Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:53:26 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 7406 times)
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:42:58 PM
 #121

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.

Yeah I know, he thought it was impossible, but there is a bug and it will be fixed. That happens thanks to the effort of all the people here checking the source Smiley

Quote
if(txPrev.vout[prevout.n].nValue<(TRUST_FUND_AMOUNT*COIN))          return error("ConnectInputs() : not enough SC for a trusted block");

Isn't that the check to reject a trusted block, if the balance falls below 1mio?

RS cannot enforce any change. If RS makes useless or scamming changes to the code, people won't accept it, and the worst case is that the chain get stuck. At the end only the source that the business nodes are running counts.
1481284406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284406
Reply with quote  #2

1481284406
Report to moderator
1481284406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284406
Reply with quote  #2

1481284406
Report to moderator
1481284406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284406
Reply with quote  #2

1481284406
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481284406
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481284406

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481284406
Reply with quote  #2

1481284406
Report to moderator
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:53:40 PM
 #122

Yeah I know, he thought it was impossible
No he didn't. He admitted to planning on a capability to drain trust wallets. He said so here:

Quote
originally it was going to be a hack protection such that if an account was compromised it could be removed without needing clients to update

Buy & Hold
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 03:58:51 PM
 #123

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.

Funny, the same could be said about SC supporters.  Yet the 'trolls' have many questions, yet the 'sockpuppet supporters' deny any wrongdoing on RS's part, even when he has been caught lieing.  You tell me who the sockpuppet accounts are.

Quote
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.

Yeah, that 'same old crap' are critical security issues SC users should be aware of.  Sweeping legitimate questions under the rug is not a way to inspire confidence.

Quote
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.

And it's scary for SC users

Quote
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.

You switch back and forth so many times here.  He's a 'good leader' who listens to people.  He changes his mind a lot, but you claim he can't do 'whatever he wants'.  Remember the 32-5 SC block change?  Then you go further to admit that he knows they aren't popular with everyone, which contradicts the idea he 'listens to people', at which point you admit he understands that he's wrong a majority of the time.  So at the end of the day we have a guy who doesn't listen to people, does whatever he wants, and is often wrong.

Quote
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.

SC lead by RS or RS sockpuppets is hardly relinquished control.  Especially when RS has keys to all the control accounts.

Quote
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.

Yes, the source came and 'we raged' because the source contained the truth to RS's lie - the fact he can infact spend that premine.  That's cause for 'rage' when one person controls 85% of the coins, when previously he lied about that.


ten98, your rhetoric has been dismissed.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 04:01:39 PM
 #124

And why are you always repeating 12m over and over, even if the source falsifies your argument? Maybe you got stuck when thinking?
12 million is correct. Each trustfund address contained 1.2 million Solidcoins, and there are ten such accounts. Although each account becomes totally unusable once it drops below 1 million solidcoins, this check is on the input to the transaction. Since there's currently no upper limit on the amount of solidcoins that a trustfund transaction can send to RealSolid's CPF, he could just drain the entire remaining balance of each of them in turn to the CPF for a total of 12 million unencumbered, premined solidcoins.

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.
Pretty much, yeah. You're overestimating how much protection the trusted nodes actually provide, probably because you foolishly believed RealSolid. (Haven't you noticed that he tends to exaggerate rather a lot?) There's not even any way for more than one trusted node to signs a block as far as I can tell; if multiple trusted nodes produce even blocks building on the same odd block, the client just picks one.

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).
The block is accepted, unless it's invalid for some other reason. The rest of the network doesn't even have any way to detect that the block has been rejected by some trusted nodes.

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
I'm going to say that's BS. You may need more money than the largest individual trusted node for at least some attacks, but that's not the same as needing 51% of the total trust money.

Quad XC6SLX150 Board: 860 MHash/s or so.
SIGS ABOUT BUTTERFLY LABS ARE PAID ADS
Ten98
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 201



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 04:05:43 PM
 #125


ten98, your rhetoric has been dismissed.


JohnJ, you are one of the biggest trolls on this board, I'm not surprised you chimed in here. Anyone that wants to take a masterclass in attention seeking, spreading FUD and generally making shit up could do a lot worse than just reading all of your posts.

I thought about doing a little point-by-point rebuttal of all of your statements, as you did for me, but I think your stupidity speaks perfectly well for itself without me adding to it. This is one of your "classic" troll posts and should go into the hall of fame. You really do just seem to let the bullshit flow, nice work.
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 04:14:35 PM
 #126


ten98, your rhetoric has been dismissed.


