SolidCoin Now officially most secure p2p currency

[bulanula]

http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-most-secure-currency.php



Discuss about your reaction.

[1715697698]

1715697698

[1715697698]

1715697698

[1715697698]

1715697698

[1715697698]

1715697698

[1715697698]

1715697698

[Bobnova]

Not clicking yet another propaganda link.

[bulanula]

Not clicking yet another propaganda link.

Suit yourself but I think the prevention of the 51% attack is quite neat. When the source code will be released, all will be made quite clear.

[Bobnova]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Given he couldn't go 2 whole paragraphs without resorting to lies means I stopped reading.

pathetic.

[bulanula]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

As already said : Can the forum admins please look at the logs, IPs etc. to confirm to everybody for once and for all that I am not smoothie, CH/RS or any other person besides myself. Thank you !

[imsaguy]

Dude, this is the same little 'whitepaper' that has been circulating over and over.

[bitleaker]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

As already said : Can the forum admins please look at the logs, IPs etc. to confirm to everybody for once and for all that I am not smoothie, CH/RS or any other person besides myself. Thank you !

You might not be CH/RS or Smoothie, but you are certainly pimping ScamCoin v2 at every opportunity. I'm sorry to let you know, but 99.9% of the forum members realise that ScamCoin is in fact that, a scam.

Nobody is interested in SC any more. It is was a failure - both times.

[bulanula]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

As already said : Can the forum admins please look at the logs, IPs etc. to confirm to everybody for once and for all that I am not smoothie, CH/RS or any other person besides myself. Thank you !

You might not be CH/RS or Smoothie, but you are certainly pimping ScamCoin v2 at every opportunity. I'm sorry to let you know, but 99.9% of the forum members realise that ScamCoin is in fact that, a scam.

Nobody is interested in SC any more. It is was a failure - both times.

Define "it was a failure" from your point of view. I don't think it was a failure. We will see who was right over time.

[imsaguy]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

As already said : Can the forum admins please look at the logs, IPs etc. to confirm to everybody for once and for all that I am not smoothie, CH/RS or any other person besides myself. Thank you !

You might not be CH/RS or Smoothie, but you are certainly pimping ScamCoin v2 at every opportunity. I'm sorry to let you know, but 99.9% of the forum members realise that ScamCoin is in fact that, a scam.

Nobody is interested in SC any more. It is was a failure - both times.

Define "it was a failure" from your point of view. I don't think it was a failure. We will see who was right over time.

you realize we're at bitcointalk.org and not solidcointalk.org right?

[bitleaker]

Define "it was a failure" from your point of view. I don't think it was a failure. We will see who was right over time.

No you are right, apart from the huge amount of pre-mined coins, the centralised dictatorial control that CH has on the network, the taxation, the closed-source binaries and the fact that SC experienced hyper-inflation within the first 24 hours, the whole project has been a HUGE success  

I stand corrected  

[shads]

hmm the very 1st assertion in the article:

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

And it's a blatant lie.  I'd prefer to put it down to stupidity rather than outright deception but I have trouble believing someone who's key marketing feature is 51% immunity could get this so completely wrong.

Either the stupid is off the scale or the deception is blatant.

[k9quaint]

No you are right, apart from the huge amount of pre-mined coins, the centralised dictatorial control that CH has on the network, the taxation, the closed-source binaries and the fact that SC experienced hyper-inflation within the first 24 hours, the whole project has been a HUGE success  

I stand corrected  

Compelling.

[Red]

Suit yourself but I think the prevention of the 51% attack is quite neat. When the source code will be released, all will be made quite clear.

It doesn't require source code. It is quite obvious what he did. In fact thwarting the 51% attack is quite trivial in a trusted environment. All CoinHunter really had to implement was, "In cases of chain forking, trust the fork my machine is using." Period. It is that simple if you are willing to trust CoinHunter.

The only thing that makes the solidcoin solution wacky is that he didn't say that. Instead he said, "Trust me, and trust any of the nine anonymous individuals whose names I'm withholding from you, and trust anyone who amasses one million solid coins no matter the mechanism they use to acquire them.

Basically he is saying, CoinHunter's friendship or $17,100 buys the mandatory trust of every solidcoin user. Even when those trusted parties remain completely anonymous. Personally I find that appalling and the notion of "anonymous trust" an oxymoron.

[Spacy]

hmm the very 1st assertion in the article:

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

And it's a blatant lie.  I'd prefer to put it down to stupidity rather than outright deception but I have trouble believing someone who's key marketing feature is 51% immunity could get this so completely wrong.

Either the stupid is off the scale or the deception is blatant.

Why? If the transaction, which sends you coins you have paid with other values, gets overwritten, you can wake up with no coinz 

[memvola]

The only appeal of proof-of-work is that you don't have to trust anybody. It's nothing more, nothing less. If I have to trust someone with a lot of money, I would use a centralized payment service. e-gold comes to mind.

Let alone the trust issues we'd have with super-nodes, and the apparent problem of them starting with millions of coins, it would be easy to harvest their IPs, or find their identities with other methods. With this information, you can deny the service without having access to immense computing power.

If you are looking for a trust-based system, you don't have to go further than the Ripple project. Bitcoin needs a counterpart, both a web of trust, and a loaning system. Now, why would one work on a proof-of-work based system instead of that? You could also, in theory, have a different approach than Ripple. Take bitcoin and replace proof of work with a web of trust.

As a side note, I appreciate CoinHunter's work, if the system has merit, it will survive. But all the FUD coming from official SC announcements directly raise suspicion. And the closed development. This is wrong philosophy to begin with.

[johnj]

The only appeal of proof-of-work is that you don't have to trust anybody. It's nothing more, nothing less. If I have to trust someone with a lot of money, I would use a centralized payment service. e-gold comes to mind.

Let alone the trust issues we'd have with super-nodes, and the apparent problem of them starting with millions of coins, it would be easy to harvest their IPs, or find their identities with other methods. With this information, you can deny the service without having access to immense computing power.

If you are looking for a trust-based system, you don't have to go further than the Ripple project. Bitcoin needs a counterpart, both a web of trust, and a loaning system. Now, why would one work on a proof-of-work based system instead of that? You could also, in theory, have a different approach than Ripple. Take bitcoin and replace proof of work with a web of trust.

As a side note, I appreciate CoinHunter's work, if the system has merit, it will survive. But all the FUD coming from official SC announcements directly raise suspicion. And the closed development. This is wrong philosophy to begin with.

You can ABSOLUTELY count on the fact, as soon as I locate a majority of the Super Nodes, coordinated DDOS and SC comes to a halt.

Legitimate question:  Why attack the supernodes when your initial super-high-difficulty-out-the-gate should freeze it?

[memvola]

Let alone the trust issues we'd have with super-nodes, and the apparent problem of them starting with millions of coins, it would be easy to harvest their IPs, or find their identities with other methods. With this information, you can deny the service without having access to immense computing power.

You can ABSOLUTELY count on the fact, as soon as I locate a majority of the Super Nodes, coordinated DDOS and SC comes to a halt.

Well, if it's not DDOS, it can be DOS by legal threat. Or physical. Or a remote infiltration into the nodes. Or coordinated manipulation by TOR exit nodes they route from. Or a malicious supernode (yeah I know, supernode is the wrong terminology to begin with, but well). Maybe attacks can be circumvented by external means and maybe not. What measures are in place? Security by obscurity.

The bottomline is, you can always circumvent 51% attack by using authority. I once wrote to CH that he could issue revokable licenses to miners, as a joke. You judge if his solution is any better. It's more centralized and has this "millions of coins" issue. It is indeed more organic, but that also means that any group with a lot of coins can disrupt the network. Instead, he could issue super licenses to moderators, which can issue ordinary licenses to miners. It automatically enables a revocation hierarchy, and is more decentralized, making it more immune to DOS.

[Raoul Duke]

You can ABSOLUTELY count on the fact, as soon as I locate a majority of the Super Nodes, coordinated DDOS and SC comes to a halt.

I see you are still continuing on blatantly admitting publicly that you are intending to do criminal stuff...

You, Sir, are a moron, and I predict that, like a fish, you'll die by your mouth...

