What effect will changing the block size from 32 to 5 have on SC?

[Spacy]

If you're refering to the block explorer, that only tells you what HAS happened, it gives no protection of what WILL happen.  Also anyone can use the block explorer, not just miners.

In SC, miners have zero authority.

But the normal nodes still are the nodes where the business is done... So sure they have some kind of authority...

[1714966282]

1714966282

[1714966282]

1714966282

[johnj]

If you're refering to the block explorer, that only tells you what HAS happened, it gives no protection of what WILL happen.  Also anyone can use the block explorer, not just miners.

In SC, miners have zero authority.

But the normal nodes still are the nodes where the business is done... So sure they have some kind of authority...

"where the business is done"

No.

'Trust nodes' have that say so.  Something processed by the 'miners' can get denied by a 'trust node', if the trust node sees fit.  However, the 'miners' can't disallow something the 'trust nodes' process.

Infact, SC doesn't need miners at all, so why would miners have -any- authority?

[DeathAndTaxes]

If you're refering to the block explorer, that only tells you what HAS happened, it gives no protection of what WILL happen.  Also anyone can use the block explorer, not just miners.

In SC, miners have zero authority.

But the normal nodes still are the nodes where the business is done... So sure they have some kind of authority...

How?  If trusted node considers your transaction or block to be invalid then it never joins the block chain and thus is ignored by the rest of the network much like an orphaned block in Bitcoin except a single person decides what is ophaned and what allowed to enter the blockchain. 

For example if you tried to mine a block w/ 32 SC reward (like before the bait and switch) you "could" however that block will never get approved by the control nodes and thus never join the longest blockchain.

No matter what change King RealScam makes your options are a) accept it or b) being blocked permanently by the control nodes.  So how exactly do the miners have "authority"?  Honestly there is absolutely no need for miners.   King RealScam could just setup a faucet and let people signup for ScamCoins.  

Some examples to help you think about it.

If King RealScam dropped the block reward to 0 as a miner what could you do about it?
If King RealScam changed 10% wealth transfer (to his wallet) to a 35% wealth transfer what could you do about it?
If King RealScam published a list of "banned addresses" of known traitors to the RealScam Kingdom and your address was one of them and any transaction involving a banned address was blocked by the control nodes what could you do about it?
If King RealScam decided he didn't have enough coins and decided that block 10,000 would have a "one time" block reward of 10 million ScamCoins paid to him what could you do about it?

Think about those and then tell me what authority you have.

[Syke]

Infact, SC doesn't need miners at all, so why would miners have -any- authority?

Exactly. Clients should just send their transactions to the control node, who will create a block of valid transactions at the speed it wants to. Since RealSolid is fond of running a game inside the blockchain, the control node can pass out block rewards on a random basis. This business of miners hashing blocks at increased levels of difficulty is completely unnecessary in the current client/server SolidCoin network.

[PatrickHarnett]

I spent some time this morning reading about sovereign default and related topics.  While not exactly anti-SC, my opinion is that it is of limited duration so follow these arguments for fun.  I could suggest CH/RS might actually be George Papandreou because there are some similarities to the situation Greece is in.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Infact, SC doesn't need miners at all, so why would miners have -any- authority?

Exactly. Clients should just send their transactions to the control node, who will create a block of valid transactions at the speed it wants to. Since RealSolid is fond of running a game inside the blockchain, the control node can pass out block rewards on a random basis. This business of miners hashing blocks at increased levels of difficulty is completely unnecessary in the current client/server SolidCoin network.

Which may be the end game.  King RealScam has been pushing this meme that decentralization doesn't matter, that control is necessary, that you always have to trust someone.  Since he can change the source code at will and his control nodes will act as enforcers he could pull the final and ultimate bait and switch.

As some point in the future simply eliminate the need for miners, they are parasites anyways.  The network would work just fine with control nodes doing all the verification and signing.  He always has a justification for everything so blame it on the risk of botnets or mine and dump miners.  Since there is no chance of a competing control node anytime in the next couple years he can leave that bait out there and simply change that also in the future deciding that trolls and scammers might try to get a control node.  Since he has run the control nodes and the network is safe why not just permanently seal the control nodes so there can never be any new ones. If centralization, control, and implicit trust are good things that is the perfect digital currency.

[dree12]

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).

No they don't.  King RealScam cut wages to all the miners by 87%.  If you didn't accept then the control nodes rejected your blocks.  So what exactly could the miners do?  The Control Nodes are complete and absolute control over the network both now and into the future.

Any change King RealScam decides to impose on his subjects will be enforced by the ControlNodes.  There is no way around them.

