Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 04:21:11 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: What effect will changing the block size from 32 to 5 have on SC?  (Read 7403 times)
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:23:07 PM
 #101

When the code is fixed, it doesn't matter what a trusted node does in his own chain fork. It only counts what the nodes which run the SC businesses (exchanges, shops, normal nodes, etc...) accept as valid blocks. And it's also FUD that the entire 12m are spendable, it's only 2m...

Another blatant falsehood.  Have you looked at the code.  The peasant nodes accept the block signed by 51% of trust nodes (by balance).

Currently KingRealScam has 100% of trust node balances (and will always retain the private keys for 100% of the balances).  Still even if he only had 51% of the balances he still retains complete control of the network.

Any node which submits a block or transaction contrary to the Kings edicts will never become part of the block chain.  Anything the 49% of trust nodes signs will never be accepted as valid by any of the peasants nodes.

1481170871
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481170871

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481170871
Reply with quote  #2

1481170871
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:26:51 PM
 #102

'Same Agurments'

Dude, your guy just got busted lieing and you're over here being pretentious about 'same old arguements'?

Do you have -anything- to say about the great lie your dear leader has been trying to pull over on his sheep?  Or were you in on it?

Unlike you, until I see something wrong done, I don't assume it will happen

And unlike you, when someone lies over and over again, I have the backbone to call them out.


1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:27:18 PM
 #103

why would such a God among programmers accidentally allow any amount greater than the minimum?
Quote
if (valDiff<blockValue)   return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");

Please stop lying (since you claim to have read the code) and provide the specific line of code which prevents tax payments to King RealScam that are >5% of prior block reward.

If you really would have followed the discussion you whould have noticed that the baseAmount is also checked later. It is not possible to send a higher baseAmount, but RS didn't though about also checking the fee amount of the transaction. At the moment it is possible to send higher fees with the one fix base amount in a trusted block, but that will be fixed soon. And if all of the normal nodes upgrade to the fixed version, they won't accept such false blocks anymore... You should better follow the discussion instead to post outdated info over and over again Smiley
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:35:00 PM
 #104

Viper there are about 20 references in this thread and other threads about how it is IMPOSSIBLE to not spend the 12M PreMine.

Absolutely impossible.  Before seeing the source code I pointed out that since the even blocks send those "impossible coins" directly to King RealScam's personal wallet and was promptly based by you and others that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

Now we find out it is very possible (BTW you are the first (and so far only supporter) to admit it.  Suddenly the argument changes (yet another bait & switch) that "the intent isn't mailicous" however the intent wasn't what was argued from day one.  What was FALSELY claimed is that the 12M premine is unspendable.

So I agree with you it comes down to trust & intent. If someone implicitly trust King RealScam with everything they have invested in ScamCoin then there is no problem.  However the entire ScamCoin scheme boils down to complete trust because it is completely controlled by a single person.  If his intent is malicious there is absolutely nothing you or anyone can do about it.

The purpose of CryptoCurrency is to facilitate trade without trust in a third party.  Now there are some flaws with Bitcoin.  It doesn't YET achieve that goal of absolutely no trust in third party however it is improving.  The ability to have dual signature addresses can eliminate the need to trust exchanges or eWallets.  The ability to create contracts in the block chain will allow verifiable proof of ownership changes of digital goods.   Dual signatures may enable someday the ability to create "trust-less" escrows.  Technology like p2pool can make pools less of a trust concern and harden the network against DDOS attacks.

So Bitcoin is an evolving network striving for the goal outline by Satoshi to create a peer to peer decentralized currency that requires no trust in third party.  ScamCoin even if it works is a huge step backwards because it requires absolute trust in a single person.  You claims of intent are exactly that a statement of trust.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:39:07 PM
 #105

If you really would have followed the discussion you whould have noticed that the baseAmount is also checked later. It is not possible to send a higher baseAmount, but RS didn't though about also checking the fee amount of the transaction. At the moment it is possible to send higher fees with the one fix base amount in a trusted block, but that will be fixed soon. And if all of the normal nodes upgrade to the fixed version, they won't accept such false blocks anymore... You should better follow the discussion instead to post outdated info over and over again Smiley

Even if that were true (and it isn't) it is irrelivent.  King RealScam controls 100% of control node balances.  As long as he controls at least 51% he can make any change to the source and force it upon the network.  The network will only accept even blocks accepted by at least 51% of the control node balances.

