delete

[HolodeckJizzmopper]

You think they should ban senior members like me, because some stupid clown like you comes along and says so? "SC Zealots"

 Yes. And the irony of someone with a borderline-obscene forum name of "HolodeckJizzmopper" calling for a cleanup is not lost on me.

P.S. You shouldn't be wishing death upon anyone.. Especially other forum members. Wtf is wrong with you?

 When you're as misanthropic as I am, especially towards trolls, you'll find wishing someone offing themselves to spare us any further stupidity, after all reason and logic has completely failed, as the only recourse left.

 Kinda hard to show much more contempt towards a person than that.
 
 SolidCoin kool-aid drinkers such as Spacey are undeserving of anything other than outright malice for how they conduct themselves on here.

 We have tried and tried and tried to reason with SC supporters and their mannerisms approach the zeal of the Westboro Baptist Church members.

 Don't have patience for it.
 

[1714969820]

1714969820

[1714969820]

1714969820

[1714969820]

1714969820

[FlipPro]

You think they should ban senior members like me, because some stupid clown like you comes along and says so?

In a word ... yes.  

You do nothing but lie, obfuscate, and damage the reputation of crypto-currency community.

Funny those are all the same exact traits I see in you sir. All you do is spew FUD and lies about SC on a daily basis and never own up to any of them.

Name one.

The 12M can be transfered to King RealScam wallet?  Which you said was impossible and code proves is possible.
That the person who has control of 51% of control money controls the network?  Which you said was false and not only does code say otherwise you King has said otherwise.

From what I hear there was a line in question in the last version which allowed trusted nodes to send sc to the CPF (PUBLIC WALLET FUND FOR SC) ("if( x < y)" where it should have been a "if(x != y)").  This only allowed trusted nodes to send money to the CPF, but the CPF account is public and if any foul play was detected everyone would know instantly. Since then the trusted nodes have been patched with the latest version, and they are preparing it for public release soon. That is one of the advantages of having everything open source (which I always advocated for), problems like this become detected and get solved.

To "take over the network" you need both a trusted node with more money than any of the other trusted nodes on the network and 51% of the network hash power. I don't know where you are getting at with 51% of control money gets you the network? You need money + hashpower to even think of a successful attack on SC. The devs have told me that in the future they are planning to change that so that it would effectively need two trusted nodes, eventually leading to a system where  you need a majority of trusted nodes (voting system). Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row. This would require an attacker to have two trusted nodes whose total balance between the two was higher than the good trusted nodes who signed the blocks.

[Spacy]

When you're as misanthropic as I am, especially towards trolls, you'll find wishing someone offing themselves to spare us any further stupidity, after all reason and logic has completely failed, as the only recourse left.

Kinda hard to show much more contempt towards a person than that.
 
SolidCoin kool-aid drinkers such as Spacey are undeserving of anything other than outright malice for how they conduct themselves on here.

We have tried and tried and tried to reason with SC supporters and their mannerisms approach the zeal of the Westboro Baptist Church members.

Don't have patience for it.

Then maybe a forum is not the right place for you

But thx for trying to save the money of the SC supporters, still after all that repetition of the points against SC2 by the haters, they still don't get it   

[DeathAndTaxes]

You think they should ban senior members like me, because some stupid clown like you comes along and says so?

In a word ... yes. 

You do nothing but lie, obfuscate, and damage the reputation of crypto-currency community.

Funny those are all the same exact traits I see in you sir. All you do is spew FUD and lies about SC on a daily basis and never own up to any of them.

Name one.

The 12M can be transfered to King RealScam wallet?  Which you said was impossible and code proves is possible.
That the person who has control of 51% of control money controls the network?  Which you said was false and not only does code say otherwise you King has said otherwise.

From what I hear there was a line in question in the last version which allowed trusted nodes to send sc to the CPF (PUBLIC WALLET FUND FOR SC) ("if( x < y)" where it should have been a "if(x != y)").  This only allowed trusted nodes to send money to the CPF, but the CPF account is public and if any foul play was detected everyone would know instantly. Since then the trusted nodes have been patched with the latest version, and they are preparing it for public release soon. That is one of the advantages of having everything open source (which I always advocated for), problems like this become detected and get solved.

