SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues

[coblee]

Haha ok, well close minded people are going to be close minded what can I say. Anyone that is reasonable will read this thread and see my intentions.

I think your intentions are good. I really do believe you wanted to create the perfect coin to replace bitcoin, which you think is seriously flawed. I give you credit for that. And I think you have superior coding skills. But I think you need to work on your economics and your communications a bit more.

It seems to me you are just turning solidcoin into a centralized fiat currency where you are the Fed. You may not agree, but a lof of people on this board feel the same way as I. You should ask yourself why. Maybe you are able to convince a hoard of people to follow your lead. I've seen worse things. I mean just look at how many people actually think the Fed is doing a good job.

My advice is if you really wanted to create a bitcoin killer, have an open mind and design your new coin WITH the smart people on this board. Keeping it closed source and a secret is not the way to go.

[1715368934]

1715368934

[1715368934]

1715368934

[1715368934]

1715368934

[1715368934]

1715368934

[1715368934]

1715368934

[1715368934]

1715368934

[Bitcoin Oz]

Well that is the 51% attack, and it basically means you can wake up tomorrow with zero Bitcoins in your wallet.

Wrong again. 51% makes double-spends of your own coins possible. A 51% attack on Bitcoin cannot make my coins disappear.

He has to know this, right? All of those "articles" on his site merely make false claims about Bitcoin in order to try to scare people into using SolidCoin. How is CoinHunter/BitcoinMedia not in violation of forum rules?

Prove that I am CoinHunter or withdraw your comment.

The fact BitcoinExpress was banned from the forum says everything really about the quality of the accusations some forum members like to bandy around.

I am CoinHunter in the same way kangaroos jump down the main street of Sydney.

[johnj]

The fact BitcoinExpress was banned from the forum says everything really about the quality of the accusations some forum members like to bandy around.

Not so much:

You're right. It turns out that this was a HUGE misunderstanding on my part. If BCX was banned, he'll be unbanned shortly.

[coblee]

Well that is the 51% attack, and it basically means you can wake up tomorrow with zero Bitcoins in your wallet.

Wrong again. 51% makes double-spends of your own coins possible. A 51% attack on Bitcoin cannot make my coins disappear.

He has to know this, right? All of those "articles" on his site merely make false claims about Bitcoin in order to try to scare people into using SolidCoin. How is CoinHunter/BitcoinMedia not in violation of forum rules?

Prove that I am CoinHunter or withdraw your comment.

The fact BitcoinExpress was banned from the forum says everything really about the quality of the accusations some forum members like to bandy around.

I am CoinHunter in the same way kangaroos jump down the main street of Sydney.

You did say you are RealSolid here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47303.msg562956#msg562956
Isn't RealSolid the same as CoinHunter?

[BitcoinPorn]

BitcoinMedia is RealSolid, what?!

[Spacy]

Also, the banks have a tremendous amount of money, yet they still gambled both their money and our money.
Clearly money alone does not make one trustworthy.

Banks mostly spend others money!

[Deprived]

Haha ok, well close minded people are going to be close minded what can I say. Anyone that is reasonable will read this thread and see my intentions.

I think your intentions are good. I really do believe you wanted to create the perfect coin to replace bitcoin, which you think is seriously flawed. I give you credit for that. And I think you have superior coding skills. But I think you need to work on your economics and your communications a bit more.

It seems to me you are just turning solidcoin into a centralized fiat currency where you are the Fed. You may not agree, but a lof of people on this board feel the same way as I. You should ask yourself why. Maybe you are able to convince a hoard of people to follow your lead. I've seen worse things. I mean just look at how many people actually think the Fed is doing a good job.

My advice is if you really wanted to create a bitcoin killer, have an open mind and design your new coin WITH the smart people on this board. Keeping it closed source and a secret is not the way to go.

I also have a suspicion (no more than that) that he may actually be well-intentioned rather than trying to scam - just unfortunate he manages to do everything in a way which screams "scammer!".

There's two big things which turn off a lot of people here:

1.  Concealing information (most obviously closed-source).
2.  Central control of pregenerated funds.

SC is obviously not the only one guilty of 2 - and, in at least one respect, SC2 is better than Tenebric for that.  SC has the OPTION of fully detailing all wallet activity relating to the pregenned coins (and has stated he intends to do so).  Tenebrix can never do that with a stated intent of the pregenned wallet being used for laundering purposes: if all transactions are described then laundering can't work, whilst if all aren't detailed then it can never be proven that the pregenned funds haven't been dumped on exchanges.

End of the day it's pretty obvious to everyone that there was no need to generate and funnel funds to defend against 51% attacks.  And if a fund was needed for something then it could have just been openly generated up front.  All of the obfuscation just LOOKS like an attempt to do it under the radar.

Bottom line (for me) is that "you have to trust me - my intentions are good" has never been a good selling point to me.  If someone's intentions are good then I tend to expect them to go out of their way to demonstrate it by removing their own ability to scam the system.  Talk of future oversight committees (or whatever they're called) is just that - talk.  If I trusted talk then there wouldn't need to be a committee.

[Lolcust]

Tenebrix can never do that with a stated intent of the pregenned wallet being used for laundering purposes: if all transactions are described then laundering can't work, whilst if all aren't detailed then it can never be proven that the pregenned funds haven't been dumped on exchanges.

With all due respect, this is untrue. Not only public monitoring of the laundry is possible without destroying its functionality, Coblee here has proposed a very elegant "laundry super-hardening" security mechanism that, upon laundry's creation, will be eventually deployed in a voluntary manner (since I don't want to force anyone to contribute to hardening the laundry).

I think you can go to the main TBX thread to read up both on laundry monitoring and Coblee's proposal.

P.S.:

Having said that, "I give my buddeh's a millyoon but they can only pay me with it" seems like an awfully contrived scheme.