[Lolcust]

^^ Ha ha. Good luck with "legull acshun"

[Raoul Duke]

^^ Ha ha. Good luck with "legull acshun"

Go back to launder money and post on your shitbrix threads

One day the US will tame your pet dictator and then you'll now what legal "achsun" is. And it will be a nigger called Bubba who will teach it to you

[Raoul Duke]

Well, as best as I can tell and because both bulanula and psy are racist pieces of garbage, I'd say they are the same person. Big surprise. Everyone on this forum who is involved in any scammy Bitcoin knockoffs need their puppet accounts or else no one will post in their self-serving threads.

uh???
You crazy mofo... all those scamcoins can drop dead. I just don't like dumb criminals, like BTCEX and lolcust...
I like my criminals smart.

PS: The "racist piece of garbage" is your mamma, you piece of shit. STFU

[paraipan]

hmm the very 1st assertion in the article:

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

And it's a blatant lie.  I'd prefer to put it down to stupidity rather than outright deception but I have trouble believing someone who's key marketing feature is 51% immunity could get this so completely wrong.

Either the stupid is off the scale or the deception is blatant.

i think same group of individuals trolling the forums are pushing this new "creation" of theirs through lies and deceit. I have the impression we are back in history building the famous Tower of Babel

[Raoul Duke]

I guess they don't like when someone does a reality check and shows them that they are being incredibly stupid.

They live so far away from reality that they fear it, that's my theory.

[Lolcust]

^^ Ha ha. Good luck with "legull acshun"

Go back to launder money and post on your shitbrix threads

One day the US will tame your pet dictator and then you'll now what legal "achsun" is. And it will be a nigger called Bubba who will teach it to you

Cool story, bro

[freequant]

Gah, you sound exactly like him.

As already said : Can the forum admins please look at the logs, IPs etc. to confirm to everybody for once and for all that I am not smoothie, CH/RS or any other person besides myself. Thank you !

Right, you are undeniably FlipPro though.

[sd]

DBX claims to be in the USA as I recall...

Lemon party man, You recall wrong. But then it must be hard remembering all this stuff and the logins to a bunch of troll alias accounts at the same time.

You have demonstrated great and likely false ignorance about everything you have ever trolled about. Go back to mining your ScamCoins, you are not fooling anyone.

[freequant]

Define "it was a failure" from your point of view. I don't think it was a failure. We will see who was right over time.

You are right.
I have to admit SolidCoin is a success...
As a scam!

[BitcoinPorn]

I see you are still continuing on blatantly admitting publicly that you are intending to do criminal stuff...

So a kid is building with his Lego blocks having fun.   He builds a bank.   Some of the kids at school pretend to use it.   The neighbor kid keeps telling all the kids on the school yard that he is going to rob that stupid Lego bank and then break it, I mean, it is made of Lego's, people should have no joy in life says the kid, and then one day he breaks it.   So he does, and even robs the imaginary money that school yard chums had in their accounts.   

I believe if you tell this story to the police, they will say it's time to grow up and stop playing with Lego's.

At most the neighbor kid might have done some physical damage or something that maybe the parents can cling onto for hope of repercussion.   

[freequant]

You can ABSOLUTELY count on the fact, as soon as I locate a majority of the Super Nodes, coordinated DDOS and SC comes to a halt.

Not a problem.
At the pace where people are switching to LiteCoin, there will be only the Super Nodes left on the SolidCoin network in a matter of days.

[freequant]

^^ Ha ha. Good luck with "legull acshun"

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/12/09/are-ddos-distributed-denial-of-service-attacks-against-the-law/

DBX claims to be in the USA as I recall... that is one of the 3 example countries that will prosecute DDOS attackers.  UK and Sweden being the others, and are they the only countries that prosecute cyber crimes? No they aren't.

But he can't do it anyway so whatevs.

Don't forget that CoinHunter explicitely asked to BitcoinExpress to ruin his network (like if he wasn't talented enough to ruin his own currency alone).
That's sufficient to warrant any further actions in this direction.

Also, there cannot be charges of denial of service where there is no service...
Unless you use DDoS as in Distributed Denial of Scam?

[freequant]

DBX claims to be in the USA as I recall...

Lemon party man, You recall wrong.

Cupertino not in the USA perhaps?

[panerai]

what is solidcoin?  lol

[Lolcust]

**Preface I think DBX is full of shit**
Assuming DBX DDOS'ed even one of these servers I hope and will support seeing her behind bars I don't care if it is against TBX,FBX,SC,BTC,I0,IX,LC,etc. she deserves jail time for it, and DDOS attacks against online computer resources are illegal and it won't be hard to track her down either even with all the lies she tells on this forum about her identity and affiliations.

Wait, BTCex's a girl ?

[panerai]

**Preface I think DBX is full of shit**
Assuming DBX DDOS'ed even one of these servers I hope and will support seeing her behind bars I don't care if it is against TBX,FBX,SC,BTC,I0,IX,LC,etc. she deserves jail time for it, and DDOS attacks against online computer resources are illegal and it won't be hard to track her down either even with all the lies she tells on this forum about her identity and affiliations.

Wait, BTCex's a girl ?

pics anyone?

[t3a]

SolidCoin Now officially most a somewhat secure p2p currency

FTFY

[grndzero]

Not clicking yet another propaganda link.

Suit yourself but I think the prevention of the 51% attack is quite neat. When the source code will be released, all will be made quite clear.

When <some less than likely condition is met>, all will be made quite clear.

This sounds so cultish, give me the chills.

[coblee]

<snip BS>

rofl

From following the alt currency board religiously for the past month, I have read most of your posts. You (viperjbm) sound like a very intelligent person and always try to back up what you say with fact. So I always give you the benefit of the doubt even though I don't agree with you most of the times.

What I want to know is how CH/RS has managed to convince you so fully. How can you trust CH/RS 100% like you do? Do you not see any of his flaws? Sure, when he first came on the scene, SC1 seems like a great alternative to Bitcoin. He was hitting all the right notes. But when he started slandering Bitcoin on his website and started acting all childish and closing his open source code, wasn't that a good time to start thinking whether you should still think so highly of him? And now with SC2, you've got a decentralized trusted node system that feeds him a million solidcoins every couple of years or so. Can you really trust that he will not abuse the system? If solidcoin become worth $1 each, CH/RS (or his CPF if that makes it seem better) will be making $1 mil every few years. Wouldn't that be the ultimate temptation for anyone (even one as noble as CH/RS) to take some money off the top.

I mean everyone is blindly running his closed source binaries. Do you know how easy it is to make a small change such that he can steal money from the CPF? I mean currently he has the keys to the CPF. Who's to say he will relinquish them? And by the time people do realize he's stealing money, what can you do about it? If everyone has so much invested in solidcoins, you can't really do anything about him without hurting your own investment.

Everything about SC2 and CH/RS is so against what Satoshi set out to do with Bitcoin, it's really disgusting to me and most of the people on this board. So I'm really surprised that someone as intelligent as you is blinded by his spell.

[grndzero]

When <some less than likely condition is met>, all will be made quite clear.

This sounds so cultish, give me the chills.

Are you saying that L. Ron Coinhunter is lying an won't release the source code? You filthy heretic!

Yes, and I dare him to prove me wrong. But either way I don't really care since it's just fun to watch everyone get spun up over this the farce.

I just can't wait to see the 100+ security issues that plague bitcoin that were fixed in SC2. Just like the 85+ security issues between Bitcoin and SC1.03 where the client was insecure because it said Bitcoin instead of Solidcoin and insane amounts of improperly formatted whitespace.

[coblee]

I mean everyone is blindly running his closed source binaries. Do you know how easy it is to make a small change such that he can steal money from the CPF? I mean currently he has the keys to the CPF. Who's to say he will relinquish them? And by the time people do realize he's stealing money, what can you do about it? If everyone has so much invested in solidcoins, you can't really do anything about him without hurting your own investment.

That is what he counts on peoples greed being as great as his or as he told me when I had enough of the pump and dump fraud he tried to get me in on that he had going on the bitparking exchange what are you going to do kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Even posting and telling everyone about what he was up to did no good really in the end as most of these people think they are actually going to get rich with that fool in charge because they are so blinded by that greed they dismiss that and everything else in their desire to get that golden egg.

