[DEAD] Coiledcoin - yet another cryptocurrency, but with OP_EVAL!

[Sp0tter]

Added CLC to http://allchains.info for the hash rate and difficulty estimates.  (Should be accurate, but I will need a couple days to check over it.)

[1715373683]

1715373683

[1715373683]

1715373683

[1715373683]

1715373683

[deepceleron]

this coin is a good one to bet on still

I misread that as "con" and thought it was a surprisingly honest post.

The vitriol should go down a notch here. As far as I can tell no actual transactions have been reversed. Just orphaning (er, which is what you should expect with blocks coming every 10 seconds, unfriendly funnybusiness or not .  And even still, not orphaning deep enough to have invalidated any spendable coins— which is what the maturity limit is for after all.

There is no limit to how far back coins can get zapped. At the launch of i0coin, I had 300-confirmation generates go pooof.

[lightlord]

Just to show I am capable of making coins for other currencies, this one already represents i0coin, but i0coin turned out to not be successful as I thought. I can Make a CLC coin, if I was offered a bounty, in CLC and some btc.

This is what is there atm, not mine. http://www.coiledcoin.org/
I can improve upon its design if the price is right.

And I had many other designs, but this was voted, If price is right, I will do the same thing, make 4 basic designs, have a vote on it, then make 4 font designs then have another vote, Combine design with font, add touch up which is what I did for i0coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=36425.1520

Then Once its finished then make a 32X32, 64X64,128X128, 256X256, and fullXfull logo, Small can be used for the icon, bigger for webpage, etc.

Best regards
lightlord

[gmaxwell]

There is no limit to how far back coins can get zapped. At the launch of i0coin, I had 300-confirmation generates go pooof.

Yes, but luke intentionally did not do that. And on new and volatile high rate coins, you can naturally expect a lot of orphans.

The purpose of the maturity limit is so that people can't lose money they actually had control over without a really big split. Luke could have created a deep fork, but didn't, because contrary to claims here: he's not a thief or a scammer.

[iddo]

So what is OP_EVAL?

It's a way of letting you send to addresses that have more complicated restrictions on how the coins can then be spent - such as requiring signatures from multiple people or devices - without the sender having to worry about what the exact requirements are. It also makes it easier to, for example, set up an escrow arrangement where some coins can only be transferred either with the agreement of either the buyer and seller, or by the escrow agent and one of the two parties agreeing - so the escrow provider can't just run off with them. Sadly the tools to actually make this kind of escrow possible aren't quite ready yet.

There's a good technical description here. It was originally going into Bitcoin, but I think they've pretty much abandoned it in favour of something similar which may or may not get enough support. It's all a tad messy on their end right now.

My understanding is that OP_EVAL is being added to Bitcoin without risk of forking the blockchain, because Satoshi envisioned it in advance and therefore the code that old nodes run already supports it, just not as a standard transaction (this means that unless they upgrade they will not include OP_EVAL transactions in blocks they generate, but still they will verify blocks that others generate with OP_EVAL transactions inside as conforming with the protocol, right?)

The Bitcoin QA for OP_EVAL is about making sure that the scripting language isn't too strong to allow DOS attacks on the network?
If what I'm saying isn't accurate then someone please correct me.

makomk, please elaborate on your last comment that I'm quoting here? If you have good intentions, you wouldn't want to create the perception that you're deceiving people by creating a cryptocoin with new features while in reality it's redundant, i.e. please explain what's the point of this new altcoin given that OP_EVAL is being phased in to Bitcoin?

[makomk]

I'm pretty sympathetic to the scam charge.  Exchange support and trading on day zero? Really??

Apparently BTC-E can set up a new exchange quite quickly, though I still have no idea how they found out about Coiledcoin in the first place. Developing the tools to do interesting things with OP_EVAL and suitable lightweight clients is a bit slower and fairly pointless unless there's some way to actually process transactions.

Touting features that had been introduced to mainline bitcoin, developed and QAed entirely by other people, but just not made it through QA into release yet as big advances?  Really??

