Operation Shitcoin Cleanout and Clean Up Has Begun- Join the Revolution- Re-open

[solid12345]

R3wt keep hocking your failed exchange in your signature, how many coins did you run off with? See how accusations without proof work? I can make up whatever bullshit I like too.

[r3wt]

R3wt keep hocking your failed exchange in your signature, how many coins did you run off with? See how accusations without proof work? I can make up whatever bullshit I like too.

then i just prove you wrong. easy peasy.

btw, i see what you're saying but your logic is flawed. the AUR coin dev is anonymous. the aur coin dev premined 50%. the aur coin dev is highly probable to dump/launder the premine through the "airdrop". there is plenty of proof in the argument here.


now your turn to state your case.

[micryon]

Phase 3:
We setup the pool on our own private network with our custom, low difficulty client. we mine from block 0 to thoroughly erase the blockchain.(very easy. we mine ahead 3,000 blocks, then suddenly flood the network.)

Uhhh.. did someone in this thread earlier mention something about ppl not understanding how cryptos work...?  Cuz this would not do anything.  



Anyways, i think your premine criteria is perhaps not fair/not thought through...

There are legitimate projects like Premine (PMC) which was 100% premine... GPUC which required premine to use as capital for GPUs.. RSC which i personally created as a reverse-scam to compensate those who really got scammed with Stackcoin... to give cryptos a better name in general to the public.

I'm all for anti-scam.. but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... something like this which amounts to arbitrary cyber terrorism is what gives cryptos a bad name, and makes it worse off for everyone that is interested in this community.

[r3wt]

Phase 3:
We setup the pool on our own private network with our custom, low difficulty client. we mine from block 0 to thoroughly erase the blockchain.(very easy. we mine ahead 3,000 blocks, then suddenly flood the network.)

Uhhh.. did someone in this thread earlier mention something about ppl not understanding how cryptos work...?  Cuz this would not do anything.  



Anyways, i think your premine criteria is perhaps not fair/not thought through...

There are legitimate projects like Premine (PMC) which was 100% premine... GPUC which required premine to use as capital for GPUs.. RSC which i personally created as a reverse-scam to compensate those who really got scammed with Stackcoin... to give cryptos a better name in general to the public.

I'm all for anti-scam.. but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater... something like this which amounts to arbitrary cyber terrorism is what gives cryptos a bad name, and makes it worse off for everyone that is interested in this community.

actually what i said is the textbook method for forking a coin, as outlined by ArtForz some 2-3 years ago. people like BCX have the method down to science. I was just stating the basic method for attack. you use the connect(instead of addnode) directive to create a private coin network, here with a few friends connected in this manner, you can mine all you want on your own private fork. as long as you have 51% or greater hashrate when you return your clients to the network(providing the coin is not Proof Of Stake), the coin is instantly and easily forked as your blockchain has consensus over the network because you have 51% Of NetHash. its text book.

you call it cyber terrorism, thats an interesting language there bud. i disagree with you 100%.

[stormia]

I think people need to understand what the definition of fraud or scam is.

Having unrealistic goals or having your head in the clouds about creating the next Bitcoin or turning on a whole nation into cryptocurrency isn't criminal in character, it's just being naive. Until we see the creator of AUR run off with the premine for instance, any accusation of fraud is questionable at best, having suspicions is one thing but throwing out accusations without evidence is another.

Personally to me the biggest shenanigans of all revolves around Litecoin with its massive amounts of fake volume going on in the Chinese exchanges, one exchange in particular that is owned by the BROTHER of the developer for Litecoin. Imagine if Satoshi's brother opened up an exchange and tried to sell you Bitcoin? I know it wouldn't make me comfortable. But whatever, it is obvious there is a clear schism between the "old crypto money" and the "new" crypto money and the 1st generation has hated most alts from the very beginning so I take any accusations of "scam" with a grain of salt.

Remember, Doge was called a scam and the creator was verbally assaulted and accused that he'd premined a bunch and would run off with it and crash the currency. Not only did this NOT happen, the guy even turned down 500k in venture capital money! How many of the professional trolls in btc-e who spend 8 hours a day trashing alts would have such strong hands? I bet very few.

bullshit. your posts fails to make any credible point at all. try again, scam pumper.

