving the benefit of the doubt to deepbit but not to coinhunter lol

oops, there went your argument... fool

The owner of deepbit makes a lot of money each day if he does not cheat the system. If he cheats the system, he might make a lot of money at once. So would he kill his golden goose?

And CoinHunter, you are using the same logic to bootstrap SC2, where million sc owners have incentives to behave. So you can't go and attack deepbit. You can't have the cake and eat it too. So which is it?

The SC2 system places trust in 10 accounts currently, over time this will grow. So we have at maximum, 10% centralization with these nodes, over time that will decrease.

Alternatively with the BTC system deepbit seems to get bigger everyday , maybe soon they will be 80%  of the network.

Furthermore it's not like deepbit makes "that much money" doing what they do, they take a small percentage and give most to its users. There is certainly more in it for them in the medium term to take millions of dollars.

That being said I don't know deepbit owners and am not implying they are untrustworthy. Just personally I don't understand how people can criticize something like SC for having a little centralization when BTC already has significant amounts. It's not the glory land of decentralization people make it out to be.

[coblee]

I just find amusing that almost nobody liked when the goons came to tell us that bitcoin is a big scam, and now we have this...

Why do you think that is? Maybe because we actually think solidcoin IS a scam and bitcoin is not.

[Raoul Duke]

I just find amusing that almost nobody liked when the goons came to tell us that bitcoin is a big scam, and now we have this...

Why do you think that is? Maybe because we actually think solidcoin IS a scam and bitcoin is not.

Yes, you think... The goons also THINK! Now, which one thinks the right thing, care to say?

I think
You think
He/She thinks
We all think
Different stuff, and without SOLID(pun intended) evidence, thoughts are just thoughts, nothing more

I guess we can all agree that "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."