Last time I looked, the Bitcoin developers and pool owners were bickering over the details of how to actually implement these features. Also, you're forgetting that in the process of developing this I found and reported an easy remotely-exploitable node crashing bug in one of those features "QAed entirely by other people".

And it now sounds like we have a great chance here how to figure out how to combat a >50% attacker who is denying transactions—  but fortunately before there where many suckers^wpeople who sunk a lot of hard earned money into it.

I'd basically already come to the conclusion that all the approaches usually proposed were wildly unrealistic even for something with as much support as Bitcoin.

My understanding is that OP_EVAL is being added to Bitcoin without risk of forking the blockchain, because Satoshi envisioned it in advance and therefore the code that old nodes run already supports it, just not as a standard transaction (this means that unless they upgrade they will not include OP_EVAL transactions in blocks they generate, but still they will verify blocks that others generate with OP_EVAL transactions inside as conforming with the protocol, right?)

Sort of. OP_EVAL was in the process of being added to Bitcoin by having new nodes include verified OP_EVAL transactions into blocks but without bothering to verify that existing uses of OP_EVAL inside blocks are actually valid until the switch-over date. So basically, until switch-over malicious miners can spend OP_EVAL transactions that they shouldn't be able to. However, its not safe to switch it on until much more than 50% of the mining power understand OP_EVAL and they must all turn it on at once. Last time I looked the Bitcoin network was nowhere near achieving this.

However, OP_EVAL is being abandoned by Bitcoin in favour of something incompatible and more limited called "pay to script hash" that requires going through that process again, and I'm not sure the replacement will get as much support from pools. Also, luke-jr's pushing for a legacy-free variant of that similar to what I'm using for Coiledcoin and has been threatening to refuse to mine normal Bitcoin transactions after the turn-on date for P2SH, which will make it harder to spend Bitcoins from pre-P2SH addresses. It's all a bit political.

[btc-e.com]

Started trading in currency Coiledcoin

https://btc-e.com/exchange/clc_btc

[cablepair]

Please refer your comments and questions to the open letter to Luke-JR

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56830.0

[Clipse]

Luke-JR should just go drink a cup of virgin mary blood and whip his religious anorexic body.

Seriously, so now its fairgame that Luke-JR decided he doesnt approve of a fork and mines on his pool destroying it ? You Luke are a piece of shit.

[xurious]

Luke-JR should just go drink a cup of virgin mary blood and whip his religious anorexic body.

Seriously, so now its fairgame that Luke-JR decided he doesnt approve of a fork and mines on his pool destroying it ? You Luke are a piece of shit.

Not just A fork, any fork.

[Clipse]

Luke-JR should just go drink a cup of virgin mary blood and whip his religious anorexic body.

Seriously, so now its fairgame that Luke-JR decided he doesnt approve of a fork and mines on his pool destroying it ? You Luke are a piece of shit.

Not just A fork, any fork.

"a fork" is actually plural unlike "an fork"

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Seriously, so now its fairgame that Luke-JR decided he doesnt approve of a fork and mines on his pool destroying it ? You Luke are a piece of shit.

If it's true, this is disgusting. I hope enough noise is made about this fact so that he loses most of his miners. You have to be a sort of crook to tolerate your mining power being used to attack small projects like this.

[gmaxwell]

The more interesting features should in theory be available in Bitcoin eventually - including the removal of existing legacy Bitcoin addresses if Luke Jr gets his way (he was threatening to refuse to mine transactions using them). No idea when though and I certainly won't be developing the tools to make use of them.

Woah, you're making it sound like you wrote any of that to begin with. As far as I could tell, your contribution to CoiledCoin was primarily rebranding (and the marketing of it as an altcoin).  The more interesting features should be available in bitcoin because thats where you got them from.  Luke wrote more of CoiledCoin than you did.  I'd repeat the github link to the source, but you've had it taken down.

(Though, yes, sorry for not crediting you with finding the AreInputsStandard bug. Since you reported it privately and gavin just fixed it, it wasn't super-apparent— the the QA of someone using the functionality is very much helpful.)

You're misrepresenting Luke's position wrt legacy transactions, which pretty much shows how little you've actually been following the discussion. Luke has been against P2SH, though after a lot of discussion he came around to the position that if there would only be P2SH in an hypothetical future bitcoin replacement that he'd support pushing to that behavior because it cuts down spam.

