Pool Ops are now the Alt Currency Police

[gmaxwell]

I congratulate people like gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack ) and Luke-Jr.

I had nothing to do with the litecoin dustspam attack, except for potentially forseeing part of it as a consequence of the anti-dos rules being unchanged from bitcoin and totally out of wack with the low currency value and fast chain speed (though the fact that the attacker would send to pre-existing addresses in order to slow down wallets wasn't even something I'd guessed would happen), and I posted patches to correct it ahead of the attack.

I'd appreciate it if you edited your message to retract this claim, as well as any other places where you've made it.

Thanks.

[1715198210]

1715198210

[1715198210]

1715198210

[1715198210]

1715198210

[1715198210]

1715198210

[1715198210]

1715198210

[RandyFolds]

you were banned from #solidcoin for being a liar and thief.

This is nothing but slander.

Better add it to the lawsuit. That's what, like, a hundred billion dollars in damages and counting now, right?

[kano]

I congratulate people like gmaxwell ( responsible for the LTC TX spam attack ) and Luke-Jr.

I had nothing to do with the litecoin dustspam attack, except for potentially forseeing part of it as a consequence of the anti-dos rules being unchanged from bitcoin and totally out of wack with the low currency value and fast chain speed (though the fact that the attacker would send to pre-existing addresses in order to slow down wallets wasn't even something I'd guessed would happen), and I posted patches to correct it ahead of the attack.

I'd appreciate it if you edited your message to retract this claim, as well as any other places where you've made it.

Thanks.

However, the attack occurred within an hour of you posting about it in the forum ...

[gmaxwell]

* You were kicked from #eligius by gmaxwell (pretty sure luke would have wanted this: sorry, no scamcoins, please.)

Well you came in blablah about coiledcoin, it was trolling as far as I could tell.   I'm not very active in #eligius but luke wasn't around at the time.   I got a talking to as a result of that kick— he's a lot more tolerant of casual trolling than I am, and I wasn't aware that he'd been hanging out in your channel.  Sorry about that.

[dirtycat]

My prediction for 2012:

Peer-to-peer pool technology will mature (will get easier to install and run), and p2pool's will be more than 25% of bitcoin hashing power by the end of the year.

Fingers crossed that you're correct.

Why anyone is still mining at these pools is a mystery to me.. I was able to get p2pool up and running in less than 10 minutes.  Def gonna stay with it.. much better than any pool I have tried.

[CoinHunter]

Let us presume that enforcer node X is compromised and beings attacking the Solidcoin2 network. Coinhunter issues a code update to strip that node of its enforcer status. Some portion of the user base implements this code update, most critically exchanges and pools. Solidcoin has enough enforcer nodes under his direct control to continue the protocol processing until the other enforcers update. The remaining enforcer nodes now have a choice; they can run the old "insecure" client that allows them to be "attacked" by node X, or they can update to the newer more "secure" version.

It will take more than a single trust wallet to get out in the wild to have any severe impact on the SolidCoin network. If any security holes appear they will of course be quickly taken care of. That is what SolidCoin is known for, security.

If they don't update, they will be left behind and eventually become a liability themselves. They can't write their own source to fork because of the following line in license.txt:

"We reserve the right to cancel this open source license to any project which has a negative impact on the SolidCoin network or SolidCoin users."

Of course "negative impact" is defined by Realsolid, and he owns the copyrights to all the code.

Just because I own the copyright is irrelevant. Someone owns the major bitcoin domains which control the code most people run on. Someone owns the sites and content we are posting here. It isn't us. It's already stated that I will pass all my code ownership to the NPO when it is setup. Including any SolidCoin wallets, code, domains, etc used. If you want to get into this "well RealSolid owns this so blah blah" we can go on all day with Bitcoin too. It's a strawman

[CoinHunter]

Well you came in blablah about coiledcoin, it was trolling as far as I could tell.   I'm not very active in #eligius but luke wasn't around at the time.   I got a talking to as a result of that kick— he's a lot more tolerant of casual trolling than I am, and I wasn't aware that he'd been hanging out in your channel.  Sorry about that.

This is nothing but slander!

[gmaxwell]

However, the attack occurred within an hour of you posting about it in the forum ...

I don't think I even heard about it for several days later, are you sure about that?

And what I posted about wasn't even the attack that actually happened. Though I'd love to take credit realizing that lots of inputs would gum up the wallet, which is so obvious in retrospect,  what I was pointing out was that the fees were out of wack.  Moreover, I was interested in finding out if it was easier to influence chain fee policy in a chain which was mostly solomined (as ltc was at the time).    At the time the attack irritated me as much as anyone else— it screwed up my mining psychology experiment by providing a non-selfish motivation for changing the fee schedule.

Here is the thread for anyone interested https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51915.0.  I don't think I ever saw any of the posts in it after the first until just now. I knew about the attacks from IRC (and from seeing my own blockchain copies grow).

