Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:02:31 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 7392 times)
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:19:58 AM
 #81

Regardless of who and how many people control the inital control nodes, RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.
If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?
Of course he can.  The even blocks can transfer any amount of money to the CDF which is also controlled by RealScam.  There is only a limit on the minimum amount required to sign the block.  If a control node gets out of line since King RealScam has the private keys he can simply create an even block transaction transferring complete balance of control node to the CDF signed by the private key he will always have.
The king says otherwise. I won't infringe on copyright by posting his exact words, but he said that the amount transferred is capped. I don't understand the mess that is the source though, so I'm forced to trust him for now.
1480824151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824151
Reply with quote  #2

1480824151
Report to moderator
1480824151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824151
Reply with quote  #2

1480824151
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824151
Reply with quote  #2

1480824151
Report to moderator
1480824151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824151
Reply with quote  #2

1480824151
Report to moderator
1480824151
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824151

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824151
Reply with quote  #2

1480824151
Report to moderator
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
 #82

Regardless of who and how many people control the inital control nodes, RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.
If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?
Of course he can.  The even blocks can transfer any amount of money to the CDF which is also controlled by RealScam.  There is only a limit on the minimum amount required to sign the block.  If a control node gets out of line since King RealScam has the private keys he can simply create an even block transaction transferring complete balance of control node to the CDF signed by the private key he will always have.
The king says otherwise. I won't infringe on copyright by posting his exact words, but he said that the amount transferred is capped. I don't understand the mess that is the source though, so I'm forced to trust him for now.

No, you do not.  You can take your current holdings of SC and transfer them into a currency in which you do NOT have to trust one person.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
dree12
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:26:00 AM
 #83

RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.
If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?
Of course he can.
The king says otherwise.
No, you do not.  You can take your current holdings of SC and transfer them into a currency in which you do NOT have to trust one person.
My current SC holdings are worth less than 16 bucks. I can afford to lose something if a) I learn a lesson from this or b) you do Wink.
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:26:22 AM
 #84

Regardless of who and how many people control the inital control nodes, RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.
If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?
Of course he can.  The even blocks can transfer any amount of money to the CDF which is also controlled by RealScam.  There is only a limit on the minimum amount required to sign the block.  If a control node gets out of line since King RealScam has the private keys he can simply create an even block transaction transferring complete balance of control node to the CDF signed by the private key he will always have.
The king says otherwise. I won't infringe on copyright by posting his exact words, but he said that the amount transferred is capped. I don't understand the mess that is the source though, so I'm forced to trust him for now.

Well that is the entire point.  Complete centralized control and you have to trust him.  Not just now but in the future.

Still here is the section of code he is either lying or he doesn't understand his own code

(from transaction.cpp)
Code:
           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;
                if(pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum<42000 || (pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum%2)==1)
                {
                    blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
                else
                {
                    //proper way to get trusted generate value, use last blocks work rate to find real 5%
                    blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->pprev->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
                if([b]valDiff<blockValue[/b])                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : [b]trusted tx payment less than CPF[/b]");

On edit: crap you can't bold inside code block.  Well let me grab that line

                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");

There is no restriction on max payment only on a minimum payment.  ValDiff is the amount of the transaction.  blockValue is the amount required for the evenblock.  It is computed as 5% of the prior block.  Notice the code only requries that ValDiff (amount transfered to King ScamCoin's personal wallet be GREATER than the BlockValue)

So 0.35 SC is valid but so is 800,000 SC.  Grin

Still the larger point is he controls the code and the control nodes.  Even if the code blocked him now he could simply change the code.  What is going to stop him?

The control nodes he owns?
The miners who need to upgrade or have their blocks rejected by the control nodes?

LOLZ.

You are right about one thing.
Quote
I'm forced to trust him for nowever

Of course needing trust at all is a fatal flaw.  I mean there is nothing wrong with Paypal or Federal Reserve.... as long as you trust them.


johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:38:45 AM
 #85

My current SC holdings are worth less than 16 bucks. I can afford to lose something if a) I learn a lesson from this or b) you do Wink.

