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

[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

LOL

So you dont even try to argue anymore?

Can i understand this refusal to discuss the points i brought up earlier in this thread that, at least, you accept these?

[k9quaint]

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?

Exactly. That is a demonstration of what you are doing, and you rightly flag it as nonsense. Coinhunter supplied  a "proof" that his cryptocurrency is secure and awesome. We bring up flaws in his proof here. One of those flaws is the missing components of his proof. You declare that we must prove that these missing components do not exist.

How about you wake up and smell the coffee? Coinhunter must demonstrate that his currency is secure. Otherwise, by default we must assume he cannot. This is accomplished by him showing the code, and explaining the reasoning behind the functionality. All he has done is declared what the features are, not how or why they are implemented. Then he asks us to trust him, after he has failed twice already.

You are not the standard we must satisfy.

yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.
[/quote]

Sorry that you do not understand the practices of computer security. It must seem like black magic to you for us to want the math behind the marketing material and UI screenshots. Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request. Yet we are called trolls and poo-flingers for making it. The unwashed masses are ungrateful I guess.

[Etlase2]

The thing is... you seem to be assuming that it won't be open source. Why? Just because SC2 was closed source for a period of time? Has RS or any of the developers confirmed anywhere that it will not be open source?

Why do you keep making all of these assumptions before the software is even released?

Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request.

Do you think that it is necessary for a developer to release code in development? It is reasonable to whine about it not being released after a date was given, but it's not like this is the 1st or 10,000th time that's happened.

Jesus christ man, you are raging to the world about software that, as far as we know, doesn't even exist.

[Nachtwind]

The thing is... you seem to be assuming that it won't be open source. Why? Just because SC2 was closed source for a period of time? Has RS or any of the developers confirmed anywhere that it will not be open source?

Why do you keep making all of these assumptions before the software is even released?

Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request.

Do you think that it is necessary for a developer to release code in development? It is reasonable to whine about it not being released after a date was given, but it's not like this is the 1st or 10,000th time that's happened.

Jesus christ man, you are raging to the world about software that, as far as we know, doesn't even exist.

We dont assume wether SC3 will be open source or not and we dont ask for code here.. but k9quaint is right about the following thing: Maths. Every code can be derived from math or put into simple formulas - and thats we would like to see (at least!). It easily proovable that, for example, a private key to a BTC address is impossible to be found with brute force on the current generation (kind?) of computer - and you dont really need any line of code. It is also simply showable that a 51% attack on bitcoin is possible, by simple maths and pseudocode. Yet what we have so far is nothing but some UI shots and claims.
We are often enough asked to show proof for our claims (and we do wherever possible.. and where not possible we use proxies or correlations.). We dont meddle with the data available like the blockexplorer that ahimoth hosts. We dont just ridicule every argument of the solidcoin followers - we try to bring up valid points.. yet some people seem to be quite ignorant in understanding the way we argue.

[k9quaint]

The thing is... you seem to be assuming that it won't be open source. Why? Just because SC2 was closed source for a period of time? Has RS or any of the developers confirmed anywhere that it will not be open source?

It is not open source. That means it is closed source. The promise of one day seeing the source is not "open".
It has a proprietary license. That means it will not be open, even if they let people see the source. Why is this a problem? The holder of the rights to a proprietary license can revoke your permission to use the software. Then you cannot get at your currency. They can also force you to upgrade your client to include features you deem inappropriate.

Why do you keep making all of these assumptions before the software is even released?

You just admitted that the software is closed source. That is a problem.

Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request.

Do you think that it is necessary for a developer to release code in development? It is reasonable to whine about it not being released after a date was given, but it's not like this is the 1st or 10,000th time that's happened.

Jesus christ man, you are raging to the world about software that, as far as we know, doesn't even exist.

Yes. It might be vaporware. Except they seem to have a functional block chain in beta and people already running the nodes and clients. Hmmm, seems like some software might exist. What software might that be? Could it be a keylogger? Could it be searching your harddrive for child porn? Could it be looking for pirated software? Or maybe looking for your bitcoin wallet? Could it be the next great cryptocurrency? We can't know.

Do you think it is a good idea to launch and release the code for inspection at the same time? That is a recipe for idiocy. The code is reviewed only after it is in production? Nonsensical.

This is standard operating procedure for the SoiledCoin crowd. They operate in secrecy and all critics are trolls. True security operates in the light of day, inviting all criticism.

And this is hardly rage. If you want to see rage, look at the Coinhunter sockpuppet posts.

[LoupGaroux]

Given the title of this thread, rage would not be off-topic, but I think most all of the responses have been restrained and productive to the discussion at issue here.

The fact that most of those same responses do not serve the intent of the OP in trying to debunk the established shortcomings of the SC development crew and the code itself is perhaps an unintended outcome, but an honest outcome nonetheless.

[Etlase2]

It has a proprietary license. That means it will not be open, even if they let people see the source. Why is this a problem? The holder of the rights to a proprietary license can revoke your permission to use the software. Then you cannot get at your currency. They can also force you to upgrade your client to include features you deem inappropriate.

All a bunch of made up bullshit, once again. Either you've seen some license we haven't, or the best I can go by is the light client:

"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, including 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:"

And the only way your permission could be revoked is if you used the source code in a project other than microcash without permission. And I think it might just be a *tad* difficult for them to associate a person who uses their source in a different project with a MC account balance and make it so that "you cannot get at your currency." This is the absolute definition of made-up FUD.

Do you think it is a good idea to launch and release the code for inspection at the same time? That is a recipe for idiocy. The code is reviewed only after it is in production? Nonsensical.

"Bitcoin did it"

This is standard operating procedure for the SoiledCoin crowd. They operate in secrecy and all critics are trolls. True security operates in the light of day, inviting all criticism.

I can hardly disagree with you here. But sentence #2 is exactly what satoshi did and critics of bitcoin are called trolls just the same. But since only 10 people use SC and 3 of those are the developers who are rather immature, they get involved in the name-calling as well.

[k9quaint]

It has a proprietary license. That means it will not be open, even if they let people see the source. Why is this a problem? The holder of the rights to a proprietary license can revoke your permission to use the software. Then you cannot get at your currency. They can also force you to upgrade your client to include features you deem inappropriate.

All a bunch of made up bullshit, once again. Either you've seen some license we haven't, or the best I can go by is the light client:

"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, including 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:"

And the only way your permission could be revoked is if you used the source code in a project other than microcash without permission. And I think it might just be a *tad* difficult for them to associate a person who uses their source in a different project with a MC account balance and make it so that "you cannot get at your currency." This is the absolute definition of made-up FUD.

If you had read the previous threads on the earlier versions of SoiledCoin, you would know how wrong you are. This is how I know you have not done your research. The purpose of having an open source license is to preserve the ability to fork a currency chain rather than accept a change that "breaks" the protocol for you. Of