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

[localhost]

I think you miss the whole point, all the other attacks were done by users with their own personal(or rented) resources while luke-joker used the resources of his pool which doesnt belong to him unless he asked every user mining there if they consent to what he is doing.

Yup, that's pretty much the issue here. Attacking a chain, okay that's not nice but we're getting used to that. But hijacking other people's resources (misusing their trust) to do so, that's ****ing ***. I hope his rotten pool gets as deserted as it deserves.

[pusle]

I thought the main point of these altchains was to do research. Attacking it right out of the gate seems counter productive.

I don't really buy the argument that alt chains detracts from Bitcoin in any way, just coz it's a copy paste or whatever.
Here is a bad anology: BMW cars still rocks even if KIA makes crap. And a copy BMW?, so what..

And saving stupid people from getting scammed? hah I don't buy that for one second. Besides you can't save people from their
own greed/stupidity whatever anyway. Most of you are free market libertarians, you don't want a nanny- anything and neither do I.

So then I guess it's back to human egos and their feelings...sadly.

Can you please grow up and understand that the more altchains we get, the the closer we will get to our goal.
Bitcoin is the best so far, but it's not perfect. Try to help innovation rather than stifling it.  A 51% attack is trivial, we know about it.
It's easy to do and it does not bring us any further. I want to thank makomk for his time and effort while sending him some coins too.

So as you say stop with the trivial clones of bitcoin, then I say Stop with the trivial attacks too. You're not helping.

[Clipse]

I thought the main point of these altchains was to do research. Attacking it right out of the gate seems counter productive.

I don't really buy the argument that alt chains detracts from Bitcoin in any way, just coz it's a copy paste or whatever.
Here is a bad anology: BMW cars still rocks even if KIA makes crap. And a copy BMW?, so what..

And saving stupid people from getting scammed? hah I don't buy that for one second. Besides you can't save people from their
own greed/stupidity whatever anyway. Most of you are free market libertarians, you don't want a nanny- anything and neither do I.

So then I guess it's back to human egos and their feelings...sadly.

Can you please grow up and understand that the more altchains we get, the the closer we will get to our goal.
Bitcoin is the best so far, but it's not perfect. Try to help innovation rather than stifling it.  A 51% attack is trivial, we know about it.
It's easy to do and it does not bring us any further. I want to thank makomk for his time and effort while sending him some coins too.

So as you say stop with the trivial clones of bitcoin, then I say Stop with the trivial attacks too. You're not helping.

What these bitcoin elitist dont realise, there is a ton of users who simply dont see a point in starting to mine bitcoins or get involved in it due to  very little hashing power (and not interested to invest their own $$ from the get go)

These altchains wether a scam to some give everyone a chance to get into bitcoins easier and not by dishing out money to get started and also making them feel like they own some piece of action.

Elitist dont think further than their own idealogies.

[Matoking]

Well that's pretty sad. Even though this wasn't probably going to be a "serious" alt-coin, it would have been a neat alt-currency to test out features not-yet supported by Bitcoin.

Good job enforcing your view as an arrogant prick, Luke-Jr.

[mikegogulski]

Am I the only one who sees the attack on CLC as (an illegal) DOS?

At a minimum, alt chains are a playground/proving ground for new features that may (or may not) be worthwhile for inclusion in Bitcoin proper.  Regardless of any monetary value in those chains, they provide the community with the opportunity to experiment and try out new ideas.  Attacking and destroying something just because you don't like it and you can is wrong.  

DOS attacks are against the law (criminal and civil in the US).  We can't sit around and let people get away with DOS'ing new chains just because they're new.  I hope those responsible start getting prosecuted.

Half right, half interesting. Heart in the right place and all that.

But seriously, any would-be cryptocurrency that can't survive a DOS attack by a few interested parties can be strangled in the cradle for all I care. If it can't survive that, it can't possibly survive the real world.

Oh, and fuck the so-called "law". With all due respect, you're way behind the curve here if you think that existing money/data/comm "law" has anything to do with what's being built.

[FlipPro]

While I don't agree with these non-improvement coins, I must say what Luke did was WRONG.

And the fact that he thinks Mako is a "scammer" is laughable. The dude has been a contributer here for months...