JohnJ, you are one of the biggest trolls on this board, I'm not surprised you chimed in here. Anyone that wants to take a masterclass in attention seeking, spreading FUD and generally making shit up could do a lot worse than just reading all of your posts.

I thought about doing a little point-by-point rebuttal of all of your statements, as you did for me, but I think your stupidity speaks perfectly well for itself without me adding to it. This is one of your "classic" troll posts and should go into the hall of fame. You really do just seem to let the bullshit flow, nice work.

Again, the 'troll' arguement is getting old when every question and concern the 'trolls' have had, have been validated.  Calling fact 'fud' is just silly.  What have I 'made up'?  Cite please?

Your wordplay does yourself a disservice, ten98.  You should show more concern for informing SC users, rather than trying to sweep fatal flaws under the rug.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
HolodeckJizzmopper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 04:28:47 PM
 #127

...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 ... (jaw-breaking fellatio deleted)

 In YOUR opinion.

 A real cryptocurrency wouldn't need draconian central control or a glorious leader. We really should not even be discussing SolidCoin here as it doesn't even qualify as a cryptocurrency any more.

 It's cryptofiat.
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 04:31:51 PM
 #128

...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 ... (jaw-breaking fellatio deleted)

 In YOUR opinion.

 A real cryptocurrency wouldn't need draconian central control or a glorious leader. We really should not even be discussing SolidCoin here as it doesn't even qualify as a cryptocurrency any more in MY opinion.

 It's cryptofiat in MY opinion.

Corrected it for you.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 05:00:18 PM
 #129

...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 ... (jaw-breaking fellatio deleted)

 In YOUR opinion.

 A real cryptocurrency wouldn't need draconian central control or a glorious leader. We really should not even be discussing SolidCoin here as it doesn't even qualify as a cryptocurrency any more.

 It's cryptofiat.
it is not a fiat currency. fiat means by law. it is not a cryptocurrency, or at least not a network controlled peer to peer currency.

it could qualify as a centrally controled cryptocurrency. just like egold.
the thing that we want to avoid, wih he bitcoin project, is central control. therefor it is useless.


go away solidcoin!

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
HolodeckJizzmopper
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 05:08:59 PM
 #130

Corrected it for you.

 Thank you for addressing my post with factual, intelligent counters.

 See my previous point on Stockholm Syndrome.

 The fact remains that SolidCoin does in-fact substitute one problem (potential 51% attack on BTC) with one of complete central control under the domain of one person. Him saying "I plan on eventually relinquishing control to other people" is questionable at best. Given the choice of supporting Bitcoin vs SolidCoin, I think the choice is clear.

 Yes, Bitcoin does have it's problems, but it's a better alternative to SolidCoin in it's current state.

 If Coinhunter/Realsolid is serious about SolidCoin, he would do well to scrap v2 entirely, reboot with v3 with source available ahead of launch,  look to Litecoin as to how to handle a currency launch in a fair way, stop posting on the internet, and get someone skilled with PR.

 In my opinion.

 And I'll concede the point that SC is not fiat, but with the recent 32 to 5 change for the purposes of affecting a change on the markets, it's arguable.
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 05:29:56 PM
 #131

Corrected it for you.

 Thank you for addressing my post with factual, intelligent counters.

 See my previous point on Stockholm Syndrome.

 The fact remains that SolidCoin does in-fact substitute one problem (potential 51% attack on BTC) with one of complete central control under the domain of one person. Him saying "I plan on eventually relinquishing control to other people" is questionable at best. Given the choice of supporting Bitcoin vs SolidCoin, I think the choice is clear.

 Yes, Bitcoin does have it's problems, but it's a better alternative to SolidCoin in it's current state.

 If Coinhunter/Realsolid is serious about SolidCoin, he would do well to scrap v2 entirely, reboot with v3 with source available ahead of launch,  look to Litecoin as to how to handle a currency launch in a fair way, stop posting on the internet, and get someone skilled with PR.

 In my opinion.

 And I'll concede the point that SC is not fiat, but with the recent 32 to 5 change for the purposes of affecting a change on the markets, it's arguable.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. The thing about exchanging 51% security with less decentralization has already been mentioned hundreds of times, it doesn't get more correct by repeating it. SC supporters live with it, haters criticize it.  The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible. It would bring the community forward if you also could provide some constructive feedback, we all know that you and some others hate SC, but that really doesn't solve any problem, it only gets you white hair.

