Who has really been scammed by SC (->MC)? A self-report would be helpful...

[Cosbycoin]

That bonus applies to bitcoiners as well, there you are right.. but not the way it does/did for SC users. In bitcoin coin generazion drops from 50 to 25 - not from 32 to 0.X... and not all of a sudden but with a plan in mind..

To be fair, at least the system is inflationary and not restricted so there is no insane amount of control that the early adopters could have over the currency via the supply itself... BUT THEN the CPF exists and throws that out the window.

And WHY is there a fee? Does it have any legitimation? And reason to be there? Especially: Who is the benefitor? Maybe those chosen few who have 9/10 of all coins?

The legitimacy of the fee is in serious doubt by anyone who isn't eating from the hand of RS. Even by some of those that do.

No.. i meant its predecessor. Solidcoin2 was meant to be a CPU only chain until all of a sudden a GPU miner was released with RealSolid being the first one to cheer about it..

Respond to my statements about this. From what it looks like to me is that something is being blown out of proportion here. I think you're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. But I can't say for sure because your facts are seemingly hearsay.

"if you look at the early blockchain you will notice the dickminer and if you look up for when there was a major drop in hashing speed of the big BTCPools you will notice the dickminer disappeared. Not exactly evidence, but a damn good correlation."

provide links and explain this correlation for someone who was not here when this happened. None of this groks for someone not knowing the whole story.

I really suggest a sticky thread or something that unbiasedly puts this information together. I'd do it but I wasn't here so I am not intimately familiar with what happened and I won't go off hearsay.

You have to understand that people like you pop up about once a week. You haven't been following the conversation since the beginning of Solidcoin and for some reason can't click on a persons post history (Coinhunters) and read what has already been said on the subject.

You then claim that the information you have seen so far is incomplete, and you cannot draw any conclusions from it. That statement is true, and you should not draw any conclusions from the small bit of the play you have seen. Unfortunately, some of the best actors deleted their own performances when their true identities were discovered (Viper and Psi).

+1

[Nachtwind]

That bonus applies to bitcoiners as well, there you are right.. but not the way it does/did for SC users. In bitcoin coin generazion drops from 50 to 25 - not from 32 to 0.X... and not all of a sudden but with a plan in mind..

To be fair, at least the system is inflationary and not restricted so there is no insane amount of control that the early adopters could have over the currency via the supply itself... BUT THEN the CPF exists and throws that out the window.

And WHY is there a fee? Does it have any legitimation? And reason to be there? Especially: Who is the benefitor? Maybe those chosen few who have 9/10 of all coins?

The legitimacy of the fee is in serious doubt by anyone who isn't eating from the hand of RS. Even by some of those that do.

No.. i meant its predecessor. Solidcoin2 was meant to be a CPU only chain until all of a sudden a GPU miner was released with RealSolid being the first one to cheer about it..

Respond to my statements about this. From what it looks like to me is that something is being blown out of proportion here. I think you're looking for a conspiracy where there isn't one. But I can't say for sure because your facts are seemingly hearsay.

"if you look at the early blockchain you will notice the dickminer and if you look up for when there was a major drop in hashing speed of the big BTCPools you will notice the dickminer disappeared. Not exactly evidence, but a damn good correlation."

provide links and explain this correlation for someone who was not here when this happened. None of this groks for someone not knowing the whole story.

I really suggest a sticky thread or something that unbiasedly puts this information together. I'd do it but I wasn't here so I am not intimately familiar with what happened and I won't go off hearsay.

You have to understand that people like you pop up about once a week. You haven't been following the conversation since the beginning of Solidcoin and for some reason can't click on a persons post history (Coinhunters) and read what has already been said on the subject.

You then claim that the information you have seen so far is incomplete, and you cannot draw any conclusions from it. That statement is true, and you should not draw any conclusions from the small bit of the play you have seen. Unfortunately, some of the best actors deleted their own performances when their true identities were discovered (Viper and Psi).

Well said.

[Etlase2]

You have to understand that people like you pop up about once a week. You haven't been following the conversation since the beginning of Solidcoin and for some reason can't click on a persons post history (Coinhunters) and read what has already been said on the subject.

I've read most of the solidcoin threads. The whole purpose of "people who pop up once a week", which I have not, is to give them an easy way to learn this information without the poo-covered cherry on top. If you don't provide any evidence, all you do is give credit to any SC supporter who says "they're just afraid it will take down bitcoin."

You then claim that the information you have seen so far is incomplete, and you cannot draw any conclusions from it. That statement is true, and you should not draw any conclusions from the small bit of the play you have seen. Unfortunately, some of the best actors deleted their own performances when their true identities were discovered (Viper and Psi).