[eldentyrell]

Sorry, but:

**I told you so**

Enabling merged mining on an altchain is essentially granting trust to pool operators.

That said, I shed no tears over yet another dead scamchain.

[SupaDupaJenkins]

They just deleted Luke-Jr's post proving he did use the pool to attack CLC. Pure censorship on http://bitcointalk.org.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

I don't particularly have any incentive to respond to the scammers that I foiled, given the significant cost (in time) to do so. Nor do I have any financial loss or care particularly if people want to stop mining on Eligius because they were in on the scam (or any other reason). I will clarify that Eligius miners were not adversely impacted by this, and that the CLC mining involved only adding data that I hashed myself to my own transactions; and I was careful to ensure that nobody lost any confirmed CLC. If any Eligius miner wishes to inquire further, I will take the time to answer specific to-the-point questions which are signmessage'd with an active (ie, has mined in the past week) Eligius payout address that has earned at least 2000 TBC (5.36870912 BTC) over all time.

Eligius is a Bitcoin mining pool and I am, as always, committed to doing my best to contribute to and protect the Bitcoin ecosystem. Pyramid schemes built upon forks of the Bitcoin software ultimately discredit and harm Bitcoin's reputation. I hope CoiledCoin will be the last of such scams now that it is clear there are people (not just myself) willing to stand up to them. Namecoin alone demonstrates a legitimate, innovative use of Bitcoin technology, and while I don't personally agree with their ideals/goals, I see it as a good thing for Bitcoin and worth cooperating with.

You're a disgusting criminal.

No alt chain can be a pyramid scheme anymore than bitcoin itself is. And by the way, if done honestly, there's nothing ethically wrong with authentic pyramid schemes either. They are just a form of abuse of people's ignorance to get their money with their consent, pretty much like religion. Disgusting, but not criminal at all.

You, on the other hand, attacked an innocent project that had done no harm to anyone. If bitcoin is discredited by alt chains - what is obviously false, but anyway - that's bitcoin's problem. That gives you no right to go own attacking people's projects just because you don't like them.

[k9quaint]

I don't particularly have any incentive to respond to the scammers that I foiled, given the significant cost (in time) to do so. Nor do I have any financial loss or care particularly if people want to stop mining on Eligius because they were in on the scam (or any other reason). I will clarify that Eligius miners were not adversely impacted by this, and that the CLC mining involved only adding data that I hashed myself to my own transactions; and I was careful to ensure that nobody lost any confirmed CLC. If any Eligius miner wishes to inquire further, I will take the time to answer specific to-the-point questions which are signmessage'd with an active (ie, has mined in the past week) Eligius payout address that has earned at least 2000 TBC (5.36870912 BTC) over all time.

Eligius is a Bitcoin mining pool and I am, as always, committed to doing my best to contribute to and protect the Bitcoin ecosystem. Pyramid schemes built upon forks of the Bitcoin software ultimately discredit and harm Bitcoin's reputation. I hope CoiledCoin will be the last of such scams now that it is clear there are people (not just myself) willing to stand up to them. Namecoin alone demonstrates a legitimate, innovative use of Bitcoin technology, and while I don't personally agree with their ideals/goals, I see it as a good thing for Bitcoin and worth cooperating with.

You're a disgusting criminal.

No alt chain can be a pyramid scheme anymore than bitcoin itself is. And by the way, if done honestly, there's nothing ethically wrong with authentic pyramid schemes either. They are just a form of abuse of people's ignorance to get their money with their consent, pretty much like religion. Disgusting, but not criminal at all.

You, on the other hand, attacked an innocent project that had done no harm to anyone. If bitcoin is discredited by alt chains - what is obviously false, but anyway - that's bitcoin's problem. That gives you no right to go own attacking people's projects just because you don't like them.

By endorsing pyramid schemes, you have lost all ethical credibility.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

To OP: I suggest you change the tag on the topic name from [DEAD] to [KILLED BY Eligius pool], to better reflect what actually happened. Eventually Eligius miners who aren't yet aware of how their computing power's being used may see this thread.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Why is it dead?  It can't be mined anymore or nobody wants to mine it anymore?