Unlikely Luke I don't think Litecoin is a scam. It may be ultimately pointless, as Art convinced me when I suggested scrypt POW in #bitcoin-dev a long time before litecoin— the cpu pow really means that only criminals can mine it profitably (perhaps ultimately a fate for Bitcoin too), and the increased block rate makes it actually 4x less lite than bitcoin when you have a pruning node.  But I've never had anything against worse than those reservations against it, and have defended it against people trying to spread "dark pool fud" here.

[k9quaint]

Just because I own the copyright is irrelevant. Someone owns the major bitcoin domains which control the code most people run on. Someone owns the sites and content we are posting here. It isn't us. It's already stated that I will pass all my code ownership to the NPO when it is setup. Including any SolidCoin wallets, code, domains, etc used. If you want to get into this "well RealSolid owns this so blah blah" we can go on all day with Bitcoin too. It's a strawman

Actually, you owning the copyright makes you the rightsholder. You dictate the terms of use to anyone who uses the code. Those terms are spelled out in license.txt. Finally, license.txt says you reserve the right to revoke usage of the solidcoin codebase from anyone.

As for copyright and bitcoin, the bitcoin code is distributed with the following license:

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software."

Once I download the bitcoin code, I can do with it as I wish, as long as I include that notice at the top of the files.
Solidcoin code and all of its derivatives will always be under the control of Coinhunter (unless the license changes).

[CoinHunter]

Once I download the bitcoin code, I can do with it as I wish, as long as I include that notice at the top of the files.
Solidcoin code and all of its derivatives will always be under the control of Coinhunter (unless the license changes).

And what's the point of you being able to do anything with Bitcoin code? What do you want to do? If you want to do anything non malicious you have free right to use SolidCoin code provided it's a SolidCoin orientated project (ie not a chain fork). Revoking a source license for "no reason" wouldn't be very good PR would it. Revoking a malicious project would be what 99.999% of people want. That's democracy.

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license. It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.

[k9quaint]

Once I download the bitcoin code, I can do with it as I wish, as long as I include that notice at the top of the files.
Solidcoin code and all of its derivatives will always be under the control of Coinhunter (unless the license changes).

And what's the point of you being able to do anything with Bitcoin code? What do you want to do?

I can fork it. I can improve it. I can attack it. I can experiment with it. I can run which ever version of it I like. It is called freedom.

If you want to do anything non malicious you have free right to use SolidCoin code provided it's a SolidCoin orientated project (ie not a chain fork). Revoking a source license for "no reason" wouldn't be very good PR would it. Revoking a malicious project would be what 99.999% of people want. That's democracy.

If that power was in the hands of the people, it would be democracy. Unfortunately, you are head of Solidcoin for life and nobody voted you in. That is a dictatorship, not a democracy. You also define the term "non malicious" and you might consider any action counter to your wishes at the time a malicious one. Bad PR hasn't stopped you in the past from making choices, I don't see it stopping you in the future.

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license. It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.

No, they don't control bitcoin. That is what you fail to understand. The users of bitcoin are free to do with it what they like. They can run it in any fashion, they can use any derivative work they choose. They can get their bitcoin code or binaries from competing sources. They can make their own mods and offer that as a competing client.

All Solidcoin derivative works are subject to your whim as you retain all rights to code & binary usage.

That is the difference and it is a major one. Perhaps Solidcoin2 needs this additional protection, who knows.

[Syke]

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license. It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.

The reality is you control SolidCoin. You control the license. You control the source code. You control the wallets that run the control nodes. You control SolidCoin 100%.

[NASDAQEnema]

Once I download the bitcoin code, I can do with it as I wish, as long as I include that notice at the top of the files.
Solidcoin code and all of its derivatives will always be under the control of Coinhunter (unless the license changes).

And what's the point of you being able to do anything with Bitcoin code?

I have my gun right here. I no shoot you. What you want it fo'?

What do you want to do? If you want to do anything non malicious you have free right to use SolidCoin code provided it's a SolidCoin orientated project (ie not a chain fork).

Are you still beating your wife?

Revoking a source license for "no reason" wouldn't be very good PR would it.

Why would I lie? Don't you trust me? Free candy. Come to my van.

Revoking a malicious project would be what 99.999% of people want. That's democracy.

NO! What the people want is for themselves and not you to decide whether a project is malicious. I smell another Luke Jr.

You people actually support the financial architecture we are trying to escape. Next word, I bet, is going to be technocrat. You and all the idiot finance journalists cheering on the appointment "of those who know what's best for us".

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license.

Um. no. because no.

It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.

By that logic, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, Stumble Upon should not exist. What's the point? Reminds me of Michael Dell refusing to build machines with AMD CPUs.

Diversity leads to stability. Efficiency leads to paranoia. Fer chrissake.