So? You have evidence available, for now, here: http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/600-as-we-migrate/ that is probably going to be deleted soon, so get some screen shots and archive them somewhere.
You have evidence available in the block chain which may disappear as soon as microcash starts with what I assume will be with something new and just carrying over old accounts. That history of award changes will be gone forever if someone does not actively get it and archive it somewhere.

The onus of proof is on the accuser. So how's about some of you grow the f* up and do something constructive for a change.

[Cosbycoin]

You have to understand that people like you pop up about once a week. You haven't been following the conversation since the beginning of Solidcoin and for some reason can't click on a persons post history (Coinhunters) and read what has already been said on the subject.

I've read most of the solidcoin threads. The whole purpose of "people who pop up once a week", which I have not, is to give them an easy way to learn this information without the poo-covered cherry on top. If you don't provide any evidence, all you do is give credit to any SC supporter who says "they're just afraid it will take down bitcoin."

You then claim that the information you have seen so far is incomplete, and you cannot draw any conclusions from it. That statement is true, and you should not draw any conclusions from the small bit of the play you have seen. Unfortunately, some of the best actors deleted their own performances when their true identities were discovered (Viper and Psi).

So? You have evidence available, for now, here: http://forums.microcash.org/index.php/topic/600-as-we-migrate/ that is probably going to be deleted soon, so get some screen shots and archive them somewhere.
You have evidence available in the block chain which may disappear as soon as microcash starts with what I assume will be with something new and just carrying over old accounts. That history of award changes will be gone forever if someone does not actively get it and archive it somewhere.

The onus of proof is on the accuser. So how's about some of you grow the f* up and do something constructive for a change.

Someone's got their panties in a twist. lol

[Etlase2]

I don't have my panties in a twist. I couldn't care less about solidcoin. But you guys are giving a shit ton of free advertising for it. The webpage for Solidcoin was incredibly deceptive and lacking information on all kinds of important subjects. Since none of you want to provide any evidence, people will type in "www.microcash.org" and see that everything looks legit there--there might even be some favorable propaganda to let them know that the BTCTalk members are just full of shit and afraid. "They're scared of our new and improved awesome protocol blah blah blah" sound familiar?

[Cosbycoin]

I don't have my panties in a twist. I couldn't care less about solidcoin. But you guys are giving a shit ton of free advertising for it. The webpage for Solidcoin was incredibly deceptive and lacking information on all kinds of important subjects. Since none of you want to provide any evidence, people will type in "www.microcash.org" and see that everything looks legit there--there might even be some favorable propaganda to let them know that the BTCTalk members are just full of shit and afraid. "They're scared of our new and improved awesome protocol blah blah blah" sound familiar?

So are you...so now who is the hypocrit?

[k9quaint]

I don't have my panties in a twist. I couldn't care less about solidcoin. But you guys are giving a shit ton of free advertising for it. The webpage for Solidcoin was incredibly deceptive and lacking information on all kinds of important subjects. Since none of you want to provide any evidence, people will type in "www.microcash.org" and see that everything looks legit there--there might even be some favorable propaganda to let them know that the BTCTalk members are just full of shit and afraid. "They're scared of our new and improved awesome protocol blah blah blah" sound familiar?

As if warning people about Nigerian scams or 976 charge back phone numbers is some how helping the scammers. Those who hear the warning and proceed anyway are beyond help. SoiledCoin is welcome to all those who are too dumb to live. When they are killed crossing the street, Bitcoin cannot be associated with it.

[LoupGaroux]

Except they won't even make it to the crosswalk... they will die standing on the sidewalk screaming that they inventing the automobile, and have copyrighted the transmission concept, with everyone in a car laughing at them.

[k9quaint]

The onus of proof is on the accuser. So how's about some of you grow the f* up and do something constructive for a change.

No. Fail. Wrong. Incorrect.
The onus of proof is on those who claim to have created a cryptocurrency.
We do not have to prove anything. We need only critique the "proof" SoiledCoin provides to demonstrate that it is either not secure, not decentralized, and/or not a currency.

In this case, our effort is minimal. They have supplied nothing but claims so far.
Unless they released the code for the nodes (not the thin client) that control the currency.
And a paper that discusses their methods and reasoning behind choosing those methods.

[Etlase2]

No. Fail. Wrong. Incorrect.
The onus of proof is on those who claim to have created a cryptocurrency.

Natchwind made an awful lot of claims in the post I quoted and you responded to, none of which are backed by any actual evidence. Are you going to stand in front of a judge or magistrate, accuse someone of wrongdoing, then say "now they must prove they did not do anything wrong"? I hope you like having books thrown at you.