A block chain can't simply be killed.  The title should be changed to (LOST SUPPORT OF COMMUNITY) if you want to be accurate.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

You're a disgusting criminal.

No alt chain can be a pyramid scheme anymore than bitcoin itself is. And by the way, if done honestly, there's nothing ethically wrong with authentic pyramid schemes either. They are just a form of abuse of people's ignorance to get their money with their consent, pretty much like religion. Disgusting, but not criminal at all.

You, on the other hand, attacked an innocent project that had done no harm to anyone. If bitcoin is discredited by alt chains - what is obviously false, but anyway - that's bitcoin's problem. That gives you no right to go own attacking people's projects just because you don't like them.

By endorsing pyramid schemes, you have lost all ethical credibility.

Did you read what I wrote entirely, or you stopped on your highlights? Right after, I call them "disgusting" (I highlighted up there). That pretty much means that I don't "endorse" it. They are just not criminal if everything is done consensually, if every party agrees.

Now, using somebody's resources in way that was not previously agreed upon, and plus, in an attack against someone that has done no harm, that's criminal, and way worse than pyramid schemes or religions.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Why is it dead?  It can't be mined anymore or nobody wants to mine it anymore?

Luke-Jr used his mining pool Eligius to >50% attack this infant currency, preventing people from transacting on it. He confessed a few pages behind.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Actually I would think he is referring to legitimate programs that follow the same model....  take Amway (and other network marketing programs), you only really make money on it by recruiting underlings (build the pyramid) into the program.... there really is no scam, there is not really much pressure to even use the stuff but it is a "pyramid scheme" by the purest of definitions and it's all up front and in the open (save they use the term "network marketing" instead of "pyramid scheme".... since it does sound nicer....)

Thanks for making it clearer.

None of the alts are any more a "scam" than bitcoin itself and this is one way in which luke-jr is a massive hypocrite...

+1

[k9quaint]

You're a disgusting criminal.

No alt chain can be a pyramid scheme anymore than bitcoin itself is. And by the way, if done honestly, there's nothing ethically wrong with authentic pyramid schemes either. They are just a form of abuse of people's ignorance to get their money with their consent, pretty much like religion. Disgusting, but not criminal at all.

You, on the other hand, attacked an innocent project that had done no harm to anyone. If bitcoin is discredited by alt chains - what is obviously false, but anyway - that's bitcoin's problem. That gives you no right to go own attacking people's projects just because you don't like them.

By endorsing pyramid schemes, you have lost all ethical credibility.

Did you read what I wrote entirely, or you stopped on your highlights? Right after, I call them "disgusting" (I highlighted up there). That pretty much means that I don't "endorse" it. They are just not criminal if everything is done consensually, if every party agrees.

Now, using somebody's resources in way that was not previously agreed upon, and plus, in an attack against someone that has done no harm, that's criminal, and way worse than pyramid schemes or religions.

I think you need to read up on what a pyramid scheme is. You seem to have to serious misconceptions about it. You also conflate the misrepresentation of facts with "peoples ignorance". According to that logic, Worldcom and Enron were not criminal, they just exploited the stock market's ignorance about the true state of their finances. No ethical problem at all right?

You also manage to say something is ethically ok and disgusting at the same time. This is convenient in that you may point to either to deflect criticism from any side.

Amway is not a pyramid scheme because if nobody else enters the system, it will not collapse. Pyramid schemes are non-sustainable business models that require new investors in order to fund payouts to existing ones.

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

I think you need to read up on what a pyramid scheme is. You seem to have to serious misconceptions about it.

My personal understanding of "pyramid scheme" is something that demands you to pay something to enter, and what you pay go to those that were there before you. For the scheme to keep financially healthy, the number of people entering must never decrease. It's what Social Security would be if it was voluntary (as it's not, it's much worse, it crosses the line of "ethically ok" to "ethically wrong")

According to that logic, Worldcom and Enron were not criminal, they just exploited the stock market's ignorance about the true state of their finances. No ethical problem at all right?

I don't know what these companies did. Wasn't fraud involved? That's ethically wrong, similar to when Luke-Jr used people's computing power in a way that was not agreed upon.
If there was no fraud or violation of people's right than no ethical problem indeed.