He can make any change (any possible change) and if you refuse to upgrade then you are locked out of the block chain.  No mining, no transactions, no access to your funds. 

It is 100% complete and absolute centralized control by one man.  No amount of double talk and empty promises changes that.
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:48:34 PM
 #106

Even if that were true (and it isn't) it is irrelivent.  King RealScam controls 100% of control node balances.  As long as he controls at least 51% he can make any change to the source and force it upon the network.  The network will only accept even blocks accepted by at least 51% of the control node balances.

He can make any change (any possible change) and if you refuse to upgrade then you are locked out of the block chain.  No mining, no transactions, no access to your funds. 

You seem really naive to call all the SC users so stupid. Now that the source is out they will follow every change made to the source. Do you really think that exchanges etc. would use new source which would build in new ways to spend the 2m premine? That's the same for the other trosted nodes. Do you really think all the people who run trusted nodes now are just RS puppies who do everything RS says withouth brain?

And for the 51% you don't have any source code available to enforce your claims, I suppose. You should better check the source how trusted nodes decide if they accept a trusted block or not.
HolodeckJizzmopper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:49:28 PM
 #107

Supporters of King RealScam and RealFiatCoin are starting to sound like people with Stockholm Syndrome Sad
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:54:43 PM
 #108

Normal nodes can't stop the control nodes.  If control node say doing x is valid a normal node either does x or its blocks & transactions never make it part of the blockchain.  Sure you can compile your own source.  Compile the source and put the correct block reward of 32 SC back in.

You can communicate with the network, mine a block, even find a solution, sign the block and submit it to the control nodes .... who will promptly reject it and your block never becomes part of the block chain.
I'm assuming in this scenario that at least one trusted node doesn't consider this action valid, most likely the node that's being revoked. That's all that's currently required to keep the fork of the network in which raiding trustfund accounts is against the rules running. (RealSolid is apparently planning to change this to require two at some point, though.)

There aren't.  He has private keys for all 10 control nodes.  There won't be any organic control nodes outside King RealScam's control for 6+ years at current generation rates.  At any point in the next 6 years he can simply change that to and ensure there never is a control node not under his control.
With the appropriate usage restrictions, having access to the trustfund private keys is not the same as controlling all the trusted nodes that use them.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:55:29 PM
 #109

You seem really naive to call all the SC users so stupid. Now that the source is out they will follow every change made to the source. Do you really think that exchanges etc. would use new source which would build in new ways to spend the 2m premine? That's the same for the other trosted nodes. Do you really think all the people who run trusted nodes now are just RS puppies who do everything RS says withouth brain?

It has nothing to do with stupidity.  Not everyone has happy w/ change from 32 SC to 5SC.  Guess what happens if they tried to keep using the old client.  Any blocks or transactions were simply rejected by the control nodes.  

It isn't an issue of stupidity.  It is an issue of absolute control (regardless of if you can see it or not).   Try mining w/ client that generated 32 SC reward and tell me what happens to your submitted blocks.

Quote
You should better check the source how trusted nodes decide if they accept a trusted block or not.

Maybe you shoud.  Honestly if the control nodes disagree on prior block how do you think the network resolves it.  King RealSolid himself even has admitted it and it is in the source code.  The peasant nodes our bond to the decision of 51% of the control nodes (by balance).

If 51% of control nodes (by balance) say a block is invalid then it is invalid and will be rejected by every client.   No block joins the block chain unless accepted by the control nodes (of which King RealSolid controls 100%).
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:05:21 PM
 #110

With the appropriate usage restrictions, having access to the trustfund private keys is not the same as controlling all the trusted nodes that use them.

Circular logic.  

What sets the "usage restrictions"? .... The source code.
If someone changes the source code what ensures that it is compliant?  .... The control nodes.
Who can sign off on an even block as valid?  ... Someone who has the private key to a control node.