To "take over the network" you need both a trusted node with more money than any of the other trusted nodes on the network and 51% of the network hash power. I don't know where you are getting at with 51% of control money gets you the network? You need money + hashpower to even think of a successful attack on SC. The devs have told me that in the future they are planning to change that so that so that it would effectively need two trusted nodes, eventually leading to a system where  you need a majority of trusted nodes (voting system). Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row. This would require an attacker to have two trusted nodes whose total balance between the two was higher than the good trusted nodes who signed the blocks.

Except in the past you called me a liar, and spreading FUD, and full of shit for stating what you now admit is true.  You have no way to verify what the control nodes are running.   BTW ScamCoin isn't OpenSource.  You might want to read up on the definition of OpenSource.

You don't need 51% hashing power to control the network.  Did King RealScam had 51% hashing power when he "forked" the blockchain and changed rewards from 32 SC to 5 SC? No. The control nodes enforce control of the network.  If someone didn't upgrade then their blocks were rejected by the control nodes.  51% control of control money = 100% control over the network.

Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row

Who cares.  If I had 51% of the control node money and single miner.  Eventually that single miner will sign an even block and then my control nodes can sign the odd block.  I can also veto any attempt for the 49% of control nodes (by balance) to sign any other block.  Thus you either  need to upgrade to my changes OR your blocks never become part of the block chain.

Someday that will happen ... ER WAIT ... IT ALREADY HAPPENED.  King RealScam issued a royal edict that block reward was cut to 5 SC and you either were blocked out of the network or you upgraded.  Miner's had no power at all.  No way to block that change, no way to enforce their collective will.  The network wasn't designed to let them.  51% of control money  = 100% control over the network.

[FlipPro]

You think they should ban senior members like me, because some stupid clown like you comes along and says so?

In a word ... yes. 

You do nothing but lie, obfuscate, and damage the reputation of crypto-currency community.

Funny those are all the same exact traits I see in you sir. All you do is spew FUD and lies about SC on a daily basis and never own up to any of them.

Name one.

The 12M can be transfered to King RealScam wallet?  Which you said was impossible and code proves is possible.
That the person who has control of 51% of control money controls the network?  Which you said was false and not only does code say otherwise you King has said otherwise.

From what I hear there was a line in question in the last version which allowed trusted nodes to send sc to the CPF (PUBLIC WALLET FUND FOR SC) ("if( x < y)" where it should have been a "if(x != y)").  This only allowed trusted nodes to send money to the CPF, but the CPF account is public and if any foul play was detected everyone would know instantly. Since then the trusted nodes have been patched with the latest version, and they are preparing it for public release soon. That is one of the advantages of having everything open source (which I always advocated for), problems like this become detected and get solved.

To "take over the network" you need both a trusted node with more money than any of the other trusted nodes on the network and 51% of the network hash power. I don't know where you are getting at with 51% of control money gets you the network? You need money + hashpower to even think of a successful attack on SC. The devs have told me that in the future they are planning to change that so that so that it would effectively need two trusted nodes, eventually leading to a system where  you need a majority of trusted nodes (voting system). Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row. This would require an attacker to have two trusted nodes whose total balance between the two was higher than the good trusted nodes who signed the blocks.

Except in the past you called me a liar, and spreading FUD, and full of shit for stating what you now admit is true.  You have no way to verify what the control nodes are running.   BTW ScamCoin isn't OpenSource.  You might want to read up on the definition of OpenSource.

You don't need 51% hashing power to control the network.  Did King RealScam had 51% hashing power when he "forked" the blockchain and changed rewards from 32 SC to 5 SC? No. The control nodes enforce control of the network.  If someone didn't upgrade then their blocks were rejected by the control nodes.  51% control of control money = 100% control over the network.

Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row

Who cares.  If I had 51% of the control node money and single miner.  Eventually that single miner will sign an even block and then my control nodes can sign the odd block.  I can also veto any attempt for the 49% of control nodes (by balance) to sign any other block.  Thus you either  need to upgrade to my changes OR your blocks never become part of the block chain.

Someday that will happen ... ER WAIT ... IT ALREADY HAPPENED.  King RealScam issued a royal edict that block reward was cut to 5 SC and you either were blocked out of the network or you upgraded.  Miner's had no power at all.  No way to block that change, no way to enforce their collective will.  The network wasn't designed to let them.  51% of control money  = 100% control over the network.

SC is pretty centralized right now, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are arguing is that this centralization of the trust wallets will disappear later on and be replaced by real trusted nodes (SC millionaires). You are inaccurate when you say that there was a 12 Million coin pre-mine and that these coins are spendable throughout the network. These wallets are temporary/unspendable, and most importantly PUBLIC, so if there ever is foul play everyone will know.

