delete

[Syke]

I prefer btc-e.com myself, so yup, I couldn't care less what mtgox does. Once they allowed their password database to get hacked I swore them off forever. You can find lots of other exchanges at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Real-time_Trading

[1713886020]

1713886020

[1713886020]

1713886020

[1713886020]

1713886020

[1713886020]

1713886020

[CoinHunter]

I prefer btc-e.com myself, so yup, I couldn't care less what mtgox does. Once they allowed their password database to get hacked I swore them off forever. You can find lots of other exchanges at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Real-time_Trading

Yes but very few exchanges would want to be incompatible with the "Mtgox network", so you would think most would change to whatever the 4 important people do. Not saying all would necessarily convert but you'd think most would. All that has to happen is Mtgox does and the old network essentially loses 99% of its value overnight.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I prefer btc-e.com myself, so yup, I couldn't care less what mtgox does. Once they allowed their password database to get hacked I swore them off forever. You can find lots of other exchanges at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Real-time_Trading

Yes but very few exchanges would want to be incompatible with the "Mtgox network", so you would think most would change to whatever the 4 important people do. Not saying all would necessarily convert but you'd think most would. All that has to happen is Mtgox does and the old network essentially loses 99% of its value overnight.

In your biased opinion.

Mt Gox has most of the traffic because there is no compelling reason to use any other exchange.  I would say a hostile takeover and 99.9% devaluation of all coins would be a good reason for people to switch. 

Most users wouldn't even notice the "fork".  They would see hashing power fall by half as 50% of the network goes to mint ScamBits but their Bitcoins would continue to exist, could be traded and would be hashed into blocks by remaining miners.

Your other fallacy is thinking Tycho controls the 3 TH of his miners.  Facing a scam alt fork, and massive devaluation of their coins and revenue miners would simply switch.

So even under your highly implausible scenario where developers, 3 major pools, and largest exchange all conspire to destroy their own wealth Bitcoin would still continue.  Yes the original chain is Bitcoin.

With ShortBusCoins the original chain can't continue.  You have ensured that both with enforcer nodes AND with non closed source license on the source code.  Thus your control is absolute and completely centralized.

If you decided to give yourself 1 billion coins, or cut the block reward 99%, or ensure nobody else will be an enforcer node for next couple centuries you could and there is nothing absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it.  The irony is two of those three scenarios have already happened.  You have proved how absolute your control is.

[CoinHunter]

In your biased opinion.

Mt Gox has most of the traffic because there is no compelling reason to use any other exchange.  I would say a hostile takeover and 99.9% devaluation of all coins would be a good reason for people to switch.  

Ok and say the fork happens and people have been trading on Mtgox and want to switch. Except now the old chain doesn't support their new coins. Oops.

Most users wouldn't even notice the "fork".  They would see hashing power fall by half as 50% of the network goes to mint ScamBits but their Bitcoins would continue to exist, could be traded and would be hashed into blocks by remaining miners.

What you call scambits others would call "Progression". What if there were opponents to the multisig (perhaps there are), are they going to convince everyone to mine the "non scambit coin" ?

Your other fallacy is thinking Tycho controls the 3 TH of his miners.  Facing a scam alt fork, and massive devaluation of their coins and revenue miners would simply switch.

So even under your highly implausible scenario where developers, 3 major pools, and largest exchange all conspire to destroy their own wealth Bitcoin would still continue.  Yes the original chain is Bitcoin.

You say its highly implausible, but it's possible. So you don't really have a good point, it's just subjective to say one is harder than the other, both are possible.

With ShortBusCoins the original chain can't continue.  You have ensured that both with enforcer nodes AND with non closed source license on the source code.  Thus your control is absolute and completely centralized.

That's incorrect because I'm not the only trust account holder. I can't "undo" any of the keys given out unless the source is changed, and then SolidCoin would lose some key people that are important to the project. They would also then be able to continue the existing chain. So support for any change has to come from all of us with the trust accounts, any future trust nodes and the users themselves. None of the major SolidCoin changes have made any existing SolidCoin holders worse off, they have all benefited them and I think that's what people can expect going forward.

