Is SolidCoin 1/2 source code based on BitCoin source code? (Calling CoinHunter)

[Inedible]

I ask because there's this persistent argument about the source being released.

He's under no obligation to release it if he's written it all himself.

It's up to the users if they want to run his client.


Changed title by adding "(Calling Coinhunter)"

[1714128533]

1714128533

[ineededausername]

SC1 was definitely not written by CH alone.  However, SC1 was open source.
I'm not sure about SC2.

[johnj]

I ask because there's this persistent argument about the source being released.

He's under no obligation to release it if he's written it all himself.

It's up to the users if they want to run his client.

The biggest arguement I've heard is that SC 2.0 uses oracle berkeley db - which states unless the software accompanied is open-source, licenses must be purchased (I heard somewhere around $800 per cpu).  AFAIK, CH claims to have these licenses.

[DeathAndTaxes]

ScamCoin is Bitcoin code with minor changes and bugs added then closed source so nobody can check the code for accuracy (like misreporting the hashrate of every client).

[Inedible]

I ask because there's this persistent argument about the source being released.

He's under no obligation to release it if he's written it all himself.

It's up to the users if they want to run his client.

The biggest arguement I've heard is that SC 2.0 uses oracle berkeley db - which states unless the software accompanied is open-source, licenses must be purchased (I heard somewhere around $800 per cpu).  AFAIK, CH claims to have these licenses.

I guess only Oracle can attest to that.

[Inedible]

An over whelming majority is clearly still Bitcoin code, in fact I have seen errors Solidcoin 2 that reference itself as Bitcoin.

Would you be able to run the client through a Hex editor and see if any plaintext strings still say Bitcoin? If so there's a good chance SolidCoin is based on Bitcoin but if that were the case CH would have been awfully silly to not have done a search and replace.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I ask because there's this persistent argument about the source being released.

He's under no obligation to release it if he's written it all himself.

It's up to the users if they want to run his client.

The biggest arguement I've heard is that SC 2.0 uses oracle berkeley db - which states unless the software accompanied is open-source, licenses must be purchased (I heard somewhere around $800 per cpu).  AFAIK, CH claims to have these licenses.

I guess only Oracle can attest to that.

CH never claimed he has valid license he simply stated that Oracle won't care that the software is stolen because ScamCoin is so small.  The truth is here is likely correct but that doesn't change the fact that the blockchain is built on stolen technology. 

[Inedible]

ScamCoin is Bitcoin code with minor changes and bugs added then closed source...

If this is the case then he really needs to release his code whether he likes it or not.

...so nobody can check the code for accuracy (like misreporting the hashrate of every client).

That's a claim that'll be very hard to prove unless he's willing to release his code unmodified. It'll be possible to prove that the code released isn't the code that created the binary if he ever does release it modified though.

[johnj]

I ask because there's this persistent argument about the source being released.

He's under no obligation to release it if he's written it all himself.

It's up to the users if they want to run his client.

The biggest arguement I've heard is that SC 2.0 uses oracle berkeley db - which states unless the software accompanied is open-source, licenses must be purchased (I heard somewhere around $800 per cpu).  AFAIK, CH claims to have these licenses.

I guess only Oracle can attest to that.

CH never claimed he has valid license he simply stated that Oracle won't care that the software is stolen because ScamCoin is so small.  The truth is here is likely correct but that doesn't change the fact that the blockchain is built on stolen technology. 

I could have swore that Maged said he received a PM from CH claiming to have licenses.  I could be wrong though.

[DeathAndTaxes]

ScamCoin is Bitcoin code with minor changes and bugs added then closed source...

If this is the case then he really needs to release his code whether he likes it or not.

Well technically no.  The licensed used by Bitcoin isn't a copy left license and thus derivative works like ScamCoin can remain closed source.  So technically he isn't obligated to (technicallly he could force everyone to pay for a license ala Microsoft).  Still given his willingness to violate Oracle requirements on opensource I doubt he would really care even if he was required to release the source.

That being said people simply need to chose what code they want to use.  Given all the "issues" with SolidCoin the choice is obvious however some feel "left behind" on the bitcoin project and are willing to blind themselves to the facts so they can be in on the ground floor.  

...so nobody can check the code for accuracy (like misreporting the hashrate of every client).

That's a claim that'll be very hard to prove unless he's willing to release his code unmodified. It'll be possible to prove that the code released isn't the code that created the binary if he ever does release it modified though.

It doesn't have to be proven the developer admits the client misreports the hashrate.  He also now admits a bug prevents more than one trust node  to be active at a time.  It doesn't take a leap of faith to think there likely are other bugs possibly hundreds of bugs written by a sloppy arrogent developer who built SolidCoin mostly from code he took from Bitcoin that he likely doesn't understand completely.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I could have swore that Maged said he received a PM from CH claiming to have licenses.  I could be wrong though.

IIRC his claim was that SC qualifies for open source license because the source will eventually be available not that he bought a commercial license (which would cost over $1 mil for just 1200 nodes and no Oracle doesn't take ScamCoins).  Of course that claim is garbage regardless if he told a mod or not.  The license is plain English, black and white.  Instructions to obtain the source must be included with the distribution.  There are no instructions thus the open-source license does not apply.  Maybe releasing the source in the future to some people doesn't meet the requirements of the license.

