[ANN][VRC] VeriCoin Proof of Stake-Time Currency | New Roadmap Released

[lootz]

New Vericoin FUDster list, Enjoy your FUD go back to whatever coin you came from

http://www.vericoinish.com/index.php/blog/the-fud-list

[1618368747]

1618368747

[1618368747]

1618368747

[setup]

Why do i ignore this idiot, if others Quote this bullshit?

[lootz]

Why do i ignore this idiot, if others Quote this bullshit?

Sorry bro I had a lot to drink tonight and decides to have some fun with these FUDsters, I will try not to do that I know its an eyesore

[CodeHunter]

When volume for VRC goes up, they show up.

[phzi]

There are hard-forks, forks, and blockchain rollbacks (essentially, large blockchain re-organizations).

Hard-forks are performed because there is a bug in the software that needs fixing - a fault in the software itself.
Bitcoin has had a few emergency hard-forks; 2 to be exact.  These are positive changes - they show that the developers and community are on top of things, and capable of fixing the protocol or protocol implementation when necessary.

Forks are when there are two competing blockchains - this is usually a bad thing.  Simple forks are often caused when there are protocol version conflicts, and the longer chain stops getting accepted by a set of nodes, who then branch into their own chain.  Forks are almost always a bad thing.

Blockchain rollbacks and re-orgs happen when someone 51% attacks the network, or for the first time with VRC, when devs decide to force a revert to a previous checkpoint.  Blockchain re-organizations (rollbacks) are VERY BAD.  They show that the network has NO orphan security, and that you very simply should not trust your money on that blockchain.


A fork is not a fork.  Anyone that says that has no idea what they are talking about, and you probably shouldn't believe anything else they claim to know.


Nothing I'm saying is untrue, nor attacking a specific coin.  I would make these statements about any blockchain that was re-organized like VRC was.

It's not FUD if it's true - it's sharing knowledge.  
FUD has become the most ridiculously overused buzz word in this thread.  And it's being used to discredit people who's points cannot otherwise be disproven.  So, please, keep shouting FUD at me... it's obvious you're the only one spreading bullshit when you do so.

[Bobsurplus]

When volume for VRC goes up, they show up.

LMAO... Volume going up and price coming down?

=People selling this crap coin!

[Autodidact]

The accusations that are still being made here are hilarious and short sighted.  It's obvious that the coin would have died off if the rollback did not take place.  It's obvious that everyone hates hackers and they got what they deserved.  It's obvious people here have their own agenda and will fight to the death (online) over this.  To each their own.

I am happy with the coin, the devs, and the community.  The loud minority continues to play their music, but I will not let it sway my opinions just because they are persistent.  Make your own decisions.

[lootz]

If anyone else has a nice list a FUDsters please let me know, this list will not only appear on vericoinish but multiple websites that my buddies own that have a huge following. I come up with great ideas after half a bottle of JW.
http://www.vericoinish.com/index.php/blog/the-fud-list

Those 2 are now on my ignore list so no worries I will not be reposting their garbage again. I am excited about the FUD list though totally awesome

[phzi]

If anyone else has a nice list a FUDsters please let me know, this list will not only appear on vericoinish but multiple websites that my buddies own that have a huge following. I come up with great ideas after half a bottle of JW.
http://www.vericoinish.com/index.php/blog/the-fud-list

Those 2 are now on my ignore list so no worries I will not be reposting their garbage again. I am excited about the FUD list though totally awesome

Show me one thing I've said in this thread that's untrue?  Oh wait... you can't...

Yet I can show you plenty of things that the defenders of forking say that is complete bullshit - and I do.

Good to know you're a drunkard tho - definitely adds to your credibility.


Weak minds use the ignore button when they grow annoyed that they can't defend their ideas (typically, because their ideas are wrong).

(Also, I'd be willing to bet that lootz will un-ignore me long enough to read this post, because he obviously cares a hell of a lot about his likely loss of investment because he believed in VRC)

[lootz]

Hey look phzi is saying something but it says he is blocked that is fantastic. I am guessing he is defending himself in 1 way ar another. Something along the line of I am rite because, and he is wrong because...

Use the list very helpful to know who to block guys, http://www.vericoinish.com/index.php/blog/the-fud-list

[CodeHunter]

It's nice to see some passion from the naysayers. The louder they are, the more they reveal the importance of VRC.

[MAD945]

You guys really need to learn your Bitcoin history! Bitcoin had been rolledback!

8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence

On 8th August 2010 bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik wrote what could be mildly described as the biggest understatement since Apollo 13 told Houston: “We’ve had a problem here.”. “The ‘value out’ in this block is quite strange,” he wrote on bitcointalk.org, referring to a block that had somehow contained 92 billion BTC, which is precisely 91,979,000,000 more bitcoin than is ever supposed to exist. CVE-2010-5139 (CVE meaning ‘common vulnerability and exposures’) was frighteningly simple and exploited to the point of farce by an unknown attacker. In technical language, the bug is known as a number overflow error.So instead of the system counting up 98, 99, 100, 101, for example, it broke at 99 and went to zero (or -100) instead of 100. In layman’s terms, someone found a way to flood the code and create a ridiculously large amount of bitcoin in the process.