I wish you had the logs to post on pastebin. Maybe check your logs directory?

[BitcoinPorn]

11:01:21 AM SAC: no I can see it I have some ideas myself for namecoin that could get us bill gates type or money

[Raoul Duke]

SAC... So CH/RS wanted to pump and dump, and that's what you accuse him off, but reading that convo i saw you playing the game, the same as him, so you got butthurt for something else and now you're all itchy, trash mouthing him for it. 

Conclusion: SAC is as much of a scammer as CH/RS. I vote for a scammer tag for SAC...

[Bobnova]

Can't vote for a scammer tag for SAC without voting for one for CH/RS.
Sure you want to do that to your guru?

[Bobnova]

Lets not let too much logic into the discussion, it confuses the koolaiders.

[Snapman]

lawl

[DeathAndTaxes]

Not problem.  Next is SC 3.0.  Not only will it be closed source, it will have revocable licenses, remote client upgrade/control/termination, super nodes & ultra controller nodes (to watch the supernodes), a 50 million coin pre-mine, 15% mining tax, 5% transaction tax and newly invented annual "remine" owner bonus (kinda like a premine but it re-occurs  automatically each year).

Even then there will still be a small group of people (consisting of koolaid drinkers, bitcoin flunkies, scammers, and certain xenophobic forum members) who believe it is the greatest thing since Al Gore created the internet.

[Raoul Duke]

Can't vote for a scammer tag for SAC/CH/RS without voting for one for CH/RS/SAC.
Sure you want to do that to your guru?

That was excatly my point. Pin them both a scammer tag...

All SAC wanted was to sell his shitcoin at BTC0.03... They got you fooled, hein?
Still holding to those version 1 scamcoins? I guess so, given that your price-point was never met. 

Now you got me wondering how many of the fools that bought bitcoin at $30 are still holding waiting for the price to go up...

[coblee]

SAC... So CH/RS wanted to pump and dump, and that's what you accuse him off, but reading that convo i saw you playing the game, the same as him, so you got butthurt for something else and now you're all itchy, trash mouthing him for it. 

Conclusion: SAC is as much of a scammer as CH/RS. I vote for a scammer tag for SAC...

The difference is that SAC is just doing what any speculator does: buy low and sell high.
What CH/RS is doing is to gather a bunch of people with a lot of coins to try to manipulate the market for a coin he created.

Big difference!

[Raoul Duke]

The difference is that SAC is just doing what any speculator does: buy low and sell high.
What CH/RS is doing is to gather a bunch of people with a lot of coins to try to manipulate the market for a coin he created.

Big difference!

yes, you are right, but don't ask me why, that convo got me thinking that SAC only stopped playing because CH/RS wasn't playing the game as SAC wanted... Just a feeling

[johnj]

SAC... So CH/RS wanted to pump and dump, and that's what you accuse him off, but reading that convo i saw you playing the game, the same as him, so you got butthurt for something else and now you're all itchy, trash mouthing him for it. 

Conclusion: SAC is as much of a scammer as CH/RS. I vote for a scammer tag for SAC...

The difference is that SAC is just doing what any speculator does: buy low and sell high.
What CH/RS is doing is to gather a bunch of people with a lot of coins to try to manipulate the market for a coin he created.

Big difference!

The scammer label for CH is making more and more sense to me.

[Raoul Duke]

I wanted to score large on cash exchange like we all do here

Please don't say all. I'm not included on that species, sorry. Only thing i traded was some Solidcoin v1 with some BTC because I got a 100SC bounty for posting about Solidcoin at Coinbits.com. made 2 or 3 trades, between SC/BTC on the following couple days and after luckily i pulled the coins(SC and BTC) before the mooncoin fiasco.

I never sent $USD or EUR to any exchange and all my exchange experience is from those 2 or 3 days where o got to play with solidcoin, because after all, that was play money. Unlike Bitcoin, I don't value Solidcoin much. Not even to see Lorna's tities lol

I'm proud that the few Bitcoin i have was earned on donations, doing some odd stuff here in the forum and from the advertising at coinbits.com. So, as you see, I don't belong on those all, and I bet there are others like me.

Sorry about this, completely off topic.

[Raoul Duke]

Alright so your here out of the kindness of your heart who knows may be true I don't know or have had enough dealings with you to know, that is not the reason most are here for though it is to make money. I however will only go so far to do that and have on more than one occasion in my life cost myself thousands of dollars because of that including this incident.

You see, now you described the reason why I don't play games at the exchanges(or at any other place)... One should only play when one is sure he won't mind losing.

I'm not a player, and honestly, Bitcoin would be a better currency, maybe one with a real use, if all the speculators and get rich quick dudes weren't roaming around and trying to milk it to only dump it when it dies because of them.

About alt currencies, I do exactly the same I did with Bitcoin. If they come to my wallet, that's fine. I will not throw those crypto keys aways. But I'll sure not spend $USD on them. Not even Bitcoin I'll use to buy any of those alt currencies. Why? Because I don't want to lose!

I wouldn't mind getting monetarily richer, but ya know, I've been enjoying my life till now, I have a job that I love and I have a wonderful son for whom I can provide. How can i be richer than this?

And I'm not here out of the kindness of my heart. For one, I love the idea of Bitcoin, and most importantly, I get my daily laughter dose here, pissing off some dudes, that's all

[Bobnova]

About alt currencies, I do exactly the same I did with Bitcoin. If they come to my wallet, that's fine. I will not throw those crypto keys aways. But I'll sure not spend $USD on them. Not even Bitcoin I'll use to buy any of those alt currencies. Why? Because I don't want to lose!

Added after I had quoted before, yes I am with you there I have never and never will spend money on any of these coins. I will buy equipment to mine them however so I at the very least if everything goes tits up have something to show for it.

That's how I roll, too.

[bulanula]

Can we please get back to how secure SC2 is ?

Thank you !

[DeathAndTaxes]

Can we please get back to how insecure SC2 is ?

Fixed your post.  Given how insecure SC2 is there isn't much reason to talk about it.

A crypto-currency based on implicit trust of a single person (glorious leader) isn't secure. 
A crypto-currency which relies on centralized control isn't secure.
A crypto-currency running on secret proprietary code isn't secure.
A crypto-currency with a hardcoded wealth transfer mechanism isn't secure.
A crypto-currency that couldn't survive the death of the glorious leader or any single individual isn't secure (unless Coin Hunter is also immortal).

SC2 can never be secure.  Period.

[Matoking]

Don't waste your time trying to argue with bulanula. He's too delusional to listen for common sense (or he's a troll).

[johnj]

Oh yeah I said I wouldn't hit BTC-E because they support GG and TBX, doesn't that about sum it up Loser???

The best proof I can provide is a screen shot of my mail box:  Not exactly what you just said now is it dumb-ass
http://solidcointalk.org/topic/293-as-close-to-proof-as-i-can-provide/page__view__findpost__p__2960

You post a link to a thread on another forum in which I have to register just to view it, and then you ask the mods of this forum to verify?

How does that make sense

[caish5]

Probably best you read it johnj.
This one is gonna be a shitstorm of epic proportions

[johnj]

Unfortunatly, I'm banned from solidtalkforums  

Post a screencap here

[johnj]

I made a dummy account

Omg, that's so sad (on your part).

You're so butthurt at BCX, that you'll disclose PM's of questionable validation in response to a completely different matter.

If it's true?  Yeah, kinda shitty on Lolcusts part.

What is true is that you're acting like a child.  The best part is the first reply to your thread: https://i.imgur.com/PvDev.png

Edit: Infact, you disclosed it just to somehow get back at BCX.  Not in the name of a pure coin, not to warn potentially defrauded TBX users, but *solely* to strike back at BCX.

I think you've damaged your own reputation more.

[johnj]

well maybe it's just me but self-admitting blackmail and/or bribery seems like a major offense... and I'll be completely done here if the community supports it.

Oh yeah, if its true it's shitty.  Lolcust needs to step in and deny/verify.

If it's true.  BCX could have just told you that to get you riled up.

However, can't the blockexplorer confirm any MultiMillion transactions?

[Bobnova]

Unfortunatly, I'm banned from solidtalkforums  

Post a screencap here

http://imageshack.us/f/845/btcxmessage.png/

Photo removed.