[DeathAndTaxes]

SC is pretty centralized right now, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are arguing is that this centralization of the trust wallets will disappear later on and be replaced by real trusted nodes (SC millionaires).

You haven't been arguing that in the past.  I guess you just got tired of trying to lie when source code is available.  I am glad you admit that ScamCoin is centralized however even here you aren't being honest (you know the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth).

1)  It isn't "pretty centralized".  It is absolutely centralized.  It is a crypto-currency monarchy.  Now you may argue the "King is good" but that doesn't change the fact that ScamCoin exist under complete and absolute control.

2) Your king has made sure there will be no "real millionaire" for years if not decades.  So the idea that it will suddenly be decentralized in near future is false.

3) Since 51% control of the control money = 100% ability to enforce changes on the network the first millionaire is meaningless as they still won't have any real control. 

With 51%+ of control money King RealScam could:
a) prevent any other node from EVER becoming a control node
b) end block rewards (hell he already cut them 87%)
c) increase Kings tax from 10% to 30% or more.
d) block transactions & blocks he deems unfit.
e) halt block block chain, fork it, and reboot it
f) ANYTHING ELSE HE DAMN WELL FEELS LIKE

You are inaccurate when you say that there was a 12 Million coin pre-mine and that these coins are spendable throughout the network. These wallets are temporary/unspendable, and most importantly PUBLIC, so if there ever is foul play everyone will know.

No it is accurate.  While the control wallets are unspendable they can be transfered to very spendable wallet owned by King RealScam.  All block chains are public.  Knowledge is somewhat useless in a pseudo-anonymous irrevocable environment.  You have no proof that the 12M coins can't be spent right now.  Just more fallible trust in a King with complete control of the network.

[FlipPro]

SC is pretty centralized right now, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are arguing is that this centralization of the trust wallets will disappear later on and be replaced by real trusted nodes (SC millionaires).

You haven't been arguing that in the past.  I guess you just got tired of trying to lie when source code is available.  I am glad you admit that ScamCoin is centralized however even here you aren't being honest (you know the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth).

1)  It isn't "pretty centralized".  It is absolutely centralized.  It is a crypto-currency monarchy.  Now you may argue the "King is good" but that doesn't change the fact that ScamCoin exist under complete and absolute control.

2) Your king has made sure there will be no "real millionaire" for years if not decades.  So the idea that it will suddenly be decentralized in near future is false.

3) Since 51% control of the control money = 100% ability to enforce changes on the network the first millionaire is meaningless as they still won't have any real control.  

With 51%+ of control money King RealScam could:
a) prevent any other node from EVER becoming a control node
b) end block rewards (hell he already cut them 87%)
c) increase Kings tax from 10% to 30% or more.
d) block transactions & blocks he deems unfit.
e) halt block block chain, fork it, and reboot it
f) ANYTHING ELSE HE DAMN WELL FEELS LIKE

You are inaccurate when you say that there was a 12 Million coin pre-mine and that these coins are spendable throughout the network. These wallets are temporary/unspendable, and most importantly PUBLIC, so if there ever is foul play everyone will know.

No it is accurate.  While the control wallets are unspendable they can be transfered to very spendable wallet owned by King RealScam.  All block chains are public.  Knowledge is somewhat useless in a pseudo-anonymous irrevocable environment.  You have no proof that the 12M coins can't be spent right now.  Just more fallible trust in a King with complete control of the network.

"You haven't been arguing that in the past"

You obviously don't follow me then. I have said in the past that right now the control nodes are centralized to the solidcoin developers. I have repeatedly said thats a problem, and that they need to figure out more ways to decentralize the network as much as possible, without putting cross hairs on those who hold the "trusted nodes".

2) Your king has made sure there will be no "real millionaire" for years if not decades.  So the idea that it will suddenly be decentralized in near future is false.
This is very simple. The more people sign on to the SolidCoin network, the faster the coins will inflate, and the faster we will have our first millionare.

[DeathAndTaxes]

This is very simple. The more people sign on to the SolidCoin network, the faster the coins will inflate, and the faster we will have our first millionare.

1) Faster is all relative.  It might be 8 years instead of 14 but that is hardly a reason to go for it.
2) 1M SC is worthless. 51% control of the control money is 100% control over the network.