If you decided to give yourself 1 billion coins, or cut the block reward 99%, or ensure nobody else will be an enforcer node for next couple centuries you could and there is nothing absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it.  The irony is two of those three scenarios have already happened.  You have proved how absolute your control is.

Again that's a fallacy with no supporting evidence that you choose to believe. You are in denial about the hold a handful of people have over Bitcoin, it's not this "decentralized" freedom you actually think it is. Furthermore if the "idiots" outweigh you, and "Democracy wins" then that is valid in the Bitcoin system and you have to eat it. Basically if over 50% of the mining power (that miners have chosen to support in deepbit, slush and btcguild) support something, then you should support it too. That's democracy! So let's see how that works out for you when those people want something you don't. It's going to happen, sooner or later.

At least with SolidCoin we clearly define our goals and what we are going to do. If you don't like that then you can make a choice up front. And even if you don't like some aspects of SolidCoin, if you were reasonable and not biased you can admit we do some things better than Bitcoin and are moving further forward than they are on those fronts. I think your posts come out of fear, you realize SolidCoin could take hold, which is why you go to extraordinary lengths to post FUD and get all "angry" about it.

tl;dr

Satoshi developed Bitcoin by himself, one person made most of the rules and people got on board. The initial development process wasn't "open source" it wasn't "decentralized" and yet he managed to do something fairly decent. Perhaps it's better not to have "too many cooks" in the kitchen when it comes to protocol and economic decisions. Provided the people doing the designing are intelligent and factor in as much as possible you will not get more out of an alternate model. You just get more bureaucracy and pointless fights ala multisig in Bitcoin.

If you're against the existing financial system, against government control of your finances, then you will like SolidCoin. That's what we are working towards. Quite simple.

[DeathAndTaxes]

That's incorrect because I'm not the only trust account holder. I can't "undo" any of the keys given out unless the source is changed, and then SolidCoin would lose some key people that are important to the project. They would also then be able to continue the existing chain. So support for any change has to come from all of us with the trust accounts, any future trust nodes and the users themselves. None of the major SolidCoin changes have made any existing SolidCoin holders worse off, they have all benefited them and I think that's what people can expect going forward.

So you say and without any proof everyone must just rely on your.  More of that implicit trust in a semi-deranged half-assing, anonymous software pirate.

Yeah.  Still even if it were true how many of the trust coins do you control.  Majority of coins is absolute control.  Do you have 51% of coins outstanding.  Is there anyway to verify that?  Oh wait more of that absolute trust in your lordship.

If you decided to give yourself 1 billion coins, or cut the block reward 99%, or ensure nobody else will be an enforcer node for next couple centuries you could and there is nothing absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it.  The irony is two of those three scenarios have already happened.  You have proved how absolute your control is.

Again that's a fallacy with no supporting evidence that you choose to believe.

The supporting evidence is YOU DID IT.  TWICE.

Can anyone run a fork of the pre block reward network?  
Can anyone modify the source code to make a derivitive of ShortBusCoin to restore the mining revenue you have stolen?

No and no.  The only fork that can exist is the one you allow to exist.  No matter what change you implement users MUST accept it.  

There isn't a 51% problem there is a 0.1% problem (of course that generously assumes there are 1000 users so maybe it is more like 5% problem).

Furthermore if the "idiots" outweigh you, and "Democracy wins" then that is valid in the Bitcoin system and you have to eat it. Basically if over 50% of the mining power (that miners have chosen to support in deepbit, slush and btcguild) support something, then you should support it too. That's democracy! So let's see how that works out for you when those people want something you don't. It's going to happen, sooner or later.

Why do you think I have a problem with that?  I don't.  Democracy isn't always getting what you want but it does mean having a say.   Also it is funny that 6 months ago you talked about Deepbit controlling Bitcoin, then it was DB and Slush.  Now it is Deepbit, Slush, and BTC.   Hopefully p2pool grows and takes more talking points away from you.