We do not have to prove anything. We need only critique the "proof" SoiledCoin provides to demonstrate that it is either not secure, not decentralized, and/or not a currency.

I'd sure like to see some of the SC haters on this board show some provable lack of security in the design of a cryptocurrency. And "decentralized" and "currency" are definitions that are basically in the eye of the beholder, so I foresee any argument for those definitions will be "it's not like bitcoin."

In this case, our effort is minimal. They have supplied nothing but claims so far.
Unless they released the code for the nodes (not the thin client) that control the currency.
And a paper that discusses their methods and reasoning behind choosing those methods.

Perhaps you should wait until it's actually live before making more assumptions then?

[Nachtwind]

Well.. those awful lot of claims.. I have seperated them into facts and rumors for a reason. Please.. The first 4 points were facts so far. Please proove me wrong there. The parts about the Botnet are just made by comparing data available at that time. I spend a while on Ahimoth's Block explorer, but it seems he just substitutes the miner IDs for all Solo Miners with just "Solo Miner" - therefore the dickminer IS no longer simply visible. If it was it would be simple to compile a chart where it is possible to spot the correlation between Appearance/Disapperance and DDOSs of Bitcoin Pools. The way it is now it is NOT possible to proof. But not due to the lack of evidence but by obfuscation of evidence.

Also SC2 has shown lack of security in the past. I have to admit, that i dont have a thread at hand right now, but afaik several key scurity mechanisms had been compromised in the past:
- Trusted Nodes were mined by "untrusted" miners
- People were able to inject falsified Block Timestamps in order to toy with the difficulty

[Cosbycoin]

RS Quote from solidcointalk.org:

"MicroCash is on a new codebase so the code isn't compatible with Bitcoin anymore. Also our license strictly prohibits using our code directly (but not the ideas in it) in other digital currencies. We have no problem with the Bitcoin developers getting ideas from our source but they can't use the source directly. "

Isn't that just awesome that he could steal the entire bitcoin source code and use it and not include the MIT license in it then say the quote above.

Wow ....lol....just...wow

[Vod]

You should consider yourself lucky that you've stayed under the radar.  Unlike Bitcoin, your solidcoins can be taken any time by the owner.  Several people on here have had their wallets invalidated by the network, which is possible since solidcoin is not decentralized as advertised.

interesting claim, tell us more about how your wallets were invalidated

Sorry for the delay.  I wrote my post based on this comment:

I fell out of the scam that is SoiledCon when I saw that CH was going to bring the reward down to 1 from 32 or something like that.

I was worried he will block my wallet like he did with ArtForz and many others and I sold all my SC at 0.0126 and never looked back.

I was in the "circle" for only a few weeks at most and I got nothing valuable from doing so.

When I saw the power CH had ( more than GayPal ) of blocking wallets and his CPF and the TX blocking and the block reward change I said "screw it" and left that scam immediately.

[i_rape_bitcoins]

Well.. those awful lot of claims.. I have seperated them into facts and rumors for a reason. Please.. The first 4 points were facts so far. Please proove me wrong there. The parts about the Botnet are just made by comparing data available at that time. I spend a while on Ahimoth's Block explorer, but it seems he just substitutes the miner IDs for all Solo Miners with just "Solo Miner" - therefore the dickminer IS no longer simply visible. If it was it would be simple to compile a chart where it is possible to spot the correlation between Appearance/Disapperance and DDOSs of Bitcoin Pools. The way it is now it is NOT possible to proof. But not due to the lack of evidence but by obfuscation of evidence.

Also SC2 has shown lack of security in the past. I have to admit, that i dont have a thread at hand right now, but afaik several key scurity mechanisms had been compromised in the past:
- Trusted Nodes were mined by "untrusted" miners
- People were able to inject falsified Block Timestamps in order to toy with the difficulty

LOL

[i_rape_bitcoins]

RS Quote from solidcointalk.org:

"MicroCash is on a new codebase so the code isn't compatible with Bitcoin anymore. Also our license strictly prohibits using our code directly (but not the ideas in it) in other digital currencies. We have no problem with the Bitcoin developers getting ideas from our source but they can't use the source directly. "

Isn't that just awesome that he could steal the entire bitcoin source code and use it and not include the MIT license in it then say the quote above.

Wow ....lol....just...wow

Newsflash! Cosbycoin lacks reading comprehension!