[johnj]

Unfortunatly, I'm banned from solidtalkforums  

Post a screencap here

http://imageshack.us/f/845/btcxmessage.png/

Photo removed.

https://i.imgur.com/DTuLx.png

[BitterTea]

Unfortunatly, I'm banned from solidtalkforums  

Post a screencap here

http://imageshack.us/f/845/btcxmessage.png/

Photo removed.

https://i.imgur.com/DTuLx.png

No longer available?

CONSPIRACY!!!

[Raoul Duke]

There, have a blast!

[Clipse]

I can confirm I sent it LOL  

I did give them a demonstration of the Solidcoin scam!

Viperjbm has spewed for weeks I have millions of TBX so I told him what he wanted to hear. (block explorer proves false)

I will not bother BTC-E because they trade in GG and TBX and as well BTC.

and the more he argues with me, the bigger Anti-SC voice I get.

Anything else??



Added: Solidcoin fanboys come here and spew garbage, we don't go over there. Don't come over here running down our coin and not expect a fight.

Really ? thats all?

So you have gotten to the superGOD level of being a total retard and disclosing what you are doing via a pm and then backing yourself with such a defense? WoW, you sir have put a new meaning on blind sheep.

[Raoul Duke]

I can confirm I sent it LOL   

I did give them a demonstration of the Solidcoin scam!

Viperjbm has spewed for weeks I have millions of TBX so I told him what he wanted to hear. (block explorer proves false)

I will not bother BTC-E because they trade in GG and TBX and as well BTC.

and the more he argues with me, the bigger Anti-SC voice I get.

Anything else??



Added: Solidcoin fanboys come here and spew garbage, we don't go over there. Don't come over here running down our coin and not expect a fight.

Really ? thats all?

So you have gotten to the superGOD level of being a total retard and disclosing what you are doing via a pm and then backing yourself with such a defense? WoW, you sir have put a new meaning on blind sheep.

Exactly... For someone who wants to be the dawg he shows himself as a retard more and more each day...
In fact it's very sad to see people so delusional... With BCX, stupidty knows no limits lol

[MaGNeT]

I can confirm I sent it LOL  

I did give them a demonstration of the Solidcoin scam!

Viperjbm has spewed for weeks I have millions of TBX so I told him what he wanted to hear. (block explorer proves false)

I will not bother BTC-E because they trade in GG and TBX and as well BTC.

and the more he argues with me, the bigger Anti-SC voice I get.

Anything else??



Added: Solidcoin fanboys come here and spew garbage, we don't go over there. Don't come over here running down our coin and not expect a fight.

Is it true you have 250k of SC mined in the first 24-48 hours?
Bye selling them off you could crash the market.  

You don't even have to sell a coin, just putting in a sell order of 250k coins would scare away all of us

[coblee]

I can confirm I sent it LOL  

I did give them a demonstration of the Solidcoin scam!

Viperjbm has spewed for weeks I have millions of TBX so I told him what he wanted to hear. (block explorer proves false)

I will not bother BTC-E because they trade in GG and TBX and as well BTC.

and the more he argues with me, the bigger Anti-SC voice I get.

Anything else??



Added: Solidcoin fanboys come here and spew garbage, we don't go over there. Don't come over here running down our coin and not expect a fight.

Is it true you have 250k of SC mined in the first 24-48 hours?
Bye selling them off you could crash the market.  

You don't even have to sell a coin, just putting in a sell order of 250k coins would scare away all of us

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

[Bitcoin Oz]

I can confirm I sent it LOL  

I did give them a demonstration of the Solidcoin scam!

Viperjbm has spewed for weeks I have millions of TBX so I told him what he wanted to hear. (block explorer proves false)

I will not bother BTC-E because they trade in GG and TBX and as well BTC.

and the more he argues with me, the bigger Anti-SC voice I get.

Anything else??



Added: Solidcoin fanboys come here and spew garbage, we don't go over there. Don't come over here running down our coin and not expect a fight.

Is it true you have 250k of SC mined in the first 24-48 hours?
Bye selling them off you could crash the market.  

You don't even have to sell a coin, just putting in a sell order of 250k coins would scare away all of us

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

Sucks to be BitcoinExpress lol.

Also a central entity with the ability to do that is extremely wrong. We already have paypal for that.

[CoinHunter]

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

Coinhunter can't zap coins. If the network allowed it, it would be an insecure network able to be controlled by people I don't like. Only reason I asked him to move it is so everyone would know he couldn't. Instead he makes up some more bs about why he can't do it and gullible people eat it up. Haha, this forum is comedy gold.

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

[MaGNeT]

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

Coinhunter can't zap coins. If the network allowed it, it would be an insecure network able to be controlled by people I don't like. Only reason I asked him to move it is so everyone would know he couldn't. Instead he makes up some more bs about why he can't do it and gullible people eat it up. Haha, this forum is comedy gold.

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

You replied with the wrong clone or you just got hacked 

[DeathAndTaxes]

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

Given you haven't released the source we have no idea what you can or can't do.  We do know you have continually lied, obfuscated, and mislead people about various aspects of ScamCoin 2.0 so anything is possible.

BCE is likely full of shit BUT there are ways you *could* using closed source nullify accounts.  You could flag accounts as "nulled" and mining clients would exclude them from all blocks.  So while the coins would exist they would never be able to be transfered anywhere without you personal express permission (possibly available for a %).

RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE.

Without it the entire ScamCoin network relies on complete implicit trust in you.  

Of course we both know you will never release the source code so my request is more to continually remind the crypto community that you haven't.

[johnj]

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

Coinhunter can't zap coins. If the network allowed it, it would be an insecure network able to be controlled by people I don't like. Only reason I asked him to move it is so everyone would know he couldn't. Instead he makes up some more bs about why he can't do it and gullible people eat it up. Haha, this forum is comedy gold.

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

You replied with the wrong clone or you just got hacked 

Bwuahahaha, I wonder how many other accounts are CH sockpuppets.  BTW I grabbed a screencap, incase he notices his folly lol

[MaGNeT]

According to BitcoinEXpress, he can't move his coins without attracting attention and CH/RS and his trusted nodes can remotely zap his client and render his transactions void. So when he tried to move large amounts of coins, that's what happens. If it's true, it's seriously wrong.

And the whole thing with CoinHunter asking BitcoinEXpress to move a large amount of coins to prove himself is interesting. CoinHunter may be just baiting BitcoinEXpress to move those coins so that they can remotely nullify them.

I think the truth will come out eventually...

Coinhunter can't zap coins. If the network allowed it, it would be an insecure network able to be controlled by people I don't like. Only reason I asked him to move it is so everyone would know he couldn't. Instead he makes up some more bs about why he can't do it and gullible people eat it up. Haha, this forum is comedy gold.

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

You replied with the wrong clone or you just got hacked  

Bwuahahaha, I wonder how many other accounts are CH sockpuppets.  BTW I grabbed a screencap, incase he notices his folly lol

This needs a topic on its own, can you create one, with the screencap?
I'm at a Xubuntu miner right now, so can't do much

edit: never mind: I'll do it, found out how to do it

[CoinHunter]

You don't think a bigger story here is "CoinHunter zaps coins" ? Seriously, he could damage SolidCoin more by moving his 250K coins and me "zapping" them than just pretending it can all happen. If he wants to damage SC2.0, move the coins and let me "zap them", and then we can see how "centralized" SolidCoin is.

Given you haven't released the source we have no idea what you can or can't do.  We do know you have continually lied, obfuscated, and mislead people about various aspects of ScamCoin 2.0 so anything is possible.

BCE is likely full of shit BUT there are ways you *could* using closed source nullify accounts.  You could flag accounts as "nulled" and mining clients would exclude them from all blocks.  So while the coins would exist they would never be able to be transfered anywhere without you personal express permission (possibly available for a %).

RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE.

Without it the entire ScamCoin network relies on complete implicit trust in you.  

Of course we both know you will never release the source code so my request is more to continually remind the crypto community that you haven't.

The code is still there in compiled form, you can disassemble and verify it. So please don't go saying anything is possible. I understand some people don't want to run software that doesn't have source available, and no one is forcing them to run it until that point. Just don't go around making up fairy tails about what is or isn't happening, if you don't know then don't pretend to know.

