delete

[antares]

so what would happen if someone changed the rules on those "premined" coins?
it'd be as easy for people to release their own fork of scd that doesnt care for those addresses as it would for realsolid to remove those restrictions.

As for identifying myself. You can come over to me in germany, and I'll make a youtube video of us two, with me hitting you into hospital with a baseball bat. I'll upload it on youtube myself!

[1715162333]

1715162333

[1715162333]

1715162333

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

dude, you do realize that my account is older than yours?
you did also read and understand my post, right? If I dont like some piece of project, I just dont go online everyday and create posts telling others how shitty it is, and how the dev on that project is a scam for really really real.

No need for him to identify himself BCX, he is already well known to the BPOL (German Federal Police). This chump is no mystery. BTW people, this guy snitched on his whole group to get out of charges.

Who?  antares or CH?

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

is there any actual proof that RealSolid ever scammed anyone?

Of course there's proof. Bitcoinexpress on a forum using text said so! Are you calling him a liar!!!!??? Now you've just made an enemy for life, that's how fragile this guys online identity is.

Bitcoinexpress is also coinhumper (he verified this on IRC when he came by one day), he also uses labwiz, dan, unclerico, lanie grace (his ex wife) to name some alt-identities. The woman he claims to be at the moment is supposedly an ex employee of his, kyley wu, but the reality is I think this is a made up person also. You can see the owner of lanie grace (daniel maddox) trying to tell people on this page that "seriously, guys, Kyley wu is a REALELELELEL person!!"

So take up his offer then.  I see a lot of hollow words and posturing from you, but no action.

[CoinHunter]

a little correction - there was a little premine on sc1 for bounties. I remembered hurrying with a pal to bring up the third SC1 exchange, which would have gotten us some SC, I just pulled the log, at that time that bounty was worth like 800 USD in (tradable) SC. and with volume, I meant trading volume. Just ask doublec(the guy who runs bitparking and did the first sc1 exchange).

And just to be correct. Even though BitcoinEXpress claims otherwise, there wasnt any premine in SC2. The 12 million coins have been put into the generate transaction of the first solidcoin 2 block. And as it was stated before, everyone who can read the source can see that the clients will not accept transactions with any of their inputs being from one of those 12 1m coin addresses. the coins from these adresses have as much value as the coins stolen from bitcoinica lately: next to none.

I will correct this, there was a premine in SC2, and that was 1.2 million coins which were paid back to SC1 users in the first 21 blocks. When SC1 shutdown at block 35250 (iirc) it had 35250 * 32 coins in existence or 1128000 coins. The remainder of that 1.2 million minus 1.128 million was paid back to the people who were scammed in the mooncoin situation and also to fund a few new bounties.

The 10 trust accounts that others commonly mistake as a premine aren't spendable like you said so can't be looked at as premines.

[CoinHunter]

Hey moron,

I've openly admitted about 20 times I here I ran a blog I posted as Lanie Grace LOL..

Once again if you're so sure I'm not who I am, then simply agree to the challenege, no BTC involved...

What's the issue?

Yeah so we already have it on record that you've lied about your identity before and that you pretended to be a woman you weren't. Thanks for putting it on the record.

By the way your childish stunt of proving you are "Kyley Wu" works how? How do you prove you are that person exactly? Why don't I just get one of my girlfriends to say they are me, look, now I'm a woman too!! I'd actually be surprised if you knew any women though, unless of course you bought a new one recently.

[RoloTonyBrownTown]

dude, you do realize that my account is older than yours?
you did also read and understand my post, right? If I dont like some piece of project, I just dont go online everyday and create posts telling others how shitty it is, and how the dev on that project is a scam for really really real.

No need for him to identify himself BCX, he is already well known to the BPOL (German Federal Police). This chump is no mystery. BTW people, this guy snitched on his whole group to get out of charges.

Who?  antares or CH?

Antares is BPOL (German Federal Police) snitch. He was busted a couple years ago and works for them now. He's on the SA Snitch list. I would be careful dealing with this guy. More than likely here for BPOL in the first place.

Interesting, thanks.

[antares]

ok, care to share how you got information i dont have?

but cool, with my unending competence of the highly efficient german police force, I will use my IT skills to track you down.
But please be aware - due to internal difficulties this might take until 2015. maybe longer. so dont skip town on us!