I think the mods were more that willing to believe anything CH said because it gives them the presumption of innocence.  If (and I doubt they ever will) Oracle wanted to make a deal about it they will simply say the developer said he was licensed, now we know he isn't and will remove all links.

The point is I doubt Oracle will do anything about it.  They have more important things to do than track down every pathetic piracy attempt.  That doesn't change the fact that at its core SolidCoin is based on stolen code which means it had no future.  If SolidCoin ever was successful Oracle would then move to monetize their asset.  If they never do it means SolidCoin never went anywhere.

[Inedible]

I could have swore that Maged said he received a PM from CH claiming to have licenses.  I could be wrong though.

IIRC his claim was that SC qualifies for open source license because the source will eventually be available not that he bought a commercial license (which would cost over $1 mil for just 1200 nodes and no Oracle doesn't take ScamCoins).  Of course that claim is garbage regardless if he told a mod or not.  The license is plain English, black and white.  Instructions to obtain the source must be included with the distribution.  There are no instructions thus the open-source license does not apply.  Maybe releasing the source in the future to some people doesn't meet the requirements of the license.

I think the mods were more that willing to believe anything CH said because it gives them the presumption of innocence.  If (and I doubt they ever will) Oracle wanted to make a deal about it they will simply say the developer said he was licensed, now we know he isn't and will remove all links.

The point is I doubt Oracle will do anything about it.  They have more important things to do than track down every pathetic piracy attempt.  That doesn't change the fact that at its core SolidCoin is based on stolen code which means it had no future.  If SolidCoin ever was successful Oracle would then move to monetize their asset.  If they never do it means SolidCoin never went anywhere.

Bearing all this in mind, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would run the SolidCoin client.

Do we have a guesstimate of how many users there are?

[LoupGaroux]

One wonders if perhaps the shareholders of Oracle would be interested in asking if the Corporation intends to prosecute licensing violations at the Annual Meeting.

Just wondering...

[Raoul Duke]

Would love to see it, but it ain't happening.

Kinda like your succesfull attacks on Solidcoin... All would love to see them, but they ain't happening.

[LoupGaroux]

Just one share can get it listed in the Annual Meeting notice for a vote. Think 8 bazillion proxies are going to be FOR stealing their intellectual property? That press alone ought to have the sc-cabal suffering nightmares of black helicopters full of lawyers.

I used to do these for fun to boycott South Africa during apartheid. It's worth the cost of a share just to make them jump through the hoops and print millions of copies of your manifesto.

Next annual meeting isn't for a year, so we will probably be on sc 19.7 by then, which will be based on pure crystal meth code beamed directly into rs's nerves from Raël.

[simonk83]

I could have swore that Maged said he received a PM from CH claiming to have licenses.  I could be wrong though.

IIRC his claim was that SC qualifies for open source license because the source will eventually be available not that he bought a commercial license (which would cost over $1 mil for just 1200 nodes and no Oracle doesn't take ScamCoins).  Of course that claim is garbage regardless if he told a mod or not.  The license is plain English, black and white.  Instructions to obtain the source must be included with the distribution.  There are no instructions thus the open-source license does not apply.  Maybe releasing the source in the future to some people doesn't meet the requirements of the license.

I think the mods were more that willing to believe anything CH said because it gives them the presumption of innocence.  If (and I doubt they ever will) Oracle wanted to make a deal about it they will simply say the developer said he was licensed, now we know he isn't and will remove all links.

The point is I doubt Oracle will do anything about it.  They have more important things to do than track down every pathetic piracy attempt.  That doesn't change the fact that at its core SolidCoin is based on stolen code which means it had no future.  If SolidCoin ever was successful Oracle would then move to monetize their asset.  If they never do it means SolidCoin never went anywhere.

Bearing all this in mind, I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would run the SolidCoin client.

Do we have a guesstimate of how many users there are?

Well, exactly.  Boggles the mind doesn't it.

In the mean time, more meaningless promises that he'll release the source, yet nothing ever eventuates.

I WONDER WHY??!!!?!

[Inedible]

Well, exactly.  Boggles the mind doesn't it.

In the mean time, more meaningless promises that he'll release the source, yet nothing ever eventuates.

I WONDER WHY??!!!?!

I guess this is the most telling aspect of it all.

What is the reason for not opening up the source if you say you're going to do it?

It just screams of something going on behind the scenes that he doesn't want anyone to see.

And yet people will still mine. I guess for some people it's all about the money. It certainly seems that way for Coinhunter.

I wanted to give SolidCoin a chance. I've gone far to give Coinhunter the benefit of the doubt but at this point I can only say something isn't right and it's time to just ignore anything Solidcoin related just as he has done with many of my questions.

Good luck the rest of you mining!

[Spacy]

"And yet people will still mine. "

More like "and yet a few people will still mine".  Just because a few people keep mining doesn't mean they have faith in SC as a currency.  Speculators are willing to buy it for a penny and sell it for two pennies doesn't mean they have any faith in its long term value.  Double up on a couple buy for $0.01 and sell for $0.02 it doesn't matter if it goes bust in the future you have locked in some profits.

There is a big difference between a few people mining and speculating and a true economy.

But at least they have the faith, that the price will double!