At current market (BTC/SC), that's roughly 660 SC.

Your value rising depends on more people 'having to trust' RS with their money.  Merchants and people who have more than $16 at stake won't ever do that, thus SC will never be adopted, thus the odds of you seeing any greater profit (outside of electricity costs) are slim.

My suggestion to you is to get out while you can (with a market depth of only ~200 BTC (on btc-e), you control 2.5% of that), but when do get burned this will be one of the cheaper lessons you'll of had to learn the hard way.

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
FlipPro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile WWW
November 04, 2011, 02:02:20 AM
 #86

RS may still has a backup, so the distribution of control nodes is just an illusion.
If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?
Of course he can.
The king says otherwise.
No, you do not.  You can take your current holdings of SC and transfer them into a currency in which you do NOT have to trust one person.
My current SC holdings are worth less than 16 bucks. I can afford to lose something if a) I learn a lesson from this or b) you do Wink.
Wow pro reply kid.

Tweet For Coins http://uptweet.com
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:25:35 AM
 #87

The reality that everybody refuses to see is that he is 2 steps from creating the almost perfect way for a private company to transfer value, hell, even proceed to payments a la paypal way... If it ever gains as much traction as Bitcoin it will be an asset more valuable for any company to hold than bitcoin itself.
Even if he creates the NPO, the NPO has funding, with his royal tax, and if it really turns a profit maybe they will be the company that will hold such asset, if somebody else with more money doesn't show up and buy the whole thing.

Doesn't matter what you all say, that's it's unfair, blah blah blah

If he does it with you all against him, just because you don't agree with his decisions, then you can all be sure that his arrogance will be 100x worst than it is today.
If he fails, he can just blame you all for is failure and will continue being the same prick he is today. <-- Do you really want to give him such weapon? Wink Or maybe you already did gave him that weapon, even if you stop all this nonsense now!

The only thing I'm certain is that you will never stop hearing/reading about him, he doesn't looks like the kind to stay put and eat the frog.

johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:29:53 AM
 #88

even if you stop all this nonsense now!

What 'nonsense'?  Even when people produce code from the source allowing the premine to be spent, you say it's 'nonsense'?  That sounds like critical information people should be aware of, and in direct contrast to what RS says.

The reality that everybody refuses to see is that he is 2 steps from creating the almost perfect way for a private company to transfer value, hell, even proceed to payments a la paypal way...

Well gee psy, you just broke your 'I've never supported SC, I only rag on BCX' stance.  

Chalk another one up as a confirmed kool-aid drinker

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:39:21 AM
 #89

even if you stop all this nonsense now!

What 'nonsense'?  Even when people produce code from the source allowing the premine to be spent, you say it's 'nonsense'?  That sounds like critical information people should be aware of, and in direct contrast to what RS says.

The reality that everybody refuses to see is that he is 2 steps from creating the almost perfect way for a private company to transfer value, hell, even proceed to payments a la paypal way...

Well gee psy, you just broke your 'I've never supported SC, I only rag on BCX' stance. 

Chalk another one up as a confirmed kool-aid drinker

Nope, not supporting him. I don't need to support him to recognize that he worked the way he wanted and created a new "thing"(not going to call it cryptocurrency) that may even succedd, even if just for a while. That's what enraged persons do, refuse to see opposite points of view just because you don't agree with them, or maybe because you're jealous, still couldn't figure it out.

Keep chasing those windmills, fellas... that's all I'm saying


makomk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 10:35:04 AM
 #90

King RealSolid's trusted node idea has not garnered much support from me, but remember that the miners still have the power to check the trusted nodes (securing the "trusted" nodes).
Nope. The only time the pools have any kind of power over the trusted nodes at all is when two different trusted nodes disagree with each other. When all the trusted nodes are running in concert - and this'll be true for the foreseeable future because they're run by RealSolid and people he trusts - miners have no say. They don't get to decide which transactions to accept or which to reject. Remember that the trusted nodes can insert transactions into their even blocks too, and unless another trusted node comes along and disagrees the miners have to either go along with it or abandon SolidCoin altogether.