Thus if you have the majority of the private keys (or all of them) then you have no restrictions on what you can do.

Now in theory I agree that if
a) 10 new control nodes were created in which only the owner/controlller new the private key
b) those people were verified to actually be 10 independent people (not 10 sockpuppets of King RealScam)
c) the balances from the "tainted" control nodes were transfered to these new control nodes

then yet at that point (assumming King RealScam doesn't have direct access or indirectly access via syncopanth) then the control nodes would work for the good of the network and not at the personal whims of the King.

However as long as 51% of control node balances are in accounts that King RealScam has the private key for then he has 100% control.
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:10:20 PM
 #111


[Vapid nonsense followed by] ... and then became doom and gloomers while they moved on to "rape the users" of some other system.

The whole point of a cryptocurrency is that users of the system cannot be raped by a few random people on a message board. Solidcoin does not qualify as a cryptocurrency since a single person can change any aspect of it, at will. Solidcoins can be moderated out of existence as easily as forum posts on the solidcoin forums and that is quite the opposite of what cryptocurrencies stand for.

Bitcoin is backed by the full faith and credit of YouTube comments.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:10:40 PM
 #112

On the other sides of the various fences you have people *accused* of mallicious intent when there is no credible and undeniable proof.  Including Thomas N., RealSolid/Coinhunter and lolcust.  I am sure when the doom and gloomers tire of it, Coblee will join this list with LTC.  

Intent without means is useless.  Colbee has shown no malicous intent but that isn't the point.  I don't trust Coblee.  I don't say that to be a jerk.  I am saying I don't HAVE to trust Coblee and I don't want to HAVE to trust Coblee.  LTC has no centralized control.

I think is sad that the arugment has now changed from "it is IMPOSSIBLE to spend the 12M SC" to "you can trust King RealScam to not spend the 12M SC".


Here is the thing you aren't getting.  You may be right.  We "may" be able to trust him but I don't want to trust him.  A network that REQUIRES implicit trust is a failure.  It took the problems Bitcoin has and made them worse.  Paypal is fine if you want to implicitly trust someone, so is Liberty Reserve, so is Dwolla.  There is no utlity in decentralizing a network in functionality and then still needing to trust a central authority.   You merge all the issues of decentralized network with all problems of implicity trust in a central authority.

I would say the need for implicit trust makes ScamCoin inferior to BOTH Bitcoin and Paypal.
Bitcoin - decentralized (no implicit trust required) but low adoption
Paypal - centralized (must implicitly trust Paypal) but high adoption

ScamCoin - implicity trust required AND low adoption.


It is like saying "There is nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve  .... if they always do the right thing for the people."  I would argue that is a logical failure.  EVEN IF they do the right for the people there is STILL a problem with the Federal Reserve because it requires implicit trust that they will not just do the right thing today but everyday into the future.  

Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:12:43 PM
 #113

Quote
You should better check the source how trusted nodes decide if they accept a trusted block or not.

Maybe you shoud.  Honestly if the control nodes disagree on prior block how do you think the network resolves it.  King RealSolid himself even has admitted it and it is in the source code.  The peasant nodes our bond to the decision of 51% of the control nodes (by balance).

If 51% of control nodes (by balance) say a block is invalid then it is invalid and will be rejected by every client.   No block joins the block chain unless accepted by the control nodes (of which King RealSolid controls 100%).

Show me the code where the trusted nodes make a 51% poll about if a block should be accepted or rejected... I don't think that this works as a big "trusted community effort", instead every node decides for himself, if a block wins over another by certain rules. Do you really think, the the trusted nodes send there "decisions" out to the network, and every normal node checks "Hm, how many trusted nodes like this block, and how many not? Hm, accept it or not?" But maybe you can instruct me, if you have source proof.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:15:51 PM
 #114

At best this could be chalked up as a bug to be fixed in the next release, based an a flawed hacker defense.  If the intent was to one day loot the whole batch of coins for profit ya that would be bad, but I don't have reason to see this intent yet and there really is no direct lie.