Well If Deepbit, Slush, BTC Guild, Eclipse, Eligus, Bitparking, Ozcoin, the 5 largest private farms, and 3 other pools all agree to create one billion coins AND MtGox, 2 other exchanges, BankOfAmerica, and Jesus all go along and somehow they use SOPA to prevent the old Bitcoin network from continuing to operate then .... they can get away with it.  See how centralized Bitcoin is.  ShortBusCoin9 is  ready for the Bticoin collapse.  Trust me guys it is coming any decade now.

I think your posts come out of fear, you realize SolidCoin could take hold, which is why you go to extraordinary lengths to post FUD and get all "angry" about it.

Lolz.  I think Tenebrix has more chance of that.  Just for lolz I checked out the ShortBus forum.  8 news posts in last 24 hours.  Yup.  Any decade now you will surpass the off topic section of Bitcoin forum.

Have fun King ShortBus I will put you back on ignore for next 6 months or so.

[Nachtwind]

If you're against the existing financial system, against government control of your finances, then you will like SolidCoin. That's what we are working towards. Quite simple.

would you mind staying with facts and content? Paroles like that dont add to any conversion.

[CoinHunter]

So you say and without any proof everyone must just rely on your.  More of that implicit trust in a semi-deranged half-assing, anonymous software pirate.

Yeah.  Still even if it were true how many of the trust coins do you control.  Majority of coins is absolute control.  Do you have 51% of coins outstanding.  Is there anyway to verify that?  Oh wait more of that absolute trust in your lordship.

You must ask "What control do I have". With other trust nodes out there, if they disagreed with anything and no reasonable alternate solution was put forth they could "power the existing network" if they so chose. That isn't absolute control. It's still more than most people have in SolidCoin but I'm one of the main developers, of course I have more control than most, for now anyhow.

The supporting evidence is YOU DID IT.  TWICE.

I did it? The move to SC2 protocol was supported by most people, I could have just given up on SolidCoin and said "fuck it" . Instead I solved the problems facing us and made everyones coins available to them. Oooo sounds so evil!

Why don't you criticize the fact it was only ME who made SolidCoin in the first place? One guy? Making a whole coin by himself? Wow, talk about control! Isn't that what Satoshi did as well? Woah control!

Can anyone run a fork of the pre block reward network?  

Yes, other trust account holders.

Can anyone modify the source code to make a derivitive of ShortBusCoin to restore the mining revenue you have stolen?

No one can make a competitive coin with SolidCoin code. That said it's within the license for trust holders to mine whatever "SolidCoin" code they want, so there is that escape clause for them.

No and no.  The only fork that can exist is the one you allow to exist.  No matter what change you implement users MUST accept it.

It's yes and "kinda". I know more about SolidCoin than you, just revert to my knowledge on this one.

Why do you think I have a problem with that?  I don't.  Democracy isn't always getting what you want but it does mean having a say.   Also it is funny that 6 months ago you talked about Deepbit controlling Bitcoin, then it was DB and Slush.  Now it is Deepbit, Slush, and BTC.   Hopefully p2pool grows and takes more talking points away from you.

Ah so you realize Bitcoin has weaknesses..... Still even if p2pool becomes the dominant pool (unlikely IMO due to long payout times) you do realize that double spending and network can be raped by a single large entity right? About 5 million dollars now allows you to shutdown the Bitcoin network legally. I'm sure government and financial institutions which Bitcoin threatens are worried about this cost!

http://solidcoin.info/myths.html#SolidCoin_will_be_shut_down_by_the_government

Have fun King ShortBus I will put you back on ignore for next 6 months or so.

Uh.. you do know that if you stop posting FUD about SolidCoin it's just going to explode in userbase right! Bitcoin needs you to protect it from the evil better SolidCoin!

[CoinHunter]

would you mind staying with facts and content? Paroles like that dont add to any conversion.

This is why some Bitcoin supporters are worried about SolidCoin. We have clearly defined goals which align with most existing Bitcoin users. The future SolidCoin changes will bring in the more "every day" users to cement our position as the #1 p2p decentralized currency.