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

Activity: 686


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 11:24:49 AM
 #91

On edit: crap you can't bold inside code block.  Well let me grab that line

                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");

There is no restriction on max payment only on a minimum payment.  ValDiff is the amount of the transaction.  blockValue is the amount required for the evenblock.  It is computed as 5% of the prior block.  Notice the code only requries that ValDiff (amount transfered to King ScamCoin's personal wallet be GREATER than the BlockValue)

So 0.35 SC is valid but so is 800,000 SC.  Grin
OK, I asked RealSolid about this since I was talking about how the trusted blocks work in #solidcoin anyway, and apparently I wasn't missing anything. It is indeed possible to transfer as much from the trustfund to the CPF as you like so long as it's over the minimum, and apparently this may have been intentional at one point:

Quote
10:58 < makomk> Also, I can't find the code placing a maximum on the size of the trusted node transaction's transaction fee.
10:59 < RealSolid> you cant?
10:59 < RealSolid> well theres a lot of code
11:00 < RealSolid> block.cpp: line 956
11:00 < RealSolid> if (vtx[0].GetValueOut() != qBlockValue+nFees)  return error("ConnectBlock() : Coinbase value incorrect");;
11:00 < RealSolid> theres a previous check too
11:01 < makomk> Surely that just fixes the size of the coinbase TX to be equal to the base 5% plus TX fees, not the size of the TX fees?
11:01 < makomk> There's a check elsewhere that restricts the *minimum* TX fee that the trusted node can pay, but not the maximum.
11:02 < RealSolid> if(valDiff<blockValue)  return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment less than CPF");
11:03 < RealSolid> yeah
11:03 < RealSolid> well its hard to determine the fee amount as its variable
11:04 < makomk> Is there any reason why the trust fund transaction would have to pay more in fees than the minimum payment t the CPF?
11:04 < RealSolid> theres no valid reason why they should no
11:04 < RealSolid> ie pay more than 5%
11:05 < RealSolid> or rather, drop less than 5%
11:06 < makomk> It's even a fixed-size transaction from what I can see - only one input and output allowed and must pass IsStandard.
11:07 < RealSolid> yeah you could probably change the < to !=
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
11:08 < makomk> Though of course all that money would have to go to the CPF.
11:08 < RealSolid> and?
11:09 < RealSolid> its going to the cpf anyhow over a year period
11:09 < RealSolid> *3 year
11:09 < RealSolid> or was anyhow, its probably more now
11:09 < RealSolid> depends upon miner uptake
11:10 < makomk> Just saying that it does mean that you did kind of intentionally add the ability to transfer arbitrary amounts from the trustfunds to the CPF and neglect to mention it.
11:10 < RealSolid> the full account wouldnt need to go to cpf, just the amount to make it over a million
11:10 < Blobber_> there is no ability to transfer more than 5%...
11:10 < RealSolid> makomk: yeah well none extra has gone to the cpf so Smiley
11:11 < RealSolid> no accounts have been hacked
11:11 < mtrlt> but what if some extra does go?
11:11 < mtrlt> i think it should be prevented :p
11:11 < RealSolid> perhaps
11:11 < RealSolid> it depends really
...
11:15 < RealSolid> i thought it was covered already actually in CP 42000, but that actually changed the block value too
11:16 < RealSolid> so its why i was confused

Apologies for the long paste. Anyway, hopefully this issue will finally get fixed. Angry

Edit: Yep, fix should go into the next version according to RealSolid.

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, 12:46:58 PM
 #92


(Interesting IRC text snipped)

Apologies for the long paste. Anyway, hopefully this issue will finally get fixed. Angry

Yep, fix should go into the next version according to RealSolid.


Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.

Of course even that is academic because there is no proof that anyone other than King RealScam has control of any control node.