Wow. How can you even say that? What he said has some valid points (some of what he said is fact, even) and you are just dismissing them on principle. Please refute what he just said. Has the creator of AUR ran off with the premine yet? Is the brother of Litecoin's developer not the owner of an exchange? Is DOGE a scam? Did the DOGE dev not turn down 500k venture capital?

In my book, people who throw around accusations without anything to back them up are the ones who get labelled "scammers".

yeah no fucking shit. this is worse than a bar that doesn't card when it comes to daily rape. ffs people are not even trying any more. where is the innovation? this is just bulls shit.

you just agreed with him, and he was disagreeing with my premise. so which is it? you're either for these scams or against them. pick a side.

You didn't respond to my post. Why is that? Were any of solid's points that I reiterated factually incorrect? And if I had to pick a side I would clearly be against scam coins since they in no way benefit me. Don't try to polarize things such that everybody who disagrees with something you say automatically disagrees with the idea that scamcoins are bad. You are putting a mean, arrogant face on this entire operation which I thought was supposed to be an admirable cause.

It is an admirable cause, whether you feel like there is sufficient evidence or not. Word's paint pictures, they cannot change facts, only perception itself can be changed. solid is wrong in every single way, and his posts potray a childish way of thinking that is so becoming of this community. I've stated my views in this thread, though i will personally not participate in such a group, i will most certainly support it. A buffer is needed, by whatever means necessary. Whether you can accept that fact or not is an entirely different question. I eagerly await your response. I'm sure it will be chocked full of the same tireless and childish logic.

It is a very admirable cause, but I doubt it will be executed or branded correctly. I sincerely hope that people can find a way to destroy scamcoins without hurting innocent bystanders and altcoins in general. Your last sentence perfectly describes your posts (at least the one's I have been reading), not mine. All you have been doing is insulting people who disagree with you without even considering the things they have to say or providing a reasonable justification for why you think they are wrong (what could be more childish?). You speak of "facts" but you have still not produced any facts that refute any of solid's points that I reiterated above, and yet you still have the gull to say that "solid is wrong in every single way". Until you are willing to reason and not simply bicker emotionally, this is my last response to you. Don't let your ego get the best of you, Sr. member. Your attitude may drive away too many people, and you may end up hurting this operation more than you help it with your "support".

[micryon]

actually what i said is the textbook method for forking a coin, as outlined by ArtForz some 2-3 years ago. people like BCX have the method down to science. I was just stating the basic method for attack. you use the connect(instead of addnode) directive to create a private coin network, here with a few friends connected in this manner, you can mine all you want on your own private fork. as long as you have 51% or greater hashrate when you return your clients to the network(providing the coin is not Proof Of Stake), the coin is instantly and easily forked as your blockchain has consensus over the network because you have 51% Of NetHash. its text book.

Have you looked at the code before?  Ever heard of hard coded checkpoints..?  If a client out there has them they will reject any connection to any node with your alternate blockchain...

If you lower difficulty, the hashes will not match up.. and the clients that have the right blockchain will never accept yours.. it'll just show up as "orphan" to them.  I don't know this BCX guy or what is "text book" attacks.. but I did look at the code, compiled the code, tested it within my own private network in various configurations.. and i don't think what you suggest.. will work as far as i can tell..

Now there are certainly other ways to screw over a coin.. but this one ain't it.

you call it cyber terrorism, thats an interesting language there bud. in reaility this is a public service, shielding them from the scams, which are the real cyber terrorism.

Who is the arbiter of what is a scam or not?  You assume aurora coin is a scam, but it may very well be an important .. if not crucial experiment for the crypto world.  By attacking it.. you could be negatively impacting us all..

[r3wt]

actually what i said is the textbook method for forking a coin, as outlined by ArtForz some 2-3 years ago. people like BCX have the method down to science. I was just stating the basic method for attack. you use the connect(instead of addnode) directive to create a private coin network, here with a few friends connected in this manner, you can mine all you want on your own private fork. as long as you have 51% or greater hashrate when you return your clients to the network(providing the coin is not Proof Of Stake), the coin is instantly and easily forked as your blockchain has consensus over the network because you have 51% Of NetHash. its text book.