[Spacy]

2) 1M SC is worthless. 51% control of the control money is 100% control over the network.

Something similar applies also to the other chains: 51% hashpower means 100% control over the network.

[Etlase2]

You obviously don't follow me then. I have said in the past that right now the control nodes are centralized to the solidcoin developers. I have repeatedly said thats a problem, and that they need to figure out more ways to decentralize the network as much as possible, without putting cross hairs on those who hold the "trusted nodes".

Perhaps by allowing anyone who wants to secure the network to do so, but only give them power based on proven economic activity, like Encoin.

[DeathAndTaxes]

2) 1M SC is worthless. 51% control of the control money is 100% control over the network.

Something similar applies also to the other chains: 51% hashpower means 100% control over the network.

Yeah except most networks don't start out by handing 100% control to a single person and then have zealots running around calling it a feature.

Look there is no 51% attack (because it is already 100% vulnerable).  LOLZ.

[FlipPro]

You obviously don't follow me then. I have said in the past that right now the control nodes are centralized to the solidcoin developers. I have repeatedly said thats a problem, and that they need to figure out more ways to decentralize the network as much as possible, without putting cross hairs on those who hold the "trusted nodes".

Perhaps by allowing anyone who wants to secure the network to do so, but only give them power based on proven economic activity, like Encoin.

I like Encoin .

[DeathAndTaxes]

Actually I think it is too high.

Isn't block target time 2 minutes?  That would be 720 blocks per day, @ $0.12 per block that is only $86.40 daily.

[FlipPro]

SC is pretty centralized right now, and I don't think anyone is denying that. What we are arguing is that this centralization of the trust wallets will disappear later on and be replaced by real trusted nodes (SC millionaires).

FlipPro, a perfect name for changing your stance.


Viper Lemon Bitch is still railing against this admission claiming it is only 5% centrally controlled. It really doesn't matter if the block chain is controlled by RealSoild (since he has all Control Nodes) or the theoretical true SC millionaires, it's still central control.

You guys fought the central control claim tooth and nail, attacked, created many threads against it and now, once the partial source code is released, you are basically saying "Oh well, you got us"

Now let's move on the issue of intercepting and invalidating any transaction at will.

Your just an idiot BTCEX.

The Solidcoin community isn't denying that Solidcoin *in it's infancy* is run and developed by just a few individuals (causing centralization). Same with Bitcoin when it was first started, it was pretty damn centralized to just a few individuals as well. The idea is that as the network grows, decentralization will naturally occur (same as with Bitcoin). We have a pretty good base built, and I think with time improvements and active development will make this stuff even better.

EDIT: And btw we can always fork the latest version if any "Reckless Decision Making" is exhibited from the "trusted individuals". That's why I am not worried,and why my number one priority was to get the source out.

[Etlase2]

Same with Bitcoin when it was first started, it was pretty damn centralized to just a few individuals as well. The idea is that as the network grows, decentralization will naturally occur (same as with Bitcoin).

Bitcoin users have trouble believing that anything other than hashing power could be used to secure the network (and BEX is probably especially pissed because his attack didn't work...). Solidcoin, however, has an extremely high barrier to entry to become part of the control group. It doesn't really foster a decentralized mindset, especially when they were given 1 million coins to be bestowed with that power. But 51% of the hashing power is just another control group, it is just a lot easier to become a part of that control group. Problem with being easier to be part of that control group is that it is easier for malicious people to join, too.

[TheHarbinger]

Just to recap the previous 3 pages...

SolidCoin sucks!

No it doesn't!

End of topic.

[Syke]

2) Your king has made sure there will be no "real millionaire" for years if not decades.  So the idea that it will suddenly be decentralized in near future is false.

This is very simple. The more people sign on to the SolidCoin network, the faster the coins will inflate, and the faster we will have our first millionare.

Wrong. It doesn't matter how many people sign on to the network. There will be 5 coins generated every 2 minutes no matter how many people start using SolidCoin. A miner that maintains a massive 10% of the entire network hashpower will take 8 years to become a control node. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever become a control node.

The Solidcoin community isn't denying that Solidcoin *in it's infancy* is run and developed by just a few individuals (causing centralization). Same with Bitcoin when it was first started, it was pretty damn centralized to just a few individuals as well. The idea is that as the network grows, decentralization will naturally occur (same as with Bitcoin). We have a pretty good base built, and I think with time improvements and active development will make this stuff even better.