You also manage to say something is ethically ok and disgusting at the same time.

Of course something may be disgusting and ethically ok at the same time. Being disgusting is a subjective opinion.

Anyways, we're getting off-topic. Let's try to remain on what happened here, please.

[k9quaint]

I think you need to read up on what a pyramid scheme is. You seem to have to serious misconceptions about it.

My personal understanding of "pyramid scheme" is something that demands you to pay something to enter, and what you pay go to those that were there before you. For the scheme to keep financially healthy, the number of people entering must never decrease. It's what Social Security would be if it was voluntary (as it's not, it's much worse, it crosses the line of "ethically ok" to "ethically wrong")

According to that logic, Worldcom and Enron were not criminal, they just exploited the stock market's ignorance about the true state of their finances. No ethical problem at all right?

I don't know what these companies did. Wasn't fraud involved? That's ethically wrong, similar to when Luke-Jr used people's computing power in a way that was not agreed upon.
If there was no fraud or violation of people's right than no ethical problem indeed.

You also manage to say something is ethically ok and disgusting at the same time.

Of course something may be disgusting and ethically ok at the same time. Being disgusting is a subjective opinion.

Anyways, we're getting off-topic. Let's try to remain on what happened here, please.

This is exactly on topic. You make assertions about what is or isn't ethical, but don't have the underlying information to make an informed opinion.
Pyramid schemes necessarily involve fraud, particularly assertions about a products quality, or market penetration, or underlying value. That is why new investors are needed, without them the scheme cannot survive. Now who would invest in a dying enterprise? Someone who was lied to about it's prospects of course.

Luke-jr used the result of peoples computing power, not the power itself. Why is this distinction important and is it actually a distinction? People who signed up with Eligius did so in order to mine Bitcoins. Merged mining involves no additional work in order to function, it uses the results of other proofs of work in order to build its own blockchain. Luke used the results of the BTC mining to attack CLC. Eligius users would earned the exact same number of BTC had Luke-jr not attacked CLC. Since nothing was taken from Eligius users, no economic damage occurred. Eligius users did no extra work to take part in the attack on CLC.

These are the facts as I understand them (I might be wrong):
CLC was basically an unreleased version of BTC with first day merged mining and exchange support.
Luke-jr demonstrated how an unreliable pool operator can destroy such an entity.
Luke-jr did so without incurring any economic harm to or requiring any extra work from his users.
Luke-jr did not double spend CLC, only demonstrated that he could have by creating a separate but longer CLC blockchain.

 Whether he should or should not have attacked CLC is a different question from whether he harmed his users while doing so. Of course, Eligius users who don't like Luke can always switch their operations to a different pool.

Should CLC have been attacked? Should a crypto coin with such a deep structural flaw deserve to survive? Both are interesting questions with deep ethical implications.

The entire premise of cryptocoins is that they are immune or at least very resistant to such manipulations as occurred with CLC. It appears that CLC was not resistant to, and in fact was highly susceptible to such manipulations. So, should we encourage people to place their faith (and cold hard cash) into such a crypto coin? Should we discourage people from doing so? If people are allowed to market fatally flawed products, should not people also be allowed to take steps preventing those products from gaining market traction?

I dunno, mostly because football is on TV right now 

[EhVedadoOAnonimato]

Pyramid schemes necessarily involve fraud, particularly assertions about a products quality, or market penetration, or underlying value.

Not necessarily. There were several pyramid schemes started here on this forum which were quite open from the beginning: you pay X to enter, you receive a certain percentage of what people after you pay etc. No fraud involved.

Luke-jr used the result of peoples computing power, not the power itself. Why is this distinction important and is it actually a distinction? People who signed up with Eligius did so in order to mine Bitcoins. Merged mining involves no additional work in order to function, it uses the results of other proofs of work in order to build its own blockchain. Luke used the results of the BTC mining to attack CLC. Eligius users would earned the exact same number of BTC had Luke-jr not attacked CLC. Since nothing was taken from Eligius users, no economic damage occurred. Eligius users did no extra work to take part in the attack on CLC.