[k9quaint]

a little correction - there was a little premine on sc1 for bounties. I remembered hurrying with a pal to bring up the third SC1 exchange, which would have gotten us some SC, I just pulled the log, at that time that bounty was worth like 800 USD in (tradable) SC. and with volume, I meant trading volume. Just ask doublec(the guy who runs bitparking and did the first sc1 exchange).

First, you should quote what you are correcting or who you are responding to. Otherwise, your message is confused and imprecise. Not that we are unused to such things from the SoiledCoin folks. Like I said, the problem with SC1 was security. The SC1 premine was 30,080 coins. That is a big difference from 12 million.

And just to be correct. Even though BitcoinEXpress claims otherwise, there wasnt any premine in SC2. The 12 million coins have been put into the generate transaction of the first solidcoin 2 block. And as it was stated before, everyone who can read the source can see that the clients will not accept transactions with any of their inputs being from one of those 12 1m coin addresses. the coins from these adresses have as much value as the coins stolen from bitcoinica lately: next to none.

When you come with such obvious disinformation, straight from soiledcointalk, you get flamed.
First of all, many people here can read and understand source but there was none when SC2 was released. Big red flag.
Second, giving coins to yourself before you release the blockchain is the textbook definition of pre-mined coins.
Third, RealSolid transfers the coins from the pre-mine to the CPF which is spendable (in fact, it is double spendable since he controls the tyrant nodes).
Fourth, the only place you can get client code is from RealSolid. If he were to change an if statement those coins would become directly spendable. The tyrant nodes enforce which versions of the client can be on the network. You cannot modify the SoiledCoin client without permission from RealSolid so you can't run your own private version of the client on the network. So when ever he wants to spend those coins, he can. Or he can double spend the CPF. Or just dump the CPF into btc-e whenever he feels like it.

[CoinHunter]

When you come with such obvious disinformation, straight from soiledcointalk, you get flamed.
First of all, many people here can read and understand source but there was none when SC2 was released. Big red flag.
Second, giving coins to yourself before you release the blockchain is the textbook definition of pre-mined coins.
Third, RealSolid transfers the coins from the pre-mine to the CPF which is spendable (in fact, it is double spendable since he controls the tyrant nodes).

No, making the trusted accounts spendable is considered malicious activity, in which case RealSolid would have broken his own license, I believe in the future there's going to be a clause to move all SolidCoin code to public domain in certain instances, that would be one of them. So if there was a new client which made those coins spendable, the source is now public domain and anyone can fork it to fix it.

Fourth, the only place you can get client code is from RealSolid. If he were to change an if statement those coins would become directly spendable. The tyrant nodes enforce which versions of the client can be on the network. You cannot modify the SoiledCoin client without permission from RealSolid so you can't run your own private version of the client on the network. So when ever he wants to spend those coins, he can. Or he can double spend the CPF. Or just dump the CPF into btc-e whenever he feels like it.

Geez you criticize disinformation and then post some more of it yourself!

The solidcoin license doesn't require RealSolid's permission. It's clearly outlined you can use SolidCoin code in a project that is solidcoin related AND not malicious. You don't need to release the source even. So there are only 2 real requirements, no malicious activity, no competing coin activity. It's the latter which gets the bitcoin groupies panties up in a knot "You took from bitcoin now you're limiting them from using your code". Yes well, when you have the better product you don't want others taking it, Bitcoin allows people to do that and we don't. Move on with your life.

[antares]

k9quaint, that statement of yours disqualifies itself. I mean, solidcoin having an admittedly kind of strange license doesnt prohibit anyone from developing their own clients. And besides, if realsolid changed that "if" statement, people would notice. Even though 99% of all people using any software will never have an even remote look into the appropriate sources, 1% will. those 1% will notice such differences.

The necessity for SC2 and its "premined" as you call them coins was because of fags present in this thread trying to attack a harmless project. Besides that, bitcoin still has those flaws. does that make bitcoin or any other 51-vulnerable coin better? I dont think so. You can call RealSolid whatever you like, but at least he put some work into trying to make things better. That is one thing you cant say about any other altcoin dev or even a bitcoin dev.

[antares]

@Coinhunter

I'm assuming you won't take up the challenge?