I'll part by quoting another popular pool operator on the subject: "Wow, luke defended users from the new altchain while I was sleeping " People here who are irritated that they won't get to make-money-fast on a new altchain should realize that most bitcoin users will not share their outrage.

[CoinHunter]

It goes to show it's not only Luke-jR behind the attacks but a few "bitcoin people" who pool their resources together. GG, TBX, LiteCoin and now CoiledCoin. They continue to attack all the alt coins in an attempt to discredit them. Pretty funny they keep trying to attack SC and get nowhere.

[gmaxwell]

Well ain't that special so have you guys formed the committee yet to decide just what coins are allowed to exists so they don't taint the sainted holy bitcoins...

So?  Fight back.  Fix your technology.  Raise enough BTC to pay two or three small bitcoin pools which are together larger than luke to incentivize them to merge mine this coin.  Had this been done— hell— had this been announced in advance of going live,  then it wouldn't have been vulnerable to this attack.   

Altchains like this are vulnerable because they have no value, especially initially... Merged mining takes effort to set up— contribute to making it cheaper— otherwise only people who are looking to ponzi a new coin or are looking to burn it down have much incentive to join it.  A little payment money for mining would go a long way to tiping the incentives towards cooperating rather than defecting against it.

If you're going to be an altchain you should innovate— not just copy bitcoin code. Here is a chance.

I'm laughing at CH's claims— as if SC weren't the most repeatedly exploited coin of them all. That it says around at all speaks to the amazing power of hope. Sadly, things don't seem to change.

[makomk]

I'll part by quoting another popular pool operator on the subject: "Wow, luke defended users from the new altchain while I was sleeping " People here who are irritated that they won't get to make-money-fast on a new altchain should realize that most bitcoin users will not share their outrage.

For the record, the pool owner in question is Tycho and the pool he owns is Deepbit, which controls between 40% and 50%+ of all Bitcoin mining power. It's basically Bitcoin or bust from here on out.

Woah, you're making it sound like you wrote any of that to begin with. As far as I could tell, your contribution to CoiledCoin was primarily rebranding (and the marketing of it as an altcoin).  The more interesting features should be available in bitcoin because thats where you got them from.  Luke wrote more of CoiledCoin than you did.

They should be available in Bitcoin given that's where they came from originally, but they're not and it's not clear they will be any time soon, which is the whole reason I launched CoiledCoin in the first place.

[CoinHunter]

I'm laughing at CH's claims— as if SC weren't the most repeatedly exploited coin of them all. That it says around at all speaks to the amazing power of hope. Sadly, things don't seem to change.

Yah right. The only chain to not be attacked and have months of operation behind it. Keep crying and trying to shift the focus on not what SolidCoin fixes over BTC but instead some philosophical debate on "why it's evil and Bitcoin is good".

There is only one future cryptocoin and it isn't Bitcoin. The sad thing is you already know it, you just can't "Fully accept it yet". Give it a few months. You and the others will see.

[gmaxwell]

There is only one future cryptocoin and it isn't Bitcoin. The sad thing is you already know it, you just can't "Fully accept it yet". Give it a few months. You and the others will see.

Why would I use solidcoin over paypal?  Both are centrally controlled systems of exchange subject to unilateral whim.  At least if paypal screws me I know where to track them down and can take them to court.  ::shrugs::

[gmaxwell]

They should be available in Bitcoin given that's where they came from originally, but they're not and it's not clear they will be any time soon, which is the whole reason I launched CoiledCoin in the first place.

They're not yet because it takes time to do things right, but there is no evidence that they won't be.  We can see here what can result from not taking the time to do things right.

[CoinHunter]

Why would I use solidcoin over paypal?  Both are centrally controlled systems of exchange subject to unilateral whim.  At least if paypal screws me I know where to track them down and can take them to court.  ::shrugs::

Again with the FUD. You know what SolidCoin is but have the "PR spiel" all ready that is completely different from the truth. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not, the Bitcoin is the titanic and you're playing the violin.