If accounts could be flagged as nulled or void then the entire premise of what I personally want, a secure p2p cryptocurrency would be invalid. As much as I dislike some people in the world, they should be free to use a currency for whatever purpose they want. I couldn't really care less about bitcoinexpress using SolidCoin or mining it. I have a problem with him lying about SolidCoin and claiming to have a lot of coins when he doesn't though.

When you say "I have continually lied" I do not know where you get that impression. If I asked you to explain why you think I'm a liar you will probably just say "it's a feeling" , because if you actually had evidence of me lying it would be "big news". So please provide evidence of these "lies" and show everyone how I'm a big old liar.

[johnj]

Hey CH



Why don't you move along, you've already made your announcement

[DeathAndTaxes]

The code is still there in compiled form, you can disassemble and verify it.

Disassembly is tedius and time consuming.  The source code it produces can be difficulty to follow conceptually.  Eventually given enough time, money, and resources one can break the binary down and reconstruct it but ScamCoin has only been available for what a week?  Hardly enough time for an exhaustive dissassembly, analysis and recompilation.

Interesting you have gone from "I will release the source code"  to " it can't be a scam, just dissassmble it and verify it yourself".

So please don't go saying anything is possible. I understand some people don't want to run software that doesn't have source available, and no one is forcing them to run it until that point. Just don't go around making up fairy tails about what is or isn't happening, if you don't know then don't pretend to know.

ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.  Say you 100% can nullify accounts is a fairy tale as it can't be proven or disproven at this point.  However with closed source ANYTHING (including account nullification) IS possible.

If accounts could be flagged as nulled or void then the entire premise of what I personally want, a secure p2p cryptocurrency would be invalid.

That is what you claim to want but maybe what you really want is to be in control.  This is the entire problem w/ scamcoin 2.0.  It requires complete and implicit trust in a central authority (you).  Even if you are 100% above board that is a critical flaw in your entire system.  Crypto-currency should have no central authority and shouldn't require implicit trust.

[sd]

When you say "I have continually lied" I do not know where you get that impression. If I asked you to explain why you think I'm a liar you will probably just say "it's a feeling" , because if you actually had evidence of me lying it would be "big news". So please provide evidence of these "lies" and show everyone how I'm a big old liar.

It's not a feeling. It's a fact that you lie practically non-stop on your website. It's a fact you have been spreading lies about how insecure BitCoin is and how secure SolidCoin is since SolidCoin first appeared. No-one believes anything you say anymore and conversations like this just serve to ensure even more people know you are a compulsive lier.

Maybe you have some kind of memory problem..

P.S. Just admit you don't want to show us the code because it's a patched together mess.

[CoinHunter]

When you say "I have continually lied" I do not know where you get that impression. If I asked you to explain why you think I'm a liar you will probably just say "it's a feeling" , because if you actually had evidence of me lying it would be "big news". So please provide evidence of these "lies" and show everyone how I'm a big old liar.

It's not a feeling. It's a fact that you lie practically non-stop on your website. It's a fact you have been spreading lies about how insecure BitCoin is and how secure SolidCoin is since SolidCoin first appeared. No-one believes anything you say anymore and conversations like this just serve to ensure even more people know you are a compulsive lier.

Maybe you have some kind of memory problem..

P.S. Just admit you don't want to show us the code because it's a patched together mess.

Haha. Can you be any more scared of SolidCoin? Probably not. Welcome to the future and the current best cryptocurrency going around. Jump on before it's too late.

[sd]

Haha. Can you be any more scared of SolidCoin? Probably not. Welcome to the future and the current best cryptocurrency going around. Jump on before it's too late.

You know that time you were looking for evidence of your own lies? Well look above and you will find a whopper.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Haha. Can you be any more scared of SolidCoin? Probably not. Welcome to the future and the current best cryptocurrency going around. Jump on before it's too late.

The funny thing is that a scam of any kind always includes language like this.  The need for immediacy is important.  Convince people they have so much to lose by not acting to force an action.  

So you say ScamCoin 2.0 isn't a scam yet you keep it as closed source and then use scam baiting language in your communications.  The use of sock puppets to create a "consensus" among multiple "people" (all yourself) that it can be trusted is just icing on the cake.

[CoinHunter]

Haha. Can you be any more scared of SolidCoin? Probably not. Welcome to the future and the current best cryptocurrency going around. Jump on before it's too late.

The funny thing is that a scam of any kind always includes language like this.  The need for immediacy is important.  Convince people they have so much to lose by not acting to force an action.  

So you say ScamCoin 2.0 isn't a scam yet you keep it as closed source and then use scam baiting language in your communications.  The use of sock puppets to create a "consensus" among multiple "people" (all yourself) that it can be trusted is just icing on the cake.

You're a bit jealous aren't you. Have you seen the new client? It has mining built right into it, now everyone can just easily mine SolidCoin's and become part of the network. It's probably why the network is so large now. Let me show you what actual development looks like.



Neat eh.

[sd]

You're a bit jealous aren't you. Have you seen the new client? It has mining built right into it, now everyone can just easily mine SolidCoin's and become part of the network. It's probably why the network is so large now. Let me show you what actual development looks like.

Neat eh.

We are a little more interested in how the thing functions than how pretty the client is. Only that lemon party moron would trust your secret network because of Oh! Look! Shiny!

[CoinHunter]

We are a little more interested in how the thing functions than how pretty the client is. Only that lemon party moron would trust your secret network because of Oh! Look! Shiny!

I understand that, but part of the problem of cryptocurrencies to this point is their complete lack of usability. So it's important to make things easy to use for everyone, combined with like you said, having a secure and fast network protocol.

Being able to just install and be 2 clicks from making or sending SolidCoin's is obviously a big deal to a lot of people, don't gloss over it.

[MaGNeT]

People look out, I have heard there is a keylogger/wallet-stealer in the SC2 client!

[sd]

I understand that, but part of the problem of cryptocurencies to this point is their complete lack of usability.

And you have fixed that by making bigger problems. Wonderful! Now the biggest problem with SolidCoin isn't the lack of usability but the unstable network design, the tax, and the 12 million premined coins. That's real progress!


You took a peer to peer network, centralized it, and added tax, broke the transaction fee setup, and got your blockchain dosed in the process. You are a moron and could be easily replaced with the bottom grade of code money from Infosys or Wipro.

[sd]

People look out, I have heard there is a keylogger/wallet-stealer in the SC2 client!

Hang on, I'll check the source. Oh I can't because I don't have it.

Maybe you are right and this whole SolidCoin thing is an excuse to get code on people's machines to steal wallet.dat's.

[CoinHunter]

I understand that, but part of the problem of cryptocurencies to this point is their complete lack of usability.

And you have fixed that by making bigger problems. Wonderful! Now the biggest problem with SolidCoin isn't the lack of usability but the unstable network design, the tax, and the 12 million premined coins. That's real progress!


You took a peer to peer network, centralized it, and added tax, broke the transaction fee setup, and got your blockchain dosed in the process. You are a moron and could be easily replaced with the bottom grade of code money from Infosys or Wipro.

The 12 million coins cannot be used on the network, the CPF or tax yes some people won't like it. I didn't centralize SolidCoin much at all, it's 5% economic centralized, the network is still very decentralized because I believe that is the most secure way to protect against large corporations and governments. Unlike you I'm not living in a fantasy land where I don't understand the problems and inefficiencies with this technology.

As you can see, the new mining options in SolidCoin show parts of the new block header format and the ability for SolidCoin v2.0 to act as a minipool.

[sd]

The 12 million coins cannot be used on the network, the CPF or tax yes some people won't like it. I didn't centralize SolidCoin much at all, it's 5% economic centralized, the network is still very decentralized because I believe that is the most secure way to protect against large corporations and governments. Unlike you I'm not living in a fantasy land where I don't understand the problems and inefficiencies with this technology.

You want people to take your word that there are 12 million magic coins that can't be spent in your network? Maybe there are 12 Googolplex coins and maybe they can all be spent by you. We only have your word that they can't be spent because you won't release the source code. And in case you have not got the message we don't trust your word over the facts in the source code. It seems pretty likely there are all kinds of other nasty surprises in there.

