delete

[Mk2vr6]

Just spent the last 20 minutes catching up with this thread and fuck me, MarkM has now made me never want to use the word secu... again!

Change the record man FFS!

You sound worse than Spunknik calling Scam on anything he doesn't like the look of.

[kalus]

It was expected that bitcoin would always be more valuable than e.g. CDN, UKB, MBC, GMC, GRF, UNS, and especially NKL (since NKL issued twenty times as many coins instead of the same old 21 million coins), but the failure of bitcoin minters to honour the coins they minted seems to have massively suppressed bitcoin's value.

could you expand this thought some more?

for auroracoin specifically, the preminers aren't honouring the minted coins.  However, we all knew the market valuation for auroracoin was inaccurate due to the premine volume.

However, for If a bitcoin miner mints a blockchain currency and holds it, where do they fail to honour the coins they've minted?  If a miner trades his currency for fiat or cryptocurrency, hasn't utility and liquidity been increased?

Until you issue it to someone else it is not yet issued.

Once you issue it, honour it.

For example if someone buys one from you using a car, and within a reasonable 90 day or 30 day or 120 day or one year or whatever warranty period comes back complaining that the coin you sold him is not satisfactory, he wants his money (the car) back, refund with a smile.

Basically you are a coin dealer. If you believe in your goods you should be happy to refund, albeit maybe with some token little cost to cover your trouble, such as a re-stocking fee.

Or, whenever you sell some on an exchange, put 99% or 98% or whatever of what someone bought it with back onto the order books at a slight little change in price, again to cover your time and trouble. That way they can always get back most of what they paid for the thing if they decide it does not afterall suit their purposes.

thanks for this, and for your many other informative posts. 

regarding the idea of a miner's obligation, e.g. i've been mining litecoin since i got here, i've had machines for litecoin that only do litecoin blockchain, and i've never sold a single litecoin.  however, in the intervening few months i've been here, the difficulty has gone up from 1000 to about 5700.  would you suggest that a miner is also obligated to also increase his hashrate to keep up with the increasing network difficulty? 

i'm interested in your idea that mining should ultimately be a non-profitable industry.  in the scenario where mining is a commodity industry and will eventually gravitate to areas with the cheapest overhead and electricity, how does this solve the problem of either subsidized or stolen electricity?  if some country were to offer free or near-free power to incentivise miner relocation, or if someone was able to steal electricity i'd think it would favour illegal mining/national mining at some point in the future. 

you have previously recommended p2pool and a globally distributed blockchain would make a stronger currency.  However, wouldn't the commoditisation of mining power result in consolidation, rather than distribution, in mining power?  is an oligopoly of the largest leased mining pools the best we can do in this current situation? 

[Wipeout2097]

Just spent the last 20 minutes catching up with this thread and fuck me, MarkM has now made me never want to use the word secu... again!

Change the record man FFS!

Yes, it's becoming hard to understand if he is genuine, "just" biased (due to his KnC Saturn miner and being an old dev of merged mined coins), or a concern troll.

[murraypaul]

So it's actually Peercoin centralized checkpointing?... I thought automatic would mean pretty much what markm said, written automatically after N blocks. Is that kind of system flawed?

It's a decentralized system.. nothing can both be automated and secure without some kind of peer agreement. 

+// Concepts
 +//
 +// In the network there can be a privileged node known as 'checkpoint master'.
 +// This node can send out checkpoint messages signed by the checkpoint master
 +// key. Each checkpoint is a block hash, representing a block on the blockchain
 +// that the network should reach consensus on.

That is not a decentralised system.

[micryon]

So it's actually Peercoin centralized checkpointing?... I thought automatic would mean pretty much what markm said, written automatically after N blocks. Is that kind of system flawed?

It's a decentralized system.. nothing can both be automated and secure without some kind of peer agreement. 