I understand how merged mining works and that it costs nothing extra to miners. But it doesn't matter, I don't believe you can say that miners are giving "full authorization" to pool operators to do whatever they want with their calculations. It's as if your neighbor borrow you a knife for some cooking he's intending to do, and ends up also using this knife to harm someone. Or even to do something not criminal but that you personally don't agree with and that was not clear from the start, like, I don't know, torturing/killing his own dog or something. The fact that he returns the knife intact to you (no lost) doesn't change the fact that he betrayed the implicit agreement.

Should a crypto coin with such a deep structural flaw deserve to survive?

What deep structural flaw? I mean, bitcoin itself could receive such attack, by someone with much more processing power. This new coin was on infant stage and obviously could not counter Eligius attack, as there's no other big pool honestly mining it AFAIK.

The entire premise of cryptocoins is that they are immune or at least very resistant to such manipulations as occurred with CLC.

The only known way so far to resist a >50% attack is by centralizing the network.

[k9quaint]

Pyramid schemes necessarily involve fraud, particularly assertions about a products quality, or market penetration, or underlying value.

Not necessarily. There were several pyramid schemes started here on this forum which were quite open from the beginning: you pay X to enter, you receive a certain percentage of what people after you pay etc. No fraud involved.

Name them. Most of the claims on this board involve supposedly new and improved crypto currencies. Many of these are neither new, nor are they improved. They also involve a submission of a proof of work in return for new allocations of currency. They do not involve a percentage of this new allocation given to earlier blocks. They are pump and dump schemes, not pyramid schemes.

Luke-jr used the result of peoples computing power, not the power itself. Why is this distinction important and is it actually a distinction? People who signed up with Eligius did so in order to mine Bitcoins. Merged mining involves no additional work in order to function, it uses the results of other proofs of work in order to build its own blockchain. Luke used the results of the BTC mining to attack CLC. Eligius users would earned the exact same number of BTC had Luke-jr not attacked CLC. Since nothing was taken from Eligius users, no economic damage occurred. Eligius users did no extra work to take part in the attack on CLC.

I understand how merged mining works and that it costs nothing extra to miners. But it doesn't matter, I don't believe you can say that miners are giving "full authorization" to pool operators to do whatever they want with their calculations. It's as if your neighbor borrow you a knife for some cooking he's intending to do, and ends up also using this knife to harm someone. Or even to do something not criminal but that you personally don't agree with and that was not clear from the start, like, I don't know, torturing/killing his own dog or something. The fact that he returns the knife intact to you (no lost) doesn't change the fact that he betrayed the implicit agreement.

If he did the cooking and you did not restrict the use of the knife to only cooking, no fraud occurred and there is no broken contract. Lets say after he is done cooking, a home invasion occurs and he successfully defends his family with your knife. Again, as long as he did what he said he was going to do with the knife (say to cook some food for you) and delivered both food and knife to you as agreed, there is no violation of contract. If you want to make sure that the only thing he uses the knife for is the cooking, you had better spell that out (for instance, kosher rules governing what the knife touches).

Should a crypto coin with such a deep structural flaw deserve to survive?

What deep structural flaw? I mean, bitcoin itself could receive such attack, by someone with much more processing power. This new coin was on infant stage and obviously could not counter Eligius attack, as there's no other big pool honestly mining it AFAIK.

The coin was released with merged mining and the largest pool doing merged mining was not acting to appreciate the currencies value. That is a structural flaw in the launch of the coin. The fact that it was not foreseen by the founders is irrelevant. Bitcoin could not have received such an attack as there was no such thing as merged mining when it started, also there is no crypto currency with orders of magnitude more hashing power than BTC that is required for such a scenario to play out today.

The entire premise of cryptocoins is that they are immune or at least very resistant to such manipulations as occurred with CLC.

The only known way so far to resist a >50% attack is by centralizing the network.

It was the centralization of CLC in Eligius that created the conditions where a 51% attack can succeed. You cannot eliminate the potential for the attack, you can only minimize it by distributing the resources among many nodes. Since the ultimate control of the currency is in the hands of the users, they could all band together and decide to modify it in any way they see fit. That is technically a 51% attack, since the majority of the miners decide to change the protocol. The implementation of OP_EVAL in BTC by the developers will technically be a 51% attack on the original protocol. Ideally, no losses of BTC will occur.