If bitcoin supporters think the general population is going to get behind a pyramid based reward scheme that has a total limit on coins (with less units than in monetary circulation right now) they can think again. SolidCoin has addressed most of the criticisms people throw towards Bitcoin, so instead of defending archaic statements like "21 million coins or 2 quadrillion units is enough foreva!!!" or "isn't the reward system cutting in half every 4 years a pyramid scheme" we get on with the job of converting users to something which is fair and makes sense to them.

[Syke]

So you say and without any proof everyone must just rely on your.  More of that implicit trust in a semi-deranged half-assing, anonymous software pirate.

Yeah.  Still even if it were true how many of the trust coins do you control.  Majority of coins is absolute control.  Do you have 51% of coins outstanding.  Is there anyway to verify that?  Oh wait more of that absolute trust in your lordship.

You must ask "What control do I have".

You have the private keys that control the wallets that fund the control nodes. As anyone familiar with bitcoins knows, he who holds the private keys holds all the power. You've already admitted to being able to shut down control nodes. We all know you can.

[k9quaint]

When the day comes that we have many natural trust nodes, the original 10 trust wallets could be "destroyed" for everyone to see, by creating a regular trust tx but then setting the output of the tx to zero, and then have a special node mine them into a block where the generate tx of that block was for the regular amount. This would cause the coins that would have normally been considered a tx fee to simply be lost instead. And the entire world can verify they are now gone.

Your glorious leader has been trumpeting how wonderful and beneficial the enforcer nodes are.
Now you say the enforcer nodes should be destroyed in front of everyone? I foresee you spending some time at the Ministry of Love for re-education.
Stick to the party line: Solidcoin has always been at war with Eastasia.

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

Lol, is there really a SC3 coming out?  I thought that was a joke (much like SC itself).   Dear oh dear

[CoinHunter]

You have the private keys that control the wallets that fund the control nodes. As anyone familiar with bitcoins knows, he who holds the private keys holds all the power. You've already admitted to being able to shut down control nodes. We all know you can.

Do you even understand how a trust node in SC works? Let me answer that for you. No, no you don't. If you did you would realize that as soon as someone has a trust account key they could continue the network "as is" if they disagreed with any future changes.

[k9quaint]

You have the private keys that control the wallets that fund the control nodes. As anyone familiar with bitcoins knows, he who holds the private keys holds all the power. You've already admitted to being able to shut down control nodes. We all know you can.

Do you even understand how a trust node in SC works? Let me answer that for you. No, no you don't. If you did you would realize that as soon as someone has a trust account key they could continue the network "as is" if they disagreed with any future changes.

Until that enforcer key is revoked by your 3.0 client. or 4.0 client. or 5.0 client.

[CoinHunter]

Until that enforcer key is revoked by your 3.0 client. or 4.0 client. or 5.0 client.

Again, even if keys were revoked in later versions, trust account holders could run earlier versions. As such it is a necessity to ensure everyone involved is on board with all changes which is why these things are discussed. Thankfully the people involved with SolidCoin are very intelligent and logical people, so disagreements are rare or over minor details.

[CoinHunter]

If they do disagree with you, you ban them.

Would you like several examples?

Sp0tter and FlipPro come to mind.

Both were banned for simply disagreeing with you. Sp0tter was banned for calling you out on your unannounced block reward change and forcing people to go along with it.

FlipPro because he simply acknowledged what a PR nightmare you really are.

The IRC logs conclusively demonstrate this.

Both of those people added almost nothing to SolidCoin. What do they have to do with developing SolidCoin?

Flippro was mistakenly banned when I tried to close his account like he requested. I'm not exactly a pro forum admin like you SEOEOEOEOEO

[k9quaint]

Until that enforcer key is revoked by your 3.0 client. or 4.0 client. or 5.0 client.

Again, even if keys were revoked in later versions, trust account holders could run earlier versions. As such it is a necessity to ensure everyone involved is on board with all changes which is why these things are discussed. Thankfully the people involved with SolidCoin are very intelligent and logical people, so disagreements are rare or over minor details.