+// Concepts
 +//
 +// In the network there can be a privileged node known as 'checkpoint master'.
 +// This node can send out checkpoint messages signed by the checkpoint master
 +// key. Each checkpoint is a block hash, representing a block on the blockchain
 +// that the network should reach consensus on.

That is not a decentralised system.

To clarify i wasn't saying the checkpoint sync system was decentralized but that the bitcoin (and all altcoin) protocol is decentralized. 

Thus trying to implement something that in a decentralized way do automatic checkpointing would be a flawed concept, because you need some way of peer agreement (and/or centralizing)

[maxsimgoratiev]

This is fascinating, didn't even know mining can be consolidated from several currencies into one.
I don't want to call AUR a scam, because there are simpler ways to run a scam. They do seem to be putting in some genuine effort. All the data about Iceland is accurate, and they do seem to be distributing the currency. And this is a fun experiment, I love experiments.
Don't make things black and white people!

Is it probably the Dev will make some moneys of this? Probably
Are they actually distributing cash to Icelanders? Yeah, evidently so if you check twitter.
Is it a cool experiment? Hell yeah.

[Omnivion]

Wouldn't a simpler solution than a master checkpoint node just be to have the client limit the number of blocks overwritten when switching from a shorter fork?  Maybe 15 or so blocks, whatever number would provide the best balance between attack prevention and avoiding natural problems (if you have a natural fork that's 15 blocks long, you probably have some other problems anyway).

Or is there some reason this would be inadequate or problematic to implement?

You could also allow an option to manually choose or set a flag to override this limit to increase versatility.

[_noname_]

Alright, I have read enough about the topic to understand that BCX knows nothing and is incapable of causing any harm.

So I kindly request him to shut up or put his money where his mouth is.

I challenge him to wager 50 AUR in bet. He should publicly announce a deadline by which he will invalidate the blockchain. If he does that, I will pay him 50 AUR in today's BTC (as AUR will be no more). If he fails, he should pay me 50 AUR then.

Fair?

[Wipeout2097]

Alright, I have read enough about the topic to understand that BCX knows nothing and is incapable of causing any harm.

So I kindly request him to shut up or put his money where his mouth is.

I challenge him to wager 50 AUR in bet. He should publicly announce a deadline by which he will invalidate the blockchain. If he does that, I will pay him 50 AUR in today's BTC (as AUR will be no more). If he fails, he should pay me 50 AUR then.

Fair?

If you want to bet against BCX and not be ignored or be laughed at, I suggest 100 ~ 250 BTC.  

[_noname_]

If you want to bet with BCX and not be laughed at, I suggest 100 ~ 250 BTC. 

Sorry, I am not that rich. It should be free money to him. Why not take this bet? I think we all know.

[kalus]

So I kindly request him to shut up or put his money where his mouth is.

this eventually happens in every bcx thread i've read.  

i think last time it was ltex.

[_noname_]

this eventually happens in every bcx thread i've read.  

i think last time it was ltex.

Was the bet taken? Who won?

[markm]

If you want to bet with BCX and not be laughed at, I suggest 100 ~ 250 BTC.  

Sorry, I am not that rich. It should be free money to him. Why not take this bet? I think we all know.

Yes,  we do. AUR is not money, 50 AUR is not worth the time it would take to compile a wallet to hold it or even to ask an exchange that lists it to provide a deposit address for it so as to use the exchange as a wallet to receive it.

Try 50 bitcoins, maybe? Or more even?

Basically though you are demanding that the attack take place. So, again, we see that fanbois will not believe their scam is vulnerable until it is proven by attacking it. Someone earlier even mentioned soem pathetic worthless crapcoin no one likely even heard of before let alone imagined might be worth attacking and claimed that the fact it had not been attacked was proof that it was invulnerable to attack.

-MarkM-

[Wipeout2097]

If you want to bet with BCX and not be laughed at, I suggest 100 ~ 250 BTC.  