[illpoet]

thank you enema. i'm completely lost on most of what's going on in this thread, i thought it was about lukejr, but now its about solidcoin? either way that last post made me laugh really hard.

[bitlane]

you were banned from #solidcoin for being a liar and thief.

This is nothing but slander.

It's actually Libel....but thanks for playing, Sherlock.


I am still actually waiting to hear how the 'personal equipment' vs 'pool resources' thing plays out....and I still haven't got a response to this:

If you had the personal $$$ to get 80 ghash then how do you know he also doesn't have the $$$ needed as well ? Fail yet again. Please post concrete evidence next time before making random statements.

Actually, I've read his Family Blog and everything points to him being as broke as a joke......quite pathetic actually, so I can see his concerns with maintaining BTC's value, as he must use it to feed his family. It was some of most entertaining 'Coupon Clipping' and Religion garbage that I had ever come across.
I downloaded full mirrors of all of his online personal websites, for future reference.

Unfortunately, everything now seems to be removed from the net, as too many people were given the opportunity to get a glimpse inside the life of such a self-righteous Bible thumper.
He seems to be living on love, prayers and donations from the rest of his family (although with a boycott list, as to which products he will not accept as gifts).
That's right - a real man who let's the rest of his friends & family pay to raise his kids.....CLASSIC. 80 ghash, did you say ?

bulanula ?

[ArtForz]

Anyone with a copy of the CLC blockchain and bitcoin-utils can easily verify that the bitcoin parent blocks used to attack CLC belong to eligius. Personal equipment my ass.

[3phase]

Anyone with a copy of the CLC blockchain and bitcoin-utils can easily verify that the bitcoin parent blocks used to attack CLC belong to eligius. Personal equipment my ass.

As far as I understand, this is clearly the case, however Luke claims that creating a custom coinbase to include CLC in the merged mining of his pool, does not have anything to do with Eligius miners. It's not the first time he used the coinbase to his personal whims. Their hashes therefore just "happened" to solve CLC blocks, which were passed to the CLC daemon that Luke was running in his "personal equipment". Instead of a CLC-related string, it could have been hymns or exorcisms.

Thus, the "I did not use Eligius hashing power to shut down CLC".

[k9quaint]

Anyone with a copy of the CLC blockchain and bitcoin-utils can easily verify that the bitcoin parent blocks used to attack CLC belong to eligius. Personal equipment my ass.

As far as I understand, this is clearly the case, however Luke claims that creating a custom coinbase to include CLC in the merged mining of his pool, does not have anything to do with Eligius miners. It's not the first time he used the coinbase to his personal whims. Their hashes therefore just "happened" to solve CLC blocks, which were passed to the CLC daemon that Luke was running in his "personal equipment". Instead of a CLC-related string, it could have been hymns or exorcisms.

Thus, the "I did not use Eligius hashing power to shut down CLC".

When are you guys going to stop with this letter vs. spirit of the law thing ?

The fact is he betrayed the trust of his users. Implementation detail only matter
to lawyers. What needs to happen now is that folks mining at eligius need to know
what the freak is up to with their hashing power, that's all.

If they condone his actions, they can stick around. If they don't they can leave.

But they need to know, and right now, they don't : luke has taken great care to
stay as non-committal as possible to make sure the non-techie eligius miners
aren't sure what's going on.

Your spirit of the law is based on flawed presumptions. When are you going to stop presuming that every pool must offer every altcoin that can be merged mined? In another thread, I announced the creation of 100 altcoin block chains that can be merge mined from day 1. To date, all of the pools except 1 are refusing to grant their users access to these new and valuable coins.

This really boils down to different axioms that cannot be resolved, such as presumed guilt vs presumed innocence.
Luke did it, but he did it with information that his users had no claim on whatsoever.

Should he have done it? That is a far stickier question.
After warnings were not heeded, action to demonstrate is the next step. AFAIK, Luke did not doublespend any CLC, he merely forked the block chain in such a way that it is very difficult to mine. He certainly could have approached this in a less abrasive manner. He could have forked the chain, demonstrated that he could block it, and then released his hold after a patch was released to mitigate the vulnerability. He could have notified his users beforehand that he was going to use the results of their BTC hashes to demonstrate a vulnerability in another blockchain. He could have explained to his users why he would not offer merge mining of CLC until such a time as it was not vulnerable. In short, there are many things he could have done to come off as less of a phallus.

IMO all Luke is guilty of is bad public relations and an abrasive personality, not computer crimes or fraud.

[k9quaint]

I explained in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57288.40 how your assumptions about how pools interact with their users are unwarranted and thus your entire cause for complaint moot.

[jothan]

thank you enema. i'm completely lost on most of what's going on in this thread, i thought it was about lukejr, but now its about solidcoin? either way that last post made me laugh really hard.

Scammer vs scammer, I'm about to pull out the popcorn.