If you didn't accept I believe that the clients rejected your blocks. I don't think (I haven't read the source, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that the control nodes have the power to do that. What I mean is that the public has 50% of the "vote", which is enough to check the power of the control nodes. What if miners got 51% of the blocks? This may help relieve the ability for a malicious control node to 51% the network easily by requiring it to gain at least 2% of the miner blocks, while still preventing 51% attacks by miners.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean by rejected (as in stop mining on the old blockchain). If King RealSolid enforces unpopular changes, wouldn't the control nodes choose not to support them however?

[johnj]

If King RealSolid enforces unpopular changes, wouldn't the control nodes choose not to support them however?

... who controls the control nodes?  Realsolid.

How do you become a control node?  Get 1m SC

Realsolid just made it ~86% harder to become a control node when he reduced the block subsidy.

Convenient, huh?

[dree12]

If King RealSolid enforces unpopular changes, wouldn't the control nodes choose not to support them however?

... who controls the control nodes?  Realsolid.

How do you become a control node?  Get 1m SC

Realsolid just made it ~86% harder to become a control node when he reduced the block subsidy.

Convenient, huh?

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If you didn't accept I believe that the clients rejected your blocks. I don't think (I haven't read the source, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that the control nodes have the power to do that. What I mean is that the public has 50% of the "vote", which is enough to check the power of the control nodes. What if miners got 51% of the blocks? This may help relieve the ability for a malicious control node to 51% the network easily by requiring it to gain at least 2% of the miner blocks, while still preventing 51% attacks by miners.

Nope.  The control nodes will refuse blocks or transactions from anyone running on the old client.  So when King RealScam issues a new change you have two choices

a) update client and accept changes.
b) refuse to update and then control node will refuse to accept your blocks/transactions as they are now "invalid" and don't comply with new network protocol.

Going back to the example of 32 SC vs 5 SC block reward.  You could redownload the old client and mine 32 SC blocks.  Sure you can "vote" by using the client which allows you to do that.  The "small" problem is that the control nodes will reject anything you do and as a result your block will never become part of the block chain.  So you can mine for a decade and finds thousands of blocks but none of them will become part of the longest chain.

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean by rejected (as in stop mining on the old blockchain). If King RealSolid enforces unpopular changes, wouldn't the control nodes choose not to support them however?

Starting to get it.  King RealScam controls the control nodes.  They are his enforcers.  He makes a change, you upgrade the client or the control nodes consider your transactions/blocks to be invalid.  Cutting the reward by 87% ensure that nobody else will have a control node for years (if ever).

[DeathAndTaxes]

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

There is only one insider - King RealScam.  He has the private keys to all 10 control nodes.  Maybe in the future he may use a sockpuppet to claim someone else has a control node but
a) how do you know maybe he just posts under another account "hey guys I am Joe ScamReal and I control control node 1"?
b) if he chooses who gets gains access how likely are they to block him?
c) the control nodes with 51% of the funds can veto others so he can pass out some control nodes but they would have no power
d) he has the private keys to all 10 and ability to make code changes. He could simply regain control of them.

You do bring up a point though.  Centralized Control is a bad thing.

[johnj]

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

Now here is where it gets really sketchy:  No one BUT RS has claimed to operate a trust node.  Infact (I may be wrong on this point), he has specifically stated that he retains a backup of all trust node wallets.

Until anyone steps up and verifies that they operate a 'trust node', we have only left to know that RS operates them all.  If the trust node operators insist on 'being anonymous', then that isn't really an trust at all.

[dree12]

If you didn't accept I believe that the clients rejected your blocks. I don't think (I haven't read the source, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that the control nodes have the power to do that. What I mean is that the public has 50% of the "vote", which is enough to check the power of the control nodes. What if miners got 51% of the blocks? This may help relieve the ability for a malicious control node to 51% the network easily by requiring it to gain at least 2% of the miner blocks, while still preventing 51% attacks by miners.

Going back to the example of 32 SC vs 5 SC block reward.  You could redownload the old client and mine 32 SC blocks.  Sure you can "vote" by using the client which allows you to do that.  The "small" problem is that the control nodes will reject anything you do and as a result your block will never become part of the block chain.  So you can mine for a decade and finds thousands of blocks but none of them will become part of the longest chain.

I don't think you can mine at all because all even blocks must be mined by a control node. In this way Solidcoin is even worse than fiat currency.

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

There is only one insider - King RealScam.  He has the private keys to all 10 control nodes.  Maybe in the future he may use a sockpuppet to claim someone else has a control node but
a) how do you know maybe he just posts under another account "hey guys I am Joe ScamReal and I control control node 1"?
b) if he chooses who gets gains access how likely are they to block him?
c) the control nodes with 51% of the funds can veto others so he can pass out some control nodes but they would have no power
d) he has the private keys to all 10 and ability to make code changes. He could simply regain control of them.

You do bring up a point though.  Centralized Control is a bad thing.

