SolidCoin Now officially most secure p2p currency

[bulanula]

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



Discuss about your reaction.

[1715317440]

1715317440

[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"