The fix was the bitcoin equivalent of dying in a video game and restarting from the last save point. The community simply hit ‘undo’, jumping back to the point in the blockchain before the hack occurred and starting anew from there; all of the transactions made after the bug was exploited – but before the fix was implemented – were effectively cancelled.

How serious was it? Bitcoin’s lead developer Wladimir Van Der Laan is pretty blunt about it, telling me: “It was the worst problem ever.”

Source1: http://www.coindesk.com/9-biggest-screwups-bitcoin-history/
Source2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0

[phzi]

You guys really need to learn your Bitcoin history! Bitcoin had been rolledback!

8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence

On 8th August 2010 bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik wrote what could be mildly described as the biggest understatement since Apollo 13 told Houston: “We’ve had a problem here.”. “The ‘value out’ in this block is quite strange,” he wrote on bitcointalk.org, referring to a block that had somehow contained 92 billion BTC, which is precisely 91,979,000,000 more bitcoin than is ever supposed to exist. CVE-2010-5139 (CVE meaning ‘common vulnerability and exposures’) was frighteningly simple and exploited to the point of farce by an unknown attacker. In technical language, the bug is known as a number overflow error.So instead of the system counting up 98, 99, 100, 101, for example, it broke at 99 and went to zero (or -100) instead of 100. In layman’s terms, someone found a way to flood the code and create a ridiculously large amount of bitcoin in the process.

The fix was the bitcoin equivalent of dying in a video game and restarting from the last save point. The community simply hit ‘undo’, jumping back to the point in the blockchain before the hack occurred and starting anew from there; all of the transactions made after the bug was exploited – but before the fix was implemented – were effectively cancelled.

How serious was it? Bitcoin’s lead developer Wladimir Van Der Laan is pretty blunt about it, telling me: “It was the worst problem ever.”

Source1: http://www.coindesk.com/9-biggest-screwups-bitcoin-history/
Source2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0

This is a hard-fork for internal reasons, not a blockchain rollback for external reasons - HUGE difference.  It was done because the protocol wasn't implemented properly, not because some third-party exchange messed up.

Obviously you need to learn your terminology...

Bitcoin used a hard-fork, which caused that block to be invalid and unacceptable (because it was)...  Nothing was invalid or unacceptable (protocol-wise) about the block that VRC rolled back to.

There are hard-forks, forks, and blockchain rollbacks (essentially, large blockchain re-organizations).

Hard-forks are performed because there is a bug in the software that needs fixing - a fault in the software itself.
Bitcoin has had a few emergency hard-forks; 2 to be exact.  These are positive changes - they show that the developers and community are on top of things, and capable of fixing the protocol or protocol implementation when necessary.

Forks are when there are two competing blockchains - this is usually a bad thing.  Simple forks are often caused when there are protocol version conflicts, and the longer chain stops getting accepted by a set of nodes, who then branch into their own chain.  Forks are almost always a bad thing.

Blockchain rollbacks and re-orgs happen when someone 51% attacks the network, or for the first time with VRC, when devs decide to force a revert to a previous checkpoint.  Blockchain re-organizations (rollbacks) are VERY BAD.  They show that the network has NO orphan security, and that you very simply should not trust your money on that blockchain.


A fork is not a fork.  Anyone that says that has no idea what they are talking about, and you probably shouldn't believe anything else they clai

And, FFS... the big and red text doesn't make your point more valid - it just makes you look desperate.

[phzi]

It's nice to see some passion from the naysayers. The louder they are, the more they reveal the importance of VRC.

It's more along the lines of naysayers are trying to save less-informed educators from falling for the utter bullshit that these supporters (aka: people that have lost money and are desperately hoping their posts will cause the value to go back up) spew about un-related bitcoin hard-forks, and massively misuse terminology to serve their own point.  You can see the un-informed and under-educated posts a mile away - they almost always have the word FUD in them in an accusatory tone against someone making a decent argument.

Look at it this way:  
I'm not for any other coin or trying to stir shit for no reason - I've never mentioned any competition in this thread, nor am I trying to further my own situation (other then maybe see my post count climb).
The people that are posting in support of this coin all have a stake in the coin, and want to see it's value increase.  Many have lost money that they are hoping to recover, and so throw nonsense words around like FUD.

Dunno about you, but I certainly know who I wouldn't be listening to...

[MAD945]

You guys really need to learn your Bitcoin history! Bitcoin had been rolledback!