You don't seem to know what you are doing and posting pretty graphics isn't going to change that.

[sd]

As you can see, the new mining options in SolidCoin show parts of the new block header format and the ability for SolidCoin v2.0 to act as a minipool.

[CoinHunter]

This code shows that every client will reject any trusted fund attempting to be spent on the network. Any block containing it will be rejected, anyone trying to send a trusted transaction will not get it propagated.

Code:

bool CTransaction::ConnectInputs(CTxDB& txdb, std::map<uint256, CTxIndex>& mapTestPool, CDiskTxPos posThisTx,CBlockIndex* pindexBlock, int64& nFees, bool fBlock, bool fMiner, bool bTrustedTX)
{
    // Take over previous transactions' spent pointers
    if (!IsCoinBase())
    {
        int64 nValueIn = 0;
        for (int i = 0; i < vin.size(); i++)
        {
            COutPoint prevout = vin[i].prevout;
            printf("connect inputs prevout: ");
            prevout.print();

            // Read txindex
            CTxIndex txindex;
            bool fFound = true;
            if ((fBlock || fMiner) && mapTestPool.count(prevout.hash))
            {
                txindex = mapTestPool[prevout.hash];    // Get txindex from current proposed changes
            }
            else
            {
                fFound = txdb.ReadTxIndex(prevout.hash, txindex);   // Read txindex from txdb
            }
            if (!fFound && (fBlock || fMiner))
                return fMiner ? false : error("ConnectInputs() : %s prev tx %s index entry not found", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

            // Read txPrev
            CTransaction txPrev;
            if (!fFound || txindex.pos == CDiskTxPos(1,1,1))
            {
                // Get prev tx from single transactions in memory
                {
                    MUTEX_LOCK(cs_mapTransactions);
                    if (!mapTransactions.count(prevout.hash))   return error("ConnectInputs() : %s mapTransactions prev not found %s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
                    txPrev = mapTransactions[prevout.hash];
                }
                if (!fFound)    txindex.vSpent.resize(txPrev.vout.size());
            }
            else
            {
                // Get prev tx from disk
                if (!txPrev.ReadFromDisk(txindex.pos))
                    return error("ConnectInputs() : %s ReadFromDisk prev tx %s failed", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
            }

            if (prevout.n >= txPrev.vout.size() || prevout.n >= txindex.vSpent.size())
                return error("ConnectInputs() : %s prevout.n out of range %d %d %d prev tx %s\n%s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), prevout.n, txPrev.vout.size(), txindex.vSpent.size(), prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), txPrev.ToString().c_str());

            if(bTrustedTX)
            {
                if(!::IsStandard(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey))              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx isnt standard");
                if(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue<(TRUST_FUND_AMOUNT*COIN))          return error("ConnectInputs() : not enough SC for a trusted block");
                if(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey != vout[0].scriptPubKey)     return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx pubkey does not match previous");
                int64 valDiff = txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue-vout[0].nValue;
                int64 blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");
            }
            else
            {
                CSolidCoinAddress addr=txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey.GetSolidCoinAddress();
                if(addr.IsValid())
                {
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(g_TrustPubKeysHash[x]==addr)
                        {
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : trying to spend trustfund account on the network : %s\n",addr.ToString().c_str());
                        }
                    }
                }
                else
                {
                    std::string txstr = txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey.ToString();
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(txstr.find(g_TrustPubKeys[x])!=std::string::npos)
                        {
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : trying to spend trustfund account on the network : %s\n",txstr.c_str());
                        }
                    }
                }
            }

            // If prev is coinbase, check that it's matured
            if (txPrev.IsCoinBase())
            {
                bool bTrusted=false;

                if(pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum<=COINBASE_MATURITY)
                {
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(txPrev.vout[0].scriptPubKey==g_TrustedScript[x])
                        {
                            bTrusted=true;
                            break;
                        }
                    }
                    if(txPrev.vout[0].scriptPubKey==g_GenScript)   bTrusted=true;
                }
                if(!bTrusted)
                {
                    for (CBlockIndex* pindex = pindexBlock; pindex && pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum - pindex->blk.nBlockNum < COINBASE_MATURITY; pindex = pindex->pprev)
                        if (pindex->nBlockPos == txindex.pos.nBlockPos && pindex->nFile == txindex.pos.nFile)
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : tried to spend coinbase at depth %"PRI64d"", pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum - pindex->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
            }

            if (!VerifySignature(txPrev, *this, i)) return error("ConnectInputs() : %s VerifySignature failed", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

            // Check for conflicts
            if (!txindex.vSpent[prevout.n].IsNull())    return fMiner ? false : error("ConnectInputs() : %s prev tx already used at %s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), txindex.vSpent[prevout.n].ToString().c_str());

            // Check for negative or overflow input values
            nValueIn += txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue;
            if (txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue<=0 || nValueIn<=0)    return error("ConnectInputs() : txin values out of range");

            txindex.vSpent[prevout.n] = posThisTx;  // Mark outpoints as spent

            // Write back
            if (fBlock || fMiner)
            {
                mapTestPool[prevout.hash] = txindex;
            }
        }

        if (nValueIn < GetValueOut())   return error("ConnectInputs() : %s value in < value out", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

        // Tally transaction fees
        int64 nTxFee = nValueIn - GetValueOut();
        if (nTxFee < 0)         return error("ConnectInputs() : %s nTxFee < 0", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
        if (nTxFee < GetMinFee())   return false;
        nFees += nTxFee;
        if (nFees<=0) return error("ConnectInputs() : nFees out of range");
    }

    if (fBlock)
    {
       // Add transaction to changes
        mapTestPool[GetHash()] = CTxIndex(posThisTx, vout.size());
    }
    else if (fMiner)
    {
        // Add transaction to test pool
        mapTestPool[GetHash()] = CTxIndex(CDiskTxPos(1,1,1), vout.size());
    }

    return true;
}

[BitcoinPorn]

The built in GUI miner with pool choices would be huge for any coin that took the time out to ensure they implement that, well done design choice.

[johnj]

CH, that code means nothing - whos to say you didn't just write that crap up just now?

Secondly, CryptoX already called you out for adding Kens name w/o consultation. And BitcoinMedia.

Fail troll is fail.

[DeathAndTaxes]

This code shows that every client will reject any trusted fund attempting to be spent on the network. Any block containing it will be rejected, anyone trying to send a trusted transaction will not get it propagated.

Code:

bool CTransaction::ConnectInputs(CTxDB& txdb, std::map<uint256, CTxIndex>& mapTestPool, CDiskTxPos posThisTx,CBlockIndex* pindexBlock, int64& nFees, bool fBlock, bool fMiner, bool bTrustedTX)
{
    // Take over previous transactions' spent pointers
    if (!IsCoinBase())
    {
        int64 nValueIn = 0;
        for (int i = 0; i < vin.size(); i++)
        {
            COutPoint prevout = vin[i].prevout;
            printf("connect inputs prevout: ");
            prevout.print();

            // Read txindex
            CTxIndex txindex;
            bool fFound = true;
            if ((fBlock || fMiner) && mapTestPool.count(prevout.hash))
            {
                txindex = mapTestPool[prevout.hash];    // Get txindex from current proposed changes
            }
            else
            {
                fFound = txdb.ReadTxIndex(prevout.hash, txindex);   // Read txindex from txdb
            }
            if (!fFound && (fBlock || fMiner))
                return fMiner ? false : error("ConnectInputs() : %s prev tx %s index entry not found", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