Statement one:
Currently those trust accounts cannot be moved in ANY way, including collecting donations to themselves. So it would be impossible _currently_ to do such a thing with them. They are really locked down.

Statement two:
Quote
11:07 < RealSolid> originally it was going to be a hack protection
11:07 < makomk> Oh?
11:07 < RealSolid> such that if an account was compromised it could be removed without needing clients to update
11:08 < RealSolid> by dropping it to under a million

Plain and simple. Statement one claims accounts can't be drained, statement two says the intention was to be able to drain them. Lie.

Buy & Hold
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:19:22 PM
 #115

I think is sad that the arugment has now changed from it is IMPOSSIBLE to spend the 12M SC to you can trust King RealScam to not spend the 12M SC.

You don't get it? It meant to be impossible, and then after the fix it is IMPOSSIBLE to send a trusted block with incorrect fee to a node running the new corrected code. You probably confused past and future? And why are you always repeating 12m over and over, even if the source falsifies your argument? Maybe you got stuck when thinking?
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:22:08 PM
 #116

Plain and simple. Statement one claims accounts can't be drained, statement two says the intention was to be able to drain them. Lie.

"Orginally... but then it was changed so that movement shouldn't be possible"  I don't see a conflict between the 2 statements...
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:23:32 PM
 #117

Show me the code where the trusted nodes make a 51% poll about if a block should be accepted or rejected... I don't think that this works as a big "trusted community effort", instead every node decides for himself, if a block wins over another by certain rules. Do you really think, the the trusted nodes send there "decisions" out to the network, and every normal node checks "Hm, how many trusted nodes like this block, and how many not? Hm, accept it or not?" But maybe you can instruct me, if you have source proof.

Of course they do otherwise one rogue node could mark any double spend or 51% attack as valid.  If the peasant nodes just accepted any block signed by one control node regardless of being rejected by other control nodes then 1 rouge trusted node with 1M SC (0.00001% of total) could sign any bad block and if the attacker had the longest chain the could reverse transaction just like they can on Bitcoin.

I mean think about it.  How would you resolve a "conflict" where some trusted nodes reject a block and some accept it?  If you are too lazy to look in the source yourself you will need to wait until I get home.  For some reason my work's firewall considers download from solidcoin.info to be "untrusted" (not a joke).

You may also be interested in King RealScam's comments on stackexchange

Quote
Trying to use the current market price and say you could buy a million coins at that value is rather foolish. Attempting to buy half the coins created would be incredibly difficult right now and would likely hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that is right now. You also need more money than all the valid trusted nodes , or rather 51% of the trust money. – RealSolid Nov 1 at 8:33

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/what-can-xxxcoin-do-to-stop-the-impending-51-attack
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:29:43 PM
 #118

You don't get it? It meant to be impossible, and then after the fix it is IMPOSSIBLE to send a trusted block with incorrect fee to a node running the new corrected code.

So by definition it is possible.  Right now it can happen.  Maybe you should look up the definition of impossible.  As far as it is "meant" to be impossible.  How can you know the intent of the author.

Quote
You probably confused past and future? And why are you always repeating 12m over and over, even if the source falsifies your argument? Maybe you got stuck when thinking?

Unlike you I actually read the source.  There is no restriction on how much money can be dumped from a trusted node to the King's wallet.  None (other than a minimum check).   The statement "it is impossible to spend the 12M SC" is false.  Period.

You claim the source code WILL be changed?  By who?  When?    Even IF it is changed it can be changed back if one person controls 51% of the "control money" they control the network.  They can enforce any change they want.
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:34:25 PM
 #119

If the peasant nodes just accepted any block signed by one control node regardless of being rejected by other control nodes then 1 rouge trusted node with 1M SC (0.00001% of total) could sign any bad block and if the attacker had the longest chain the could reverse transaction just like they can on Bitcoin.

I mean think about it.  How would you resolve a "conflict" where some trusted nodes reject a block and some accept it?  If you are too lazy to look in the source yourself you will need to wait until I get home.  For some reason my work's firewall considers download from solidcoin.info to be "untrusted" (not a joke).