Wrong. Bitcoin was never centralized. It was true peer-to-peer from day one. Anyone could fire up the client and start mining and be a true equal peer to every single other peer. That is not centralized.

EDIT: And btw we can always fork the latest version if any "Reckless Decision Making" is exhibited from the "trusted individuals". That's why I am not worried,and why my number one priority was to get the source out.

And RealSolid can revoke your license to use the source at any time. You would then be running illegal code. Good luck making that work.

[coblee]

The Solidcoin community isn't denying that Solidcoin *in it's infancy* is run and developed by just a few individuals (causing centralization). Same with Bitcoin when it was first started, it was pretty damn centralized to just a few individuals as well. The idea is that as the network grows, decentralization will naturally occur (same as with Bitcoin). We have a pretty good base built, and I think with time improvements and active development will make this stuff even better.

Wrong. Bitcoin was never centralized. It was true peer-to-peer from day one. Anyone could fire up the client and start mining and be a true equal peer to every single other peer. That is not centralized.

I was on IRC talking to RealSolid about centralization versus decentralization a week ago. And it seems to me that he (and likely FlipPro here) has a very different take on what it means to be decentralized. RealSolid believes that the trusted nodes are decentralized because there are 10 of them. Because it's not just 1 trusted node, it means that it's decentralized. I tried to argue that 10 trusted nodes versus 1000 miners means it's centralized. He then said something similar to what FlipPro said here. Basically that when Bitcoin started, there were only 10 miners so that was centralized also. I tried to argue that 10 of 10 means decentralized and 10 or 1000 means centralized. He just laughed me and proclaimed that I know shit about what decentralized means in his arrogant tone that we all know very well. It was a waste of my time. If you alter the definition of "decentralized", then you can basically claim whatever you want.

[FlipPro]

2) Your king has made sure there will be no "real millionaire" for years if not decades.  So the idea that it will suddenly be decentralized in near future is false.

This is very simple. The more people sign on to the SolidCoin network, the faster the coins will inflate, and the faster we will have our first millionare.

Wrong. It doesn't matter how many people sign on to the network. There will be 5 coins generated every 2 minutes no matter how many people start using SolidCoin. A miner that maintains a massive 10% of the entire network hashpower will take 8 years to become a control node. It's highly unlikely that anyone will ever become a control node.

No you're WRONG, like the many hundreds of mis-informed FUD postings in this stupid forum.

"Another thing to remember is that with the difficulty modifier in place, it's not just "each block is worth 5SC" now. For each 100K of difficulty another 5SC is added. So at our current difficulty of 40000 an extra 40% of 5SC would be added, a block would be worth 7SC. With 5 blocks every 10 minutes, that means a total of 35SC would be generated in 10 minutes vs Bitcoins ideal of 50BTC. This is at current difficulty. As difficulty grows and we get more miners the amount of SolidCoins generated per hour will match that growth, whilst still maintaining a base cost of 10-30c of electricity to generate it."

http://solidcointalk.org/topic/375-new-economic-changes-coming-to-solidcoin/

[makomk]

From what I hear there was a line in question in the last version which allowed trusted nodes to send sc to the CPF (PUBLIC WALLET FUND FOR SC) ("if( x < y)" where it should have been a "if(x != y)").  This only allowed trusted nodes to send money to the CPF, but the CPF account is public and if any foul play was detected everyone would know instantly.

Actually, I think the code that's meant to restrict them to only send to the CPF has a security hole the size of a barn door too. Also part of the problem is that even if everyone did find out promptly it'd be damn difficult to actually do anything about it aside from writing it off as a fait accompli. It's not like we can run SolidCoin without RealSolid and his trusted friends (if they even exist).

Since then the trusted nodes have been patched with the latest version, and they are preparing it for public release soon. That is one of the advantages of having everything open source (which I always advocated for), problems like this become detected and get solved.

Which of course is why RealSolid is so opposed to it. This code was included intentionally, he just thought he'd fixed it before the open source release.

To "take over the network" you need both a trusted node with more money than any of the other trusted nodes on the network and 51% of the network hash power.

I don't think it's possible for that to be true because of symmetry. In order for it to be impossible for someone to take over the network unless they have a trusted node with more money and 51% of the network hash power, it'd have to be possible for another trusted node with more money but less than 51% of hash power or less money but more than 50% of hash power to override it. But that contradicts your original statement that you can't take over the network without both!