Have you looked at the code before?  Ever heard of hard coded checkpoints..?  If a client out there has them they will reject any connection to any node with your alternate blockchain...

you call it cyber terrorism, thats an interesting language there bud. in reaility this is a public service, shielding them from the scams, which are the real cyber terrorism.

Who is the arbiter of what is a scam or not?  You assume aurora coin is a scam, but it may very well be an important .. if not crucial experiment for the crypto world.  By attacking it.. you could be negatively impacting us all..

you can't seriously think hardcoded checkpoints will stop a 51% attack. 51% netHash means those checkpoints become invalid. i don't think you know enough about this to even discuss it.

[micryon]

you can't seriously think hardcoded checkpoints will stop a 51% attack. 51% netHash means those checkpoints become invalid. i don't think you know enough about this to even discuss it.

It does not.. 51% attack does not invalidate hardcoded checkpoints of clients that already have the hard code... That is what is meant by "hard code".. static hash values compiled directly into the binary... 

Of course you could release your own binary, your own client.. and try to get others to use it... but then you'd just be creating your own altcoin that has the same name and a different blockchain.. and sure that will also have a negative effect on the coin your targettng.. but it's a separate coin for all intent and purposes.

51% attack does cause problems, but not in the way you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx9zgZCMqXE  go to 12:45.

[poornamelessme]

We can all agree there are way too many terrible coins on the exchanges, copycats, or worse. But creating a vigilante style group to go after select coins is a real bad idea.

As mentioned by others, the term 'scam' gets thrown around too much here. Unless a dev is scamming people, lying about his coin, stealing IPO money, or taking the premine, it's not a scam. Beecoin/Ghostcoin/whatever coin isn't a scam because the dev copied an existing coin, and stuck on some cute logo or a meme. It's a really bad idea, but it's not a scam.

For the country coins, the best course of action probably is to just wait it out. If the airdrops fail, people will stay away (they probably should stay away from most nation coins anyway). No need to go into troll mode, spam every coin you don't like and disrupt regular discussion. We can't say for certain all nation coins are  a scam, until we see what happens. They probably are scams, but anyone with a half a brain can figure things out for themselves here. We don't need trolls going crazy on every coin they don't like.

There is also the possibility that this group will pick a coin to kill, and be wrong. Some of the shitcoin eligibility conditions are rather broad. So IPO coins are considered 'shitcoins' and on the kill list? I guess Ethereum is a shitcoin?

How about InfiniteCoin v2?  It certainly sounds shitcoin-ish, right? It's now called Colossus Coin and was made by the OP.
 

[micryon]

How about InfiniteCoin v2?  It certainly sounds shitcoin-ish, right? It's now called Colossus Coin and was made by the OP.

If this is true.. then that is ironic at best... nefarious at worst.. (kill other altcoins just to hoist up your own altcoin)

[Ix]

you can't seriously think hardcoded checkpoints will stop a 51% attack. 51% netHash means those checkpoints become invalid. i don't think you know enough about this to even discuss it.

The checkpoints disallow for the rewriting of "ancient history", usually weeks or more in the past, and only when the developers release a new client. A 51% attack done in secret alongside the honest chain will allow you to rewrite history starting from the last developer consensus checkpoint--it does not make them invalid. The "not secret" 51% attack generally delays current transactions indefinitely or rewrites recent history in an attempt to get people to stop using the network.

[ckoeber]

If this is true.. then that is ironic at best... nefarious at worst.. (kill other altcoins just to hoist up your own altcoin)

I admire his machiavellian tactics.

[muddafudda]

maybe people need to read the part where i mentioned several times that if a project i have been involved with  time is up, i accept that.

please read the thread before making stupid comments

[micryon]

The checkpoints disallow for the rewriting of "ancient history", usually weeks or more in the past, and only when the developers release a new client. A 51% attack done in secret alongside the honest chain will allow you to rewrite history starting from the last developer consensus checkpoint--it does not make them invalid. The "not secret" 51% attack generally delays current transactions indefinitely or rewrites recent history in an attempt to get people to stop using the network.