            // Read txPrev
            CTransaction txPrev;
            if (!fFound || txindex.pos == CDiskTxPos(1,1,1))
            {
                // Get prev tx from single transactions in memory
                {
                    MUTEX_LOCK(cs_mapTransactions);
                    if (!mapTransactions.count(prevout.hash))   return error("ConnectInputs() : %s mapTransactions prev not found %s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
                    txPrev = mapTransactions[prevout.hash];
                }
                if (!fFound)    txindex.vSpent.resize(txPrev.vout.size());
            }
            else
            {
                // Get prev tx from disk
                if (!txPrev.ReadFromDisk(txindex.pos))
                    return error("ConnectInputs() : %s ReadFromDisk prev tx %s failed", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(),  prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
            }

            if (prevout.n >= txPrev.vout.size() || prevout.n >= txindex.vSpent.size())
                return error("ConnectInputs() : %s prevout.n out of range %d %d %d prev tx %s\n%s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), prevout.n, txPrev.vout.size(), txindex.vSpent.size(), prevout.hash.ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), txPrev.ToString().c_str());

            if(bTrustedTX)
            {
                if(!::IsStandard(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey))              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx isnt standard");
                if(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue<(TRUST_FUND_AMOUNT*COIN))          return error("ConnectInputs() : not enough SC for a trusted block");
                if(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey != vout[0].scriptPubKey)     return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx pubkey does not match previous");
                int64 valDiff = txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue-vout[0].nValue;
                int64 blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");
            }
            else
            {
                CSolidCoinAddress addr=txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey.GetSolidCoinAddress();
                if(addr.IsValid())
                {
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(g_TrustPubKeysHash[x]==addr)
                        {
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : trying to spend trustfund account on the network : %s\n",addr.ToString().c_str());
                        }
                    }
                }
                else
                {
                    std::string txstr = txPrev.vout[prevout.n].scriptPubKey.ToString();
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(txstr.find(g_TrustPubKeys[x])!=std::string::npos)
                        {
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : trying to spend trustfund account on the network : %s\n",txstr.c_str());
                        }
                    }
                }
            }

            // If prev is coinbase, check that it's matured
            if (txPrev.IsCoinBase())
            {
                bool bTrusted=false;

                if(pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum<=COINBASE_MATURITY)
                {
                    for(int x=0;x<TRUST_FUND_NUM;x++)
                    {
                        if(txPrev.vout[0].scriptPubKey==g_TrustedScript[x])
                        {
                            bTrusted=true;
                            break;
                        }
                    }
                    if(txPrev.vout[0].scriptPubKey==g_GenScript)   bTrusted=true;
                }
                if(!bTrusted)
                {
                    for (CBlockIndex* pindex = pindexBlock; pindex && pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum - pindex->blk.nBlockNum < COINBASE_MATURITY; pindex = pindex->pprev)
                        if (pindex->nBlockPos == txindex.pos.nBlockPos && pindex->nFile == txindex.pos.nFile)
                            return error("ConnectInputs() : tried to spend coinbase at depth %"PRI64d"", pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum - pindex->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
            }

            if (!VerifySignature(txPrev, *this, i)) return error("ConnectInputs() : %s VerifySignature failed", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

            // Check for conflicts
            if (!txindex.vSpent[prevout.n].IsNull())    return fMiner ? false : error("ConnectInputs() : %s prev tx already used at %s", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str(), txindex.vSpent[prevout.n].ToString().c_str());

            // Check for negative or overflow input values
            nValueIn += txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue;
            if (txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue<=0 || nValueIn<=0)    return error("ConnectInputs() : txin values out of range");

            txindex.vSpent[prevout.n] = posThisTx;  // Mark outpoints as spent

            // Write back
            if (fBlock || fMiner)
            {
                mapTestPool[prevout.hash] = txindex;
            }
        }

        if (nValueIn < GetValueOut())   return error("ConnectInputs() : %s value in < value out", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());

        // Tally transaction fees
        int64 nTxFee = nValueIn - GetValueOut();
        if (nTxFee < 0)         return error("ConnectInputs() : %s nTxFee < 0", GetHash().ToString().substr(0,10).c_str());
        if (nTxFee < GetMinFee())   return false;
        nFees += nTxFee;
        if (nFees<=0) return error("ConnectInputs() : nFees out of range");
    }

    if (fBlock)
    {
       // Add transaction to changes
        mapTestPool[GetHash()] = CTxIndex(posThisTx, vout.size());
    }
    else if (fMiner)
    {
        // Add transaction to test pool
        mapTestPool[GetHash()] = CTxIndex(CDiskTxPos(1,1,1), vout.size());
    }

    return true;
}

Which means nothing.  That may not even be the source code that is running.  Still even if we TRUST (once again that implicit trust thing) you it still means nothing,

Trust Node -> Spend (this has been blocked)
Tust Node -> Coinhunter wealth transfer system (aka "even blocks) -> coinhunter's personal wallet -> Spend (this most certainly is not blocked)

10% of all coins mined end up in your personal wallet where they can be spent as you see fit.   You can't obfuscate that away.

[sd]

This code shows that every client will reject any trusted fund attempting to be spent on the network. Any block containing it will be rejected, anyone trying to send a trusted transaction will not get it propagated.

How do we know that is the same code used in the SolidCoin client? We don't.

[Clipse]

So then its settled, no point releasing the source if it would mean nothing right?

Cool.

[sd]

So then its settled, no point releasing the source if it would mean nothing right?

Cool.

That doesn't make sense. If CH releases ALL the code, and we can compile it, and it runs as expected on his network, then we would at least be capable of checking it for nasties.

Releasing small bits of code that may or may not be the code from the client doesn't prove a thing.

[DeathAndTaxes]

So then its settled, no point releasing the source if it would mean nothing right?

Cool.

Are you brain damaged?  Releasing the entire source code would allow someone to COMPILE that source code and be 100% sure what is running on their computer = source code.

Releasing a snipet of code and saying "trust me this is what is running on your computer" = worthless.

[MaGNeT]

CoinHunter just released another piece of SC2 code:

Code:

REFRAIN = '''
%d bottles of beer on the wall,
%d bottles of beer,
take one down, pass it around,
%d bottles of beer on the wall!
'''
bottles_of_beer = 99
while bottles_of_beer > 1:
    print REFRAIN % (bottles_of_beer, bottles_of_beer,
        bottles_of_beer - 1)
    bottles_of_beer -= 1

[CoinHunter]

So then its settled, no point releasing the source if it would mean nothing right?

Cool.

That doesn't make sense. If CH releases ALL the code, and we can compile it, and it runs as expected on his network, then we would at least be capable of checking it for nasties.

Releasing small bits of code that may or may not be the code from the client doesn't prove a thing.

You do know regardless of source being out, 90+% of people will be running someones binaries. So even if you compile the source, if you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want. Just like with Bitcoin. It's quite a bs excuse , and you'll invent anything to fit your worldview of "SC = BAD". Source would be out and you'd cry about something else you don't like, the CPF, etc. Get the chip off your shoulder.

The only reason so many seriously have this problem with SolidCoin is because they are afraid of what it represents to Bitcoin. Think about it, if SC really was a stinking pile of crap like many here say it is, why would they waste 500 pages filling it with their anti SC propaganda? If I was a bad developer why would people create thread after thread discussing me. If the product was crap it would die out.

Yet here we stand, 3 months later, with a growing network, the most features of any cryptocurrency, multiwallet, mining in the client, minipooling, 51% protected, low block variance, list goes on.

These are all features EVERY SolidCoin user knows is in the client because they're using it right now. Fear is a funny thing isn't it.

[johnj]

you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want.

Finally, some honesty!

list goes on.

To include closed source, 13m+ premined, gateway nodes, getting kicked off of CryptoX, etc.  Quite a list indeed!

[Ten98]

you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want.

Finally, some honesty!

Deliberately quoting out of context is the last refuge of someone who has no valid point to make.

[Clipse]

So then its settled, no point releasing the source if it would mean nothing right?

Cool.

Are you brain damaged?  Releasing the entire source code would allow someone to COMPILE that source code and be 100% sure what is running on their computer = source code.

Releasing a snipet of code and saying "trust me this is what is running on your computer" = worthless.

Duh, or should I use some babytalk-slang.

I was refering to your blatent attitude with an initial code snippet, of course rest of code will follow.

If you couldnt grasp that from my comment then please change your diaper.


and... Johnj :

you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want.

Finally, some honesty!

list goes on.

To include closed source, 13m+ premined, gateway nodes, getting kicked off of CryptoX, etc.  Quite a list indeed!

I felt like responding to some of your posts alot earlier but thought you would grow some testicles by now however it seems you are still in front of the line bending for bitcoinexpress.

Every single thread involving solidcoins or bitcoinexpress you are in front insta-replying to every single post with your pre-generated troll arguments.