Why should a switch to v3 change anything? Piss off all the SC supporters with coins just to allow others to get early adopters? The trusted node thing would be the same in v3, so no advantage regarding this.
tysat
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952


Keep it real


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 06:17:44 PM
 #132

The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible.

I'd say it's achieved the opposite of this goal.
Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 06:40:22 PM
 #133

The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible.

I'd say it's achieved the opposite of this goal.

No, because decentralization was not the main goal. The most important thing for RS was to get 51% protection, and then to reduce the negative side effects as much as possible with keeping 51% protection intact.
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 07:05:18 PM
 #134

The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible.

I'd say it's achieved the opposite of this goal.

No, because decentralization was not the main goal. The most important thing for RS was to get 51% protection, and then to reduce the negative side effects as much as possible with keeping 51% protection intact.
solution to the 51% attack: single point of failure.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
k9quaint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 11:58:28 PM
 #135

The "main goal" is plainly apparent, to make CH/RS wealthy and give him total control. He achieved the total control part and thanks to the relentless drive of the people here, he will never hit the wealth he dreamed he was going to make. No one will invest in a chain where one megalomaniac narcissistic dirtbag controls everything.

A few will invest. One can always find a few people to sign on the dotted line.
Be glad that those few will not be using Bitcoin when they get scammed.
For once the news will read "Beware of things that are *not* Bitcoin" Wink

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

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 12:04:39 AM
 #136

The "main goal" is plainly apparent, to make CH/RS wealthy and give him total control. He achieved the total control part and thanks to the relentless drive of the people here, he will never hit the wealth he dreamed he was going to make. No one will invest in a chain where one megalomaniac narcissistic dirtbag controls everything.

A few will invest. One can always find a few people to sign on the dotted line.
Be glad that those few will not be using Bitcoin when they get scammed.
For once the news will read "Beware of things that are *not* Bitcoin" Wink

Sadly I think Bitcoin will be lumped in. I hope your right.
tacotime
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
November 05, 2011, 03:13:28 AM
 #137

Not really much being said about what I first posted about.  Maybe it's already spoken for itself.


Code:
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 05, 2011, 03:16:12 AM
 #138

Not really much being said about what I first posted about.  Maybe it's already spoken for itself.

*image*
All this proves is how well the solidcoin difficulty algorithm works...
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 03:44:41 AM
 #139

No it shows miners are fleeing ScamCoin over the clearly superior open and decentralized LightCoin.  ScamCoin is a small and shrinking minority despite GPU mining, and the diehard fans using EC2 clusters to generate coins at a loss its support is still contracting and is now roughly 1/3 of LightCoin and falling fast.
TheHarbinger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Why is it so damn hot in here?


View Profile
November 05, 2011, 05:54:21 AM
 #140

No it shows miners are fleeing ScamCoin over the clearly superior open and decentralized LightCoin.  ScamCoin is a small and shrinking minority despite GPU mining, and the diehard fans using EC2 clusters to generate coins at a loss its support is still contracting and is now roughly 1/3 of LightCoin and falling fast.

If you compare the SC and LTC graphs for the same time frame, there is zero relation between the drop in the SC network speed to any increase in LTC's network speed.  So your statement that people are leaving SC for LTC is clearly bullshit based on the data.

I mine several different coins, including BTC, LTC, and SC.  All of them are flawed, all of them are attackable, that is the truth.  But if any of them ever have a chance to become anything but a purely speculative form of exchange, then the community as a whole has to start discarding people that are blatant liars and do nothing but spread bullshit so deep you can't see the top from the bottom. 

In your one statement, you lied about why there was a drop in the SC network, you hurt LTC and Coblee's reputation by involving them, and you hurt BTC in general by posting your noise in these forums.

And last of all, you made yourself look like an idiot by posting a claim that anyone can verify as totally false.

You don't like SC, we get it, we (99% of *coin users) also don't give a fuck.
I personally don't like GG and TBX, do you see me posting ever 30 seconds about how they will kill and eat your babies?  (To be fair, as far as I know, they have not killed and/or eaten any babies to date, although, the fact that it may happen in the future, no matter how small the probability, seems to be enough for some people here to start a holy war about a baby killing chain)

These forums are rampant with people bending the truth to fit their views, and flat out lying.  Nothing that any of these chains have accomplished, whether you like them or not, will survive unless the community and/or the mods put a stop to this.

12Um6jfDE7q6crm1s6tSksMvda8s1hZ3Vj
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!