"MicroCash is on a new codebase"

[drakahn]

RS Quote from solidcointalk.org:

"MicroCash is on a new codebase so the code isn't compatible with Bitcoin anymore. Also our license strictly prohibits using our code directly (but not the ideas in it) in other digital currencies. We have no problem with the Bitcoin developers getting ideas from our source but they can't use the source directly. "

Isn't that just awesome that he could steal the entire bitcoin source code and use it and not include the MIT license in it then say the quote above.

Wow ....lol....just...wow

Newsflash! Cosbycoin lacks reading comprehension!

"MicroCash is on a new codebase"

... right over your head eh?

[LoupGaroux]

Well.. those awful lot of claims.. I have seperated them into facts and rumors for a reason. Please.. The first 4 points were facts so far. Please proove me wrong there. The parts about the Botnet are just made by comparing data available at that time. I spend a while on Ahimoth's Block explorer, but it seems he just substitutes the miner IDs for all Solo Miners with just "Solo Miner" - therefore the dickminer IS no longer simply visible. If it was it would be simple to compile a chart where it is possible to spot the correlation between Appearance/Disapperance and DDOSs of Bitcoin Pools. The way it is now it is NOT possible to proof. But not due to the lack of evidence but by obfuscation of evidence.

Also SC2 has shown lack of security in the past. I have to admit, that i dont have a thread at hand right now, but afaik several key scurity mechanisms had been compromised in the past:
- Trusted Nodes were mined by "untrusted" miners
- People were able to inject falsified Block Timestamps in order to toy with the difficulty

LOL

LOL @ an incremental fix release?

What, did this mess with your plans for cryptocurrency world domination through DOS and service denial? You sound more and more like a sockpuppet of RS/CH/Douchebag with every drolling comment issued forth from that lopsided simpleton's grin you call a pie-hole. He clearly has his hand waaay up your ass and is moving your lips.

[k9quaint]

No. Fail. Wrong. Incorrect.
The onus of proof is on those who claim to have created a cryptocurrency.

Natchwind made an awful lot of claims in the post I quoted and you responded to, none of which are backed by any actual evidence. Are you going to stand in front of a judge or magistrate, accuse someone of wrongdoing, then say "now they must prove they did not do anything wrong"? I hope you like having books thrown at you.

We do not have to prove anything. We need only critique the "proof" SoiledCoin provides to demonstrate that it is either not secure, not decentralized, and/or not a currency.

I'd sure like to see some of the SC haters on this board show some provable lack of security in the design of a cryptocurrency. And "decentralized" and "currency" are definitions that are basically in the eye of the beholder, so I foresee any argument for those definitions will be "it's not like bitcoin."

In this case, our effort is minimal. They have supplied nothing but claims so far.
Unless they released the code for the nodes (not the thin client) that control the currency.
And a paper that discusses their methods and reasoning behind choosing those methods.

Perhaps you should wait until it's actually live before making more assumptions then?

This is me demonstrating your logical fallacy:
1) We both agree there is bridge.
2) I want to sell a bridge and you want to buy one.
3) You ask for proof that I own the bridge, I say you must prove that I don't own it otherwise you must buy it.

As for your other statements. Go hug a tyrant node in SoiledCoin 2 if you think it is decentralized. Decentralized is not in the eye of the beholder if one person has complete control of the block chain, and the clients and servers are covered by a proprietary license.
Those are not claims, they have been verified endlessly and you can go look them up yourself (which you clearly have not).

As for secure or not secure, having one person owning the private keys to the entire block chain is a terrible idea. Anyone with those tyrant node keys can double spend every coin by halting the public chain until he has mined a block with his spend transactions undone. Then just have the tyrant nodes build off the double spend fork. The government could seize the servers his tyrant nodes run on (ala megaupload) and now the block chain is ruined. Someone could hack into one box and own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could trust the wrong fellow and lose control of the keys. Finally, this guy has failed twice already at creating cryptocurrencies. He has had his flaws pointed out before launch but had too much pride or not enough smarts to fix them.

These points and many others have been discussed already. I only rehash them for the umpteenth time to illustrate your ignorance. You are not the standard we must satisfy.

P.S. yes I could stand in front of a judge and tear up any "expert" witness who put forth the claim that SoiledCoin was secure.
P.P.S all Coinhunter would have to do is release the source and a paper that are digitally signed, then sign the claims with the same key. Then there would be more than just vapor to the SoiledClaims.

[Etlase2]

3) You ask for proof that I own the bridge, I say you must prove that I don't own it otherwise you must buy it.

how is anyone even supposed to follow nonsense like this?

You are not the standard we must satisfy.

yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.

[LoupGaroux]

If that's what passes for wit in your world, stick with shit.