If you are older than 20 I would be amazed unless you are typing from some prison bitch bench.

[terrytibbs]

you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want.

Finally, some honesty!

Deliberately quoting out of context is the last refuge of someone who has no valid point to make.

CoinHunter's point being that we should trust him that that little snippet of code is included in the SolidCoin source and binaries, even though he can work around the limitations it provides?

[DeathAndTaxes]

You do know regardless of source being out, 90+% of people will be running someones binaries. So even if you compile the source, if you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want. Just like with Bitcoin.

I find it sad that you need  to act stupid to obfuscate.

You know the strength of open source.  Sure despite client being open source some people COULD run tojaned, hacked, etc binaries.  Open Source isn't a magic bullet however you are just creating a strawman for you to defeat.

With open source people CAN create secure binaries.  People CAN also smartly download from people they trust.  Maybe they don't trust you but they trust X and if he compiled it from open source then they have confidence in the binary they download.  

Lastly despite 99% of people not looking at the source EVERYONE still benefits.  Take firefox for example. Maybe less than 1 in 10,000 users has looked at the source however that still means thousands (tens of thousands more likely) developers that did look at the source finding bugs, exploits, issues, etc.  Thousands of people improving performance, security, adding features, etc.

So ANY user of firefox benefits from this even if they personally never look at the source.  No matter how good of a developer you think you are you made mistakes, assumptions, and have undiscovered exploits, flaws, and bugs.  This isn't a slam on you it is a universal truth about all software developers.  More people looking at the code improves security and performance.

Of course you already knew ALL of this which is why it is so pathetic that you have reach the point you need to pretend to be stupid to create misleading and false statements.

This isn't new for you though is it?
http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php
The implied message is that fraud like mybitcoin, and attacks like on Mt Gox exchanges are a problem w/ bitcoin.  If Solidcoin was as popular as bitcoin it would be attacked also and there is nothing in solid coin which would have prevented a "mysolidcoin.com" fraud or Mt. Gox attack.

Your continual use of misleading statements says a lot about your character.   In most networks this would still be a non-issue as your trust would be irrelivent however solid coin only works with implicit trust of the glorious leader (you) and when that person has problems telling the WHOLE truth well that isn't a good sign.

[Clipse]

You do know regardless of source being out, 90+% of people will be running someones binaries. So even if you compile the source, if you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want. Just like with Bitcoin.

I find it sad that you need  to act stupid to obfuscate.

You know the strength of open source.  Sure despite client being open source some people COULD run tojaned, hacked, etc binaries.  Open Source isn't a magic bullet however you are just creating a strawman for you to defeat.

With open source people CAN create secure binaries.  People CAN also smartly download from people they trust.  Maybe they don't trust you but they trust X and if he compiled it from open source then they have confidence in the binary they download.  

Lastly despite 99% of people not looking at the source EVERYONE still benefits.  Take firefox for example. Maybe less than 1 in 10,000 users has looked at the source however that still means thousands (tens of thousands more likely) developers that did look at the source finding bugs, exploits, issues, etc.  Thousands of people improving performance, security, adding features, etc.

So ANY user of firefox benefits from this even if they personally never look at the source.  No matter how good of a developer you think you are you made mistakes, assumptions, and have undiscovered exploits, flaws, and bugs.  This isn't a slam on you it is a universal truth about all software developers.  More people looking at the code improves security and performance.

Of course you already knew ALL of this which is why it is so pathetic that you have reach the point you need to pretend to be stupid to create misleading and false statements.

This isn't new for you though is it?
http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php
The implied message is that fraud like mybitcoin, and attacks like on Mt Gox exchanges are a problem w/ bitcoin.  If Solidcoin was as popular as bitcoin it would be attacked also and there is nothing in solid coin which would have prevented a "mysolidcoin.com" fraud or Mt. Gox attack.

Your continual use of misleading statements says a lot about your character.   In most networks this would still be a non-issue as your trust would be irrelivent however solid coin only works with implicit trust of the glorious leader (you) and when that person has problems telling the WHOLE truth well that isn't a good sign.

Please point to the mass volume of people who doesnt trust realsolid? Or do you refer to the handfull of trolls continuously spamming solidcoin threads on this forum?

There is a very good reason that the solidcoin network have so many nodes since day one and still growing, none of those users self-compiled their clients thus there are ALOT more people trusting realsolid than not.

I guess you fall in the camp of broken statistics.

[sd]

You do know regardless of source being out, 90+% of people will be running someones binaries. So even if you compile the source, if you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want. Just like with Bitcoin. It's quite a bs excuse , and you'll invent anything to fit your worldview of "SC = BAD". Source would be out and you'd cry about something else you don't like, the CPF, etc. Get the chip off your shoulder.

The only reason so many seriously have this problem with SolidCoin is because they are afraid of what it represents to Bitcoin. Think about it, if SC really was a stinking pile of crap like many here say it is, why would they waste 500 pages filling it with their anti SC propaganda? If I was a bad developer why would people create thread after thread discussing me. If the product was crap it would die out.

Yet here we stand, 3 months later, with a growing network, the most features of any cryptocurrency, multiwallet, mining in the client, minipooling, 51% protected, low block variance, list goes on.

These are all features EVERY SolidCoin user knows is in the client because they're using it right now. Fear is a funny thing isn't it.

I think you got the dose wrong on your meds because that makes no sense whatsoever. We can't trust code that we can't check, it's as simple as that. It's not like you have a brand name to lose or a company to sue when it all goes wrong.

Your stubborn insistence that SolidCoin isn't a scam is only drawing attention to the fact that it is. You troll this forum with lies and 3 or 4 people disprove every tiny little point you make. You would do less harm to SolidCoin if you just admitted it's a scam (badly)designed to make you rich and let us get on with laughing at the next lolcust currency. You do know that people will google SolidCoin and end up here don't you? I don't see you getting many users into your scam when a google search tells people to stay away.

[sd]

3) The point of trust was the entire point I was making.  Solid Coin requires complete trust in the inglorious bastard.  If he does nothing wrong, never does in the future and made no coding errors you are fine.  On the other hand if he decides to screw you over you lose.  No crypto-currency which relies on implicit trust will last. 

FTFY

[memvola]

Please point to the mass volume of people who doesnt trust realsolid? Or do you refer to the handfull of trolls continuously spamming solidcoin threads on this forum?

There is a very good reason that the solidcoin network have so many nodes since day one and still growing, none of those users self-compiled their clients thus there are ALOT more people trusting realsolid than not.

I guess you fall in the camp of broken statistics.

Way to miss the point.

[freequant]

So even if you compile the source, if you can't trust me and others to not be nefarious the network will do whatever those binaries want.

You mean that once we get to read your source code, we won't trust you anymore not to be nefarious?

The only reason so many seriously have this problem with SolidCoin is because they are afraid of what it represents to Bitcoin.

Correct. SolidCoin represents a shame for Bitcoin, and a reputational risk we are all afraid about.
We don't want to get the fallout when it goes bust.

Think about it, if SC really was a stinking pile of crap like many here say it is, why would they waste 500 pages filling it with their anti SC propaganda?

Perhaps because most of these 500 pages belong to threads full of deceiptful advertising started by SC trolls on bitcointalk forum.
Your logic works the other way round : if SC really was a shiny pile of goodness like SC fanboys say it is, why would they need to waste 500 pages filling the forum with their pro SC progaganda?
If you don't want bad advertisement, stop spamming this forum to try to gain traction, and do your own business on your side with your own customer base.

If I was a bad developer why would people create thread after thread discussing me.

Seriously, you need to see a doctor.

If the product was crap it would die out.

But it is dying out...

Yet here we stand, 3 months later, with a growing network

A growing network in terms of what? Number of coins generated?
Because your hashrate is melting, so I assume you must not be referring to that, are you?

the most features of any cryptocurrency, multiwallet, mining in the client, minipooling, 51% protected, low block variance, list goes on.

Whatever.
Solidcoin is not a distributed cryptocurrency, and it has nothing to do on this forum.
If we are to accept that any application developer comes and advertise here just because he has a feature-rich graphical app, we are going to be talking about Angry Birds in no time.

These are all features EVERY SolidCoin user knows is in the client because they're using it right now.

Good for them.