The enforcer node could run 1.x Solidcoin versions for all that will matter. You simply disallow blocks and transactions from that private key to be processed by the new client or to enter the block chain. The block chain forks with 11 of the 12 SC disciples on the longer fork. Your enforcer pool hash rate backs the new regime, most other miners already quit because of the "economic re-education" changes. Get one exchange to back the new fork and disallow the old private key and Zimbabwecoin enters a new phase.

You can remove any enforcer node you like since there is so little hash power protecting your chain.

[CoinHunter]

The enforcer node could run 1.x Solidcoin versions for all that will matter. You simply disallow blocks and transactions from that private key to be processed by the new client or to enter the block chain. The block chain forks with 11 of the 12 SC disciples on the longer fork. Your enforcer pool hash rate backs the new regime, most other miners already quit because of the "economic re-education" changes. Get one exchange to back the new fork and disallow the old private key and Zimbabwecoin enters a new phase.

tl;dr, basically like Bitcoin then.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Until that enforcer key is revoked by your 3.0 client. or 4.0 client. or 5.0 client.

Again, even if keys were revoked in later versions, trust account holders could run earlier versions. As such it is a necessity to ensure everyone involved is on board with all changes which is why these things are discussed. Thankfully the people involved with SolidCoin are very intelligent and logical people, so disagreements are rare or over minor details.

The enforcer node could run 1.x Solidcoin versions for all that will matter. You simply disallow blocks and transactions from that private key to be processed by the new client or to enter the block chain. The block chain forks with 11 of the 12 SC disciples on the longer fork. Your enforcer pool hash rate backs the new regime, most other miners already quit because of the "economic re-education" changes. Get one exchange to back the new fork and disallow the old private key and Zimbabwecoin enters a new phase.

You can remove any enforcer node you like since there is so little hash power protecting your chain.

No existing enforcer nodes can't run older version of SC.  KingRealScam has setup up the way enforcer nodes handle disputes to be a 51% rule.  If you have 51% of the "trust" coins you can veto other enforcer nodes.  So KingRealScam just need to have a copy of his enforcer node denying all blocks on the old "illegitimate chain".

Of course that assumes there are actually independent trust nodes.  Maybe there are or maybe there aren't.   You just need to trust an anynous person on the internet with any wealth you put into the system.  Even if there are trust nodes if KingRealScam retained 51% of the trust coins then other nodes (which may not even exist) serve no purpose.  Of course you would also need to trust him that he has less than 51% of the trust coins.

Trust he won't change the rules and hurt you like he did in the past.
Trust he won't halt the chain like he did in the past.
Trust he has actually given others the private keys.
Trust he wouldn't attempt a denial of service on unaproved trust nodes by creating a duplicate node he controls (he still has the private keys).
Trust he has actually given the other trust nodes (which may not exist) >51% of trust coins.
Trust he won't use the CDF to replenish his trust node balance so it always remains the largest.
Trust he will allow real/native enforcer nodes and not change the code to keep control of the network.

Trust trust trust.  Hell if I trusted the federal reserve, VISA, Paypal, and BankOfAmerica I wouldn't need Bitcoin.

[CoinHunter]

No existing enforcer nodes can't run older version of SC.  KingRealScam has setup up the way enforcer nodes handle disputes to be a 51% rule.  If you have 51% of the "trust" coins you can veto other enforcer nodes.  So KingRealScam just need to have a copy of his enforcer node denying all blocks on the old "illegitimate chain".

No, that is something which may be implemented later but currently isn't. Way to stay up to date on SolidCoin information there, it's almost like you're trying to pass yourself off as an expert without knowing everything? What else do you want to "educate" people on about SolidCoin when you aren't even aware how it works? 

[flower1024]

Trust he won't change the rules and hurt you like he did in the past.
Trust he won't halt the chain like he did in the past.
Trust he has given others the private keys.
Trust he would attempt a DDOS on unaproved trust nodes by creating a duplicate he controls (he still has the private keys).
Trust he has given the other trust nodes (which may not exist) >51% of trust coins.
Trust he will allow real/native enforcer nodes and not change the code to keep control of the network.

Trust trust trust.  Hell if I trusted the federal reserve, VISA, Paypal, and BankOfAmerica I wouldn't need Bitcoin.

+1