In my opinion the control nodes should be distributed to people like CoinRich or Ahimoth or Coblee or Viper rather than concentrated. If this is not done, RealSolid can shut down the network by emptying the control nodes of all their money.

A user on the solidcointalk forums proposed addresses controlling more than 0.3% of the total coins in existance being control addresses. I think this might be a better proof-of-stake (although I would still prefer weighting the blocks on money).

Don't solidcoin "insiders" control the control nodes? If they don't, they really should - one person owning them is bad.

Now here is where it gets really sketchy:  No one BUT RS has claimed to operate a trust node.  Infact (I may be wrong on this point), he has specifically stated that he retains a backup of all trust node wallets.

Until anyone steps up and verifies that they operate a 'trust node', we have only left to know that RS operates them all.  If the trust node operators insist on 'being anonymous', then that isn't really an trust at all.

I have posted a question on the solidcointalk forums about this. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/418-who-owns-the-control-nodes/

[DeathAndTaxes]

I don't think you can mine at all because all even blocks must be mined by a control node. In this way Solidcoin is even worse than fiat currency.

Minor technicality but my reading of the source code you CAN mine "invalid" odd blocks.  You can even find a block solution and sign the block.  You can even submit it to the network including control nodes however they will reject them. 

[johnj]

I have posted a question on the solidcointalk forums about this. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/418-who-owns-the-control-nodes/

While an interesting assortment of people, you still have major bias among those even if they aren't merchants.

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.

[dree12]

I have posted a question on the solidcointalk forums about this. http://solidcointalk.org/topic/418-who-owns-the-control-nodes/

While an interesting assortment of people, you still have major bias among those even if they aren't merchants.

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.

I believe control nodes should be solidcoin supporters, rather than RealSolid supporters. While I would nominate myself, I do not have the time or resources to run a full node.

If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?

[johnj]

I believe control nodes should be solidcoin supporters, rather than RealSolid supporters. While I would nominate myself, I do not have the time or resources to run a full node.

If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?

There is only 1 requirement to be considered a control node

1) Having a wallet with 1m+ SC

So even if Joe, Bob, and Sue recieve these premade wallets from RS, RS can at any time use the backups.  And if he wanted to invalidate Joe, Bob, and Sue, he could just use all the backups and regain majority trust node control.  At any time.

[dree12]

I believe control nodes should be solidcoin supporters, rather than RealSolid supporters. While I would nominate myself, I do not have the time or resources to run a full node.

If the control nodes can't be spent, am I correct in saying that RS's backup cannot remove control power from anyone?

There is only 1 requirement to be considered a control node

1) Having a wallet with 1m+ SC

So even if Joe, Bob, and Sue recieve these premade wallets from RS, RS can at any time use the backups.  And if he wanted to invalidate Joe, Bob, and Sue, he could just use all the backups and regain majority trust node control.  At any time.

What I mean is that although RS can use them, he cannot remove coins from the addresses nor wipe Joe's memory of the private key, so both he and Joe can share the same address.

[DeathAndTaxes]

While an interesting assortment of people, you still have major bias among those even if they aren't merchants.

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.

I believe control nodes should be solidcoin supporters, rather than RealSolid supporters. While I would nominate myself, I do not have the time or resources to run a full node.

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.

"Trouble some" pesky control node is gone.

You seem to be laboring under the illusion that King RealScam doesn't wants there to be centralized control only by himself.  If he did there are many ways he could have ensured he didn't have complete access.  For example he could have selected 10 people and had them generate a private key and public key and provide only the public key to him thus King RealScam wouldn't have control over all 10 nodes.

[johnj]

dree, concerning 'SolidCoin Supporters', take into account a few things:

The biggest selling point of SC is supposed to be protection from a 51% attack.  While a 51% attack is a problem, the design of SC replaces it with other, bigger problems.  And as your now learning, SC is designed to revolve around the control of RealScam.  So who  is going to support a network which replaces one problem with another?

Either the unknowing or the malicious.

Many 'regular' users (peasant miners) are unknowing, as you can see very little of this informatiom is covered on the main SC site. Many of your list however are not ignorant, they've dealt with the source and have allegedly been involved with many of the design decisions.

What option does that leave?

Edit: Of course you have the third option, those who have been genuinely put under the spell that RS is a 'great guy'.  The references to 'King RealScam' and 'Cult of Solidcoin' are born out of the reality of how RS interacts with people.  He only keeps people around who praise him, and bans/censors those who do not parrot what he says.  So the overwhelming majority of what you read on solidcoin.info and #solidcoin is a result of him pruning users who don't agree with his rhetoric.

Edit2: Let's take a trip down memory lane : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=42069.0 <--- On Sept 7th, only 20 days after the launch of SC 1.0.