[Lolcust]

Actually, that ^ claim could be proven true or false provided source code is made available.

Where be SC2 sources ?

[localhost]

Wow. 13 million coins "post-premined". New records:
- ccurrency with the most premined coins
- ccurrency with the most unannounced premined coins (by unannounced I mean announced after launch)
- first ccurrency with post-premined coins

[Lolcust]

You forgot "ccurrency that places extortion right in the blockchain" and "first ccurrency to openly engage in blatant electricity theft"

[localhost]

You forgot "ccurrency that places extortion right in the blockchain"

Woops, sorry, I can't believe I forgot that one. ...Too ...many...records ...at the same time ... Does ...not ...compute

[Frozenace]

Well, getting to a million SC coins would give you the privilege of mining at a super low difficulty. Over time, more people will become part of that club.

The 32 coins alternating between members every alternate block just pay for the interest of having the coins parked in Solidcoin instead of any other crypto currency.

[Spacy]

Well, getting to a million SC coins would give you the privilege of mining at a super low difficulty. Over time, more people will become part of that club.

No, you only generate the blocks with no coins in it for you. The real blocks with 32 SC2 will use the normal difficulty.

[HolodeckJizzmopper]

I have never been hacked, I'm an advanced programmer and know much about I.T.  So if I do come out saying "I've been hacked" I wouldn't even believe it if it was me personally. Like I don't believe most people that say that to cover up their fraud.

 Well, this satisfies me, folks.

 He's a self-professed advanced programmer who knows much about I.T.

 We should all rally behind this man.

[gmaxwell]

Well, getting to a million SC coins would give you the privilege of mining at a super low difficulty. Over time, more people will become part of that club.

No, you only generate the blocks with no coins in it for you. The real blocks with 32 SC2 will use the normal difficulty.

Not quite—  You generate a normal block, then use your trust account to mine a trusted block right after it (especially easy since it's a minimal difficulty computation).  If someone else had beat you to the punch on the normal block it doesn't matter— the chain with the trusted block is the longest one.  So while the trusted block itself costs you coins it gives you a veto over the identity of the generator of the prior block.

It's even super extra special if you're the operator of this system— because the fee in the trusted blocks goes to to operator, so once he's extracted out the few hundred thousand in surplus coin those pre-mined accounts were equipped with he can simply recycle their fee and maintain them (and their ability to control the winning chain, and thus who the normal block coin goes to) indefinitely.

[3phase]

Haha ok, well close minded people are going to be close minded what can I say. Anyone that is reasonable will read this thread and see my intentions.

I think your intentions are good. I really do believe you wanted to create the perfect coin to replace bitcoin, which you think is seriously flawed. I give you credit for that. And I think you have superior coding skills. But I think you need to work on your economics and your communications a bit more.

It seems to me you are just turning solidcoin into a centralized fiat currency where you are the Fed. You may not agree, but a lof of people on this board feel the same way as I. You should ask yourself why. Maybe you are able to convince a hoard of people to follow your lead. I've seen worse things. I mean just look at how many people actually think the Fed is doing a good job.

My advice is if you really wanted to create a bitcoin killer, have an open mind and design your new coin WITH the smart people on this board. Keeping it closed source and a secret is not the way to go.

+1

[mrb]

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 only do we know the deepbit owner (Tycho), but I would trust him more than any "trusted SolidCoin millionaires account". And nothing in SolidCoin prevents a "trusted account" from setting up a pool and performing a majority attack. True, there are only 10 trusted accounts, but the same is true for Bitcoin (less than 10 large pools). In fact, have you ever considered the following viewpoint:

You present trusted SolidCoin millionaire accounts as people who have a lot invested in SolidCoin, therefore are unlikely to cheat the system and can be trusted to solve all even blocks. A large Bitcoin pool owner, in effect, fills the same role. He has invested a lot in Bitcoin (time developing and maintaining his pool), has a lot to lose (pool revenues), had to work on gaining very public trust from the users over time, and his pool effectively solves a good fraction of the blocks. I would argue that the Bitcoin model is superior to the SolidCoin model whose "trusted accounts" are unknown and anonymous and chosen by someone other than the users. Bitcoin gives power to the users by letting them dynamically vote who they trust by choosing where they mine. SolidCoin dangerously set the trusted accounts in stone with arbitrary static rules.

What do you think?

That said, Bitcoin and SolidCoin are different:

• On one hand, for Bitcoin, majority attacks ("51% attacks") are a non-problem. The hashrate is too high to attack, no one will spend $10M to attack it today. Pools have too much to lose to attempt the attack themselves. And Bitcoin has a long-term solution easily implementable anyway, by giving pool users control of the blocks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=9137.0 For all these reasons, your criticism of majority attacks being possible against Bitcoin is unfounded.
  
• On the other hand, majority attacks are a real problem for (and only for) startup cryptocurrencies, like SolidCoin, who have to start the hashrate from zero. So, in a way, I understand why you have to come up with a non-optimal mechanism to try to protect your network from attacks.

[Lolcust]

What I like more is that initially, only a single million was supposed to be premined.

I am also still enamored with the "take 5% of miner's electricity" shtick - for the love of everything good in the world, what's the point of stealing from miners when you ALREADY HAVE A PREMINE IN THE MILLIONS?

[Gavin Andresen]

I can't resist, the problem of how to bootstrap a new chain in the face of massive, hostile hashing power fascinates me.

CoinHunter, what will happen to SolidCoin if, God forbid, you get hit by a bus? What are the plans for the trusted CPF wallets? Do your heirs get control of them?

And what if SolidCoin is wildly successful-- so successful that each SC is worth 1,000 euros? Will somebody still need 1 million of them (so have to be a euro billionaire) to be trusted?