This is correct...

and that whole thing about changing to low difficulty.. that won't work either.  once you've caught up, releasing this alternate blockchain with a different difficulty value for subsequent block from the checkpoint, will also cause clients with the "real" blockchain to reject those blocks...


In retrospect should have just kept my mouth shut, let these guys try it, and get frustrated on why it didn't work... but just couldn't resist pointing out the irony...

[poornamelessme]

If this is true.. then that is ironic at best... nefarious at worst.. (kill other altcoins just to hoist up your own altcoin)

I admire his machiavellian tactics.

Hypocritical may be the better term.

[muddafudda]

The checkpoints disallow for the rewriting of "ancient history", usually weeks or more in the past, and only when the developers release a new client. A 51% attack done in secret alongside the honest chain will allow you to rewrite history starting from the last developer consensus checkpoint--it does not make them invalid. The "not secret" 51% attack generally delays current transactions indefinitely or rewrites recent history in an attempt to get people to stop using the network.

This is correct...

and that whole thing about changing to low difficulty.. that won't work either.  once you've caught up, releasing this alternate blockchain with a different difficulty value for subsequent block from the checkpoint, will also cause clients with the "real" blockchain to reject those blocks...


In retrospect should have just kept my mouth shut, let these guys try it, and get frustrated on why it didn't work... but just couldn't resist pointing out the irony...

tell us more about your new account. get some balls and come in with your real id.

[micryon]

tell us more about your new account. get some balls and come in with your real id.

?  I'm not sure what i said makes you believe i have another account..  

I'm actually a newcomer to this community... so I admit could be wrong about many things.  But some things I'm sure about..  I just started looking at this code a few weeks ago.. but it's not rocket science for any sw engineer.

I have launched 2 coins so far.  I started looking at the code after Stackcoin incident.. felt bad for the people who invested, and hacked up RSC.. i admit its a 100% clone coin.. but i wanted to learn this stuff, and wanted to do something to make those who lost something feel a bit better.. to that end I think i achieved both goals.

The 2nd coin i cloned was GPUC, this was after witnessing 2 failed launches that was just an embarrassment... so i stepped in and got it created and launched smoothly.  

So.. call both shitcoins if you must.. but both were done with good intentions.  Just want to share my perspectives and help move the community in a positive direction.  I'm still learning too.. as hopefully we all are..

[r3wt]

The checkpoints disallow for the rewriting of "ancient history", usually weeks or more in the past, and only when the developers release a new client. A 51% attack done in secret alongside the honest chain will allow you to rewrite history starting from the last developer consensus checkpoint--it does not make them invalid. The "not secret" 51% attack generally delays current transactions indefinitely or rewrites recent history in an attempt to get people to stop using the network.

This is correct...

and that whole thing about changing to low difficulty.. that won't work either.  once you've caught up, releasing this alternate blockchain with a different difficulty value for subsequent block from the checkpoint, will also cause clients with the "real" blockchain to reject those blocks...


In retrospect should have just kept my mouth shut, let these guys try it, and get frustrated on why it didn't work... but just couldn't resist pointing out the irony...

tell us more about your new account. get some balls and come in with your real id.

a search for testicles returned an error 404: not found.

[micryon]

a search for testicles returned an error 404: not found.

Okkaay then... that's cue for me to leave this thread.

Let me just leave with my final perspective:  

You don't help people by destroying things.. you help them by creating things.

And although Castro (who has been quoted in this thread) can be romanticized for his revolutionary fervor.. like many other revolutionary dictators . ultimately they harmed more good people than have helped.  Millions needlessly die, for one man's vanity.  I doubt you would have quoted him had you been descendent of one of those under his boots..

The way forward is through more innovation and experimentation.. that is what makes altcoins what they are.. It is not in stamping them out.

So really hope you guys change your minds about how to go about this effort.. but... to each their own.

[ckoeber]

Okkaay then... that's cue for me to leave this thread.

Come on, the food fight just started