You started out as saying that Kaley Wu was an entirely fake person. Proving I am real is easy and that indeed do work for Apple. Now it's Kaley Wu is probably a real person but now a poser LOL, ....you can't fake being BCX in a live setting.

yeah, who would want to do that anyways?

[bulanula]

You made another post about a currency you claim to dislike. Im beginning to think coinhunter hired you as his promotion manager

My exact opinion. I am about 90% sure that BCX is a PR manager or invested a lot in SC.

There is no such thing as "bad PR". Raise controversy then dump on the suckers I think is the strategy.

I doubt he is a woman. LOL. As psy said, tits or GTFO. Everybody that claims to be a woman on the internet is probably a fat troll ...

[k9quaint]

No, making the trusted accounts spendable is considered malicious activity, in which case RealSolid would have broken his own license, I believe in the future there's going to be a clause to move all SolidCoin code to public domain in certain instances, that would be one of them. So if there was a new client which made those coins spendable, the source is now public domain and anyone can fork it to fix it.

Talking about yourself in the third person is creepy. It does little to engender trust. Right now, you consider making the accounts spendable "malicious" and since you are the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not "malicious" to SoiledCoin that statement is true. If in the future you consider it necessary to spend the pre-mine, then it is not malicious. Regarding any clauses that you "believe" will exist "in the future": you disavow your own past posts, why should we have any confidence in anything you say? This post could be disavowed if it proves inconvenient to you in the future. But, at least you admit that nobody can currently fork the SoiledCoin project without your permission.

Geez you criticize disinformation and then post some more of it yourself!

The solidcoin license doesn't require RealSolid's permission. It's clearly outlined you can use SolidCoin code in a project that is solidcoin related AND not malicious.

Exactly. Who decides what is malicious and what is not? Coinhunter does. So if you label use of Helvetica font in a client malicous, you can revoke the license of anyone using Helvetica font. You could cite it dilutes the SoiledCoin trademark(not that you need to cite anything at all). You certainly could revoke someone's license to fork if it prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin.

You don't need to release the source even. So there are only 2 real requirements, no malicious activity, no competing coin activity. It's the latter which gets the bitcoin groupies panties up in a knot "You took from bitcoin now you're limiting them from using your code". Yes well, when you have the better product you don't want others taking it, Bitcoin allows people to do that and we don't. Move on with your life.

Releasing a client that prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin would be both "malicious" and competing coin activity. You wouldn't even need to revoke the license, you could just use the tyrant nodes to force all those clients off the network. You wouldn't even need to spend the pre-mine, you could double spend the CPF with the tyrant nodes blessing your double-spend transactions and rejecting others.

[CoinHunter]

Exactly. Who decides what is malicious and what is not? Coinhunter does. So if you label use of Helvetica font in a client malicous, you can revoke the license of anyone using Helvetica font. You could cite it dilutes the SoiledCoin trademark(not that you need to cite anything at all). You certainly could revoke someone's license to fork if it prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin.

One of the clauses should specifically state adding new coins or adding code to spend those 10 trust accounts *IS* malicious otherwise what is the point of it?

Perhaps what is malicious will be more clearly defined too, instead of actually helping improve that definition that you'd rather just spend hours of your life criticizing it. You must value your time.

Releasing a client that prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin would be both "malicious" and competing coin activity. You wouldn't even need to revoke the license, you could just use the tyrant nodes to force all those clients off the network. You wouldn't even need to spend the pre-mine, you could double spend the CPF with the tyrant nodes blessing your double-spend transactions and rejecting others.

Like I said before, the license should be changed so that adding new spendable coins is malicious and then releases the project from that license so others can fork it. They would just need to create new trust account keys and they could have their own SolidCoin network that all existing exchanges and businesses would accept.

I've offered that suggestion to RealSolid and he seemed to think it was good but we will have to wait and see on what happens to it as it is mostly his code.

[antares]

will you really shut up?

[CoinHunter]

@Coinhunter

Will you accept the challenge as outlined in the OP?

Since your original post is impossible to prove no. Secondly why would I want you banned? You start more SolidCoin threads than I do, I want you to keep posting because it helps promote solidcoin and also because your posts make us SolidCoin supporters laugh.

Remember your geforce2mx army? lol.