You may also be interested in King RealScam's comments on stackexchange

Quote
Trying to use the current market price and say you could buy a million coins at that value is rather foolish. Attempting to buy half the coins created would be incredibly difficult right now and would likely hundreds of thousands of dollars. And that is right now. You also need more money than all the valid trusted nodes , or rather 51% of the trust money. – RealSolid Nov 1 at 8:33

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/what-can-xxxcoin-do-to-stop-the-impending-51-attack

The point is, if the other trusted nodes reject a trusted block, the will continue to mine their own valid block. First the normal nodes reject the invalid trusted block, because the coinamount+fee is too high. Then they get a new trusted block from the other nodes, accept it, and the rogue trusted node sits on its own invalid chain fork. That's the szenario if a trusted block with too many coins is sent after the fix. If a normal node gets multiple different trusted node blocks, they can decide which of them wins by comparing the work done in the different blocks. You can check the source, the chain wins with the most "work" done, the "work" also factors in the trusted node money balance.
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:34:29 PM
 #120

I hope people reading this thread realise that it is just the same few people on this board trotting out the same bullshit again and again and again. Take a look at the other SolidCoin-related threads in this section of the forum and you will see the same 5 or 6 names appearing again and again. Why do these people feel the need to trash talk SolidCoin every single day of their lives? Are they simply the same 2 people with multiple accounts? Who knows, you'll need to ask them.

However, I think people are starting to wise up to the trolls. I've noticed recently that very few replies to their threads are from anyone other than either themselves or SolidCoin supporters correcting their invalid arguments. The same old crap about who might be able to spend premines, who might be able to take control of trusted nodes, who might do what with the client, who might do what with enough hashing power have been played out so many times that people making these arguments are starting to make themselves look stupid. These troll arguments are all "what if..." questions and are not worth the steam off my piss.

Anyway, trolling aside, so far the singular valid point anyone has made against SolidCoin is that one person is in complete control over the entire project. This is the one accusation anywhere in this thread which is actually true.

Thankfully, it is a non-issue. RealSolid is a good leader, he has his head firmly on his shoulders and is wise enough to listen to people whose opinion he values. Unlike the trolls here, he actually changes his mind about a lot of things. If he was a tyrant who did whatever the fuck he wanted and failed to listen to reason, then we'd have a genuine issue here, but he just isn't. He is decisive, driven, extremely productive and isn't afraid to make changes to the project as and when they are needed, even though they might not be popular with everyone. He understands that sometimes the majority are wrong, and has the courage of his convictions.

Even so, as awesome as RS is, a single point of failure is of course a weakness for any project with as lofty goals as SolidCoin has. But I think people need to get some perspective here, we have goals and aspirations to be a successful, trusted and open mass-market internet currency but we are a long way off from achieving them. People comparing SolidCoin to the federal reserve, or a government, or to massive open source projects like Linux are really seriously missing the point. We are growing and evolving and in time the project will become what we aspire for it to be, but for now it is merely an embryo, a private project controlled by an individual. To hold it up at this point to the same standards as the international banking system is just downright ridiculous. Rome was not built in a day.

RealSolid has stated publicly a number of times his desire to relinquish control of the project to a group of people capable of taking it forward, and one of the major goals for all supporters of SolidCoin is to come up with a structure for that group, decide who comprises it and what their roles should be. Nothing worth doing is easy, especially organising a group of people over the internet. So certainly for the foreseeable future, yes, RealSolid calls the shots.

Unlike RS, most of these trolls have entirely inflexible minds and will never change their opinion about SolidCoin, no matter how SolidCoin itself changes. They will always find something else to hate about it. First it was no source, source came and they still rage. Next it is the trusted nodes all in the hands of RS, trusted nodes are distributed around multiple people around the world and they still rage. Next is the  fact that the CPF is handled by one person and will be used for personal profit, RS will spend it all on the project and document every spend, but they will still rage, just about something different. You can never please all of the trolls all of the time.

Trolls, in their own way, are actually quite useful to the project. Their incessant whining, snorting and braying helps us to understand where we need to apply our efforts to improve the project. In their own little way, they are all contributors  Cheesy
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!