Sorry, I am not that rich. It should be free money to him. Why not take this bet? I think we all know.

That's not even the point, honestly, I'm just bored.

tbh, the issue I have with this, IF (big if) AUR isn't a scam and really a cryptocurrency for Icelanders, then it's actually none of our business to meddle into those people's lifes. Why are non-Icelanders trolling, making threats, posting FUD or on the other side of the fence, shilling or showing "bag holder's" syndrome for a coin they shouldn't be speculating on, in the first place?

In other words, I saw Auroracoin and qualified it as a "laboratory rat experiment" in the very beginning and I still see signs of this. So, Icelanders were screwed by banks, now they would be by random people on the internet...

[_noname_]

@MarkM

My request for description in layman terms of the attack. Denied.

Public wager. Denied.

I tell you what's happening here. Neither you nor BCX knows a thing beyond mining hardware configuration. BCX throws some tech mumble as he has been in Bitcoin since long without even understanding what he is talking about. You, although trying to present case about mining, also know nothing about that.

So please guys, stop pretending. And threats about attack. Come on. It's looking more and more childish. I am not writing here to correct you or BCX. But to expose the likes of you. So people don't pay any attention to threats like this again.

[markm]

It is a pump and dump scam, the pump done by pretending it would be a viable coin and of use/value to Icelanders. The pump and dump was already long done by the time the airdrop happened, the whole airdrop and everything after it only existing to "justify" the original scamming of money out of people mislead into buying the stuff before the airdrop even happened. The fact that people even had any available to exchange, let alone that it was on an exchange, prior to the airdrop was a massive red flag screaming scam. It was all about scamming investors prior to the airdrop by pretending the airdrop would not crash the value, or that the thing was actually intedned to be a viable, secure currency Icelanders could actually trust as a ecure store of value and transfer of value mechanism going forward.

This nation coin crap is just the latest greatest scam since the IPO wave of scams.

-MarkM-

[markm]

@MarkM

My request for description in layman terms of the attack. Denied.

Public wager. Denied.

I tell you what's happening here. Neither you nor BCX knows a thing beyond mining hardware configuration. BCX throws some tech mumble as he has been in Bitcoin since long without even understanding what he is talking about. You, although trying to present case about mining, also know nothing about that.

So please guys, stop pretending. And threats about attack. Come on. It's looking more and more childish. I am not writing here to correct you or BCX. But to expose the likes of you. So people don't pay any attention to threats like this again.

Math's detailed explications were unintelligible to laypeople? What grade are laypeople nowadays in your neigborhood?

Links to detailed discussions were given and so on, didn't you follow them and read the original threads they linked to?

-MarkM-

[kalus]

this eventually happens in every bcx thread i've read.  

i think last time it was ltex.

Was the bet taken? Who won?

not the 'bet', but eventually someone invariably steps up and asks bcx to "shut up or put his money where his mouth is."

as to what happened last time, why do you think we're posting in this thread right now?

[_noname_]

@MarkM

I have already thanked Math. And only after reading through his link understand what timewarp is. But neither you nor BCX have any understanding about it.

Further, you are claiming this coin is a scam now. You are falling on ideology when nothing by your capability can be done? It's not a scam. Scam is when early miners get into a coin and people get it last. You are the scamsters. And have no skill apart from spreading lies.

[markm]

The scam is the fiduciary irresponsibility / gross negligence of trying to pretend a totally insecure system is suitable for use in finance.

Just like all the "exchanges" that get "hacked" because they "turned out to not be secure". Those too are scams, they scam people into throwing their money away on the basis of lies claiming that this that or the other totally insecure software system is viable for real world use.

Deliberately going ahead and using such systems despite their insecurity or even their inability to be secured by the people promoting their real world use is deliberate fraud, scam, etcetera. The perps know full well  the system is not viable yet perpetrate its use regardless, to scam money out of fools and innocents.

-MarkM-