8th August 2010 - 92 billion BTC into existence

On 8th August 2010 bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik wrote what could be mildly described as the biggest understatement since Apollo 13 told Houston: “We’ve had a problem here.”. “The ‘value out’ in this block is quite strange,” he wrote on bitcointalk.org, referring to a block that had somehow contained 92 billion BTC, which is precisely 91,979,000,000 more bitcoin than is ever supposed to exist. CVE-2010-5139 (CVE meaning ‘common vulnerability and exposures’) was frighteningly simple and exploited to the point of farce by an unknown attacker. In technical language, the bug is known as a number overflow error.So instead of the system counting up 98, 99, 100, 101, for example, it broke at 99 and went to zero (or -100) instead of 100. In layman’s terms, someone found a way to flood the code and create a ridiculously large amount of bitcoin in the process.

The fix was the bitcoin equivalent of dying in a video game and restarting from the last save point. The community simply hit ‘undo’, jumping back to the point in the blockchain before the hack occurred and starting anew from there; all of the transactions made after the bug was exploited – but before the fix was implemented – were effectively cancelled.

How serious was it? Bitcoin’s lead developer Wladimir Van Der Laan is pretty blunt about it, telling me: “It was the worst problem ever.”

Source1: http://www.coindesk.com/9-biggest-screwups-bitcoin-history/
Source2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0

This is a hard-fork for internal reasons, not a blockchain rollback for external reasons - HUGE difference.  It was done because the protocol wasn't implemented properly, not because some third-party exchange messed up.

Obviously you need to learn your terminology...

Bitcoin used a hard-fork, which caused that block to be invalid and unacceptable (because it was)...  Nothing was invalid or unacceptable (protocol-wise) about the block that VRC rolled back to.

There are hard-forks, forks, and blockchain rollbacks (essentially, large blockchain re-organizations).

Hard-forks are performed because there is a bug in the software that needs fixing - a fault in the software itself.
Bitcoin has had a few emergency hard-forks; 2 to be exact.  These are positive changes - they show that the developers and community are on top of things, and capable of fixing the protocol or protocol implementation when necessary.

Forks are when there are two competing blockchains - this is usually a bad thing.  Simple forks are often caused when there are protocol version conflicts, and the longer chain stops getting accepted by a set of nodes, who then branch into their own chain.  Forks are almost always a bad thing.

Blockchain rollbacks and re-orgs happen when someone 51% attacks the network, or for the first time with VRC, when devs decide to force a revert to a previous checkpoint.  Blockchain re-organizations (rollbacks) are VERY BAD.  They show that the network has NO orphan security, and that you very simply should not trust your money on that blockchain.


A fork is not a fork.  Anyone that says that has no idea what they are talking about, and you probably shouldn't believe anything else they clai

And, FFS... the big and red text doesn't make your point more valid - it just makes you look desperate.

Bitcoin did rollback the blockchain because of external reasons...a hacker had exploited a vulnerable part of the software.

You need to read that quote again...

[CodeHunter]

@ phzi

Ah so your a hero who is helping, I see  

And so much effort too. So selfless  

[phzi]

Bitcoin did rollback the blockchain because of external reasons...a hacker had exploited a vulnerable part of the software.

You need to read that quote again...

A hacker exploited a vulnerability IN the bitcoin core client - that would not be called an external problem...  Durp.

Core Client != Third Party Exchange.  Get it?

Bitcoin patched a vulnerability, which caused a rollback past the invalid block (it was an invalid block, afterall, just not detected properly). 
When you can show the vulnerability that VRC patched (they didn't...) then you can say it's the same.

Bitcoin devs patched a bug via a hard-fork.  VRC dev team FORCED a blockchain rollback.

Are you starting to see the difference, or are you going to continue to be intentionally blind?

@ phzi

Ah so your a hero who is helping, I see  

And so much effort too. So selfless  

I never said selfless - I get entertainment and a higher post count, lol.

[CodeHunter]

I get entertainment and a higher post count, lol.

Post count? Bwuahahahaha oh man. The aspie of aspies.

[MAD945]

Bitcoin did rollback the blockchain because of external reasons...a hacker had exploited a vulnerable part of the software.

You need to read that quote again...

A hacker exploited a vulnerability IN the bitcoin core client - that would not be called an external problem...  Durp.

Core Client != Third Party Exchange.  Get it?

Bitcoin patched a vulnerability, which caused a rollback past the invalid block (it was an invalid block, afterall, just not detected properly). 
When you can show the vulnerability that VRC patched (they didn't...) then you can say it's the same.

Bitcoin devs patched a bug via a hard-fork.  VRC dev team FORCED a blockchain rollback.

Are you starting to see the difference, or are you going to continue to be intentionally blind?

@ phzi

Ah so your a hero who is helping, I see  

And so much effort too. So selfless  

I never said selfless - I get entertainment and a higher post count, lol.

Thank you for confirming with me that Bitcoin Indeed performed a rollback...thank you

[brightlight]

I don't want to FUD here, but if things are so bad as some persons try to state here, who was so stupid to buy VRC with 20BTC? Shortsighted whale or just blind kiddie?