[k9quaint]

Exactly. Who decides what is malicious and what is not? Coinhunter does. So if you label use of Helvetica font in a client malicous, you can revoke the license of anyone using Helvetica font. You could cite it dilutes the SoiledCoin trademark(not that you need to cite anything at all). You certainly could revoke someone's license to fork if it prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin.

One of the clauses should specifically state adding new coins or adding code to spend those 10 trust accounts *IS* malicious otherwise what is the point of it?

Perhaps what is malicious will be more clearly defined too, instead of actually helping improve that definition that you'd rather just spend hours of your life criticizing it. You must value your time.

The point of the tyrant nodes and the proprietary license is for you to maintain complete control of the block chain. You are the only person who can define what you consider to be "malicious" at any given point in time. Since you cannot even take responsibility for your posts on these boards (nor will you sign them with a tyrant node key) who actually cares what "malicious" means to you today? Tomorrow you will have a different name and sing a different tune.

Releasing a client that prevented you from spending the pre-mine to "protect" SoiledCoin would be both "malicious" and competing coin activity. You wouldn't even need to revoke the license, you could just use the tyrant nodes to force all those clients off the network. You wouldn't even need to spend the pre-mine, you could double spend the CPF with the tyrant nodes blessing your double-spend transactions and rejecting others.

Like I said before, the license should be changed so that adding new spendable coins is malicious and then releases the project from that license so others can fork it. They would just need to create new trust account keys and they could have their own SolidCoin network that all existing exchanges and businesses would accept.

I've offered that suggestion to RealSolid and he seemed to think it was good but we will have to wait and see on what happens to it as it is mostly his code.

Again, talking about yourself in the third person is bizarre. The first thing that should stop is you lying about your identity. I can dredge these boards for dozens of posts where you refer to yourself as the founder of Solidcoin in the first person. Transparency starts with the founder. If you are indeed not RealSolid, then why were you claiming to be the founder of Solidcoin? If you were lying then, why should we trust anything you say now? If RealSolid was posting as you, why did he stop? Why can't he do what Gavin does and sign his messages so we know they are authentic.

The Coinhunter account has had more actors than Dr. Who. Almost as much fantasy and as many bizarre plots too.

Edit: fixed quotes

[Cosbycoin]

If realsolid had been a scammer, he'd cashed out within the first 3 weeks. When 1 SC was 0.03BTC, and there was a market volume > 200k on bitparking. Instead he sat down, reacted to threats, changed a lot in the networking of solidcoin, and released SC v2(and soon v3). Sorry, but putting much hard work into a scam after you missed the opportunity to cash out big just doesnt sound practical for a scammer.

There is a difference between the volume of bids and asks, and the volume of trades. The trade volume of SC2 was always thin, now it is non-existent. You can move the price by trading a few BTC or USD for SC2. Since miners get almost zero rewards for finding a bock, the only people with significant amounts of SC2 right now are the founders. If they don't sell, the market is not liquid and thus no price discovery takes place.

Regarding RealSolid's "work": There was no pre-mine before SC2, so he could not have cashed out in SC1. Nobody here had an issue with SC1 being a scam. The only issue was that it had security flaws that required it be shut down. SC2 had the pre-mine and the tyrant nodes which guarantee double spending can happen as long as the tyrants bless the spend. Lots of people had an issue with that. RealSolid has not yet had an opportunity to cash out his 12 million SoiledCoins (or double spend the CPF into oblivion) because there have never been buyers out there for that sort of volume. So SC2 limps along.

The brand is so toxic at this point, nobody is likely to dump serious cash into it. Even if it was part of a pump and dump.

LOL Soiledcoins....haha yup u got it right!

[Cosbycoin]

Hey moron,

I've openly admitted about 20 times I here I ran a blog I posted as Lanie Grace LOL..

Once again if you're so sure I'm not who I am, then simply agree to the challenege, no BTC involved...

What's the issue?

Yeah so we already have it on record that you've lied about your identity before and that you pretended to be a woman you weren't. Thanks for putting it on the record.

By the way your childish stunt of proving you are "Kyley Wu" works how? How do you prove you are that person exactly? Why don't I just get one of my girlfriends to say they are me, look, now I'm a woman too!! I'd actually be surprised if you knew any women though, unless of course you bought a new one recently.

Stop dodging and accept the challenge or STFU forever.

[drakahn]

Malicious is calling spendable coins unspendable in the first place