100% fully centralized and absolute control over both the source and the network by a single King.  How exactly is this better than Federal Reserve?
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
 #93

Edit: Yep, fix should go into the next version according to RealSolid.


I appreciate your diligence in finding and pursuing this, makomk.

what I still can't fathom is why folk like viper, spacey, psy, etc are all still trying to compete as to who can get the most brown on their nose from RS.

For weeks it was said 'The 12m+ premine is unspendable' when all along RS knew they could be spent.  How anyone can simply write off a blatant LIE like that is beyond me. 

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

Activity: 686


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:35:44 PM
 #94

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.
Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

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

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 01:59:10 PM
 #95

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.
Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

Thx for your effort. The haters don't want to discuss, they just want to spread FUD.  Although they know that regular nodes wouldn't accept such a block, they state it the other way around...
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:00:45 PM
 #96

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.
Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

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.

Quote
If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools.

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.

Also the control nodes are based on the money balance.  If King RealScam wants to pretend this is a democracy he can give "control" (which is dubious if he knows the private keys) of 49% of control node balances to other people.  Hell he could give 49% to Bitcoin Express, Me, Gavin, and Colbee.  It wouldn't matter.  If he retains 51% of control node balances he has 100% control.

The peasant nodes will do whatever 51% of the control nodes (by balance) tell them to do.  Period.
johnj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:03:45 PM
 #97

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.
Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

Thx for your effort. The haters don't want to discuss, they just want to spread FUD.  Although they know that regular nodes wouldn't accept such a block, they state it the other way around...

Spacey, it's not FUD when it's FACT - FACT is the 12m+ premine are VERY spendable.

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

Activity: 154


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:06:27 PM
 #98

<snip>

Fact based on observation?

or Doom and Gloom Theory?  (This is what it is and it's tiresome to say the least in seeing these types of arguments)

'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?

1AeW7QK59HvEJwiyMztFH1ubWPSLLKx5ym
TradeHill Referral TH-R120549
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:15:50 PM
 #99

<snip>

Fact based on observation?

or Doom and Gloom Theory?  (This is what it is and it's tiresome to say the least in seeing these types of arguments)

Fact based on the code.  Observation is no test for capability.  The US hasn't killed everyone in Europe with nuclear weapons.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have the capability.

Didn't you chide everyone for not reading the code.  Well really reading the code takes some time so read it.

Quote
          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;
                if(pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum<42000 || (pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum%2)==1)
                {
                    blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
                else
                {
                    //proper way to get trusted generate value, use last blocks work rate to find real 5%
                    blockValue = Block_GetCoinBaseValue(pindexBlock->pprev->blk.dwBits, pindexBlock->blk.nBlockNum);
                }
                if(valDiff<blockValue)                                              return error("ConnectInputs() trusted tx payment less than CPF
The only limit on trusted node transfers is
a) they can only be in a even block
b) they can only be to King RealScam's personal wallet
c) they can only be GREATER than the minimum required (5% of prior block) (KingRealScam wants the full tax not just some of it).

Now since equality is to test for.  Like this...

Quote
if (valDiff != blockValue) return error("ConnectInputs() : trusted tx payment must be 5% of prior block"

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.

Spacy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
November 04, 2011, 02:17:35 PM
 #100

Also if King RealScam ever needs to kill a control node who isn't a rubber stamp he can simply put the code right back in, transfer the entire trusted node balance to himself and no problem w/ control node.
Hopefully not - any nodes running a version of the client with the fix will reject an attempt to do this in the same way they'd reject any other invalid transaction. If there are any trusted nodes outside the control of RealSolid, they should probably be compiling their client from source and keeping a close eye on any changes though, as should mining pools. (Pools should be doing the same with Bitcoin even if it's not quite as important there.)

Thx for your effort. The haters don't want to discuss, they just want to spread FUD.  Although they know that regular nodes wouldn't accept such a block, they state it the other way around...

Spacey, it's not FUD when it's FACT - FACT is the 12m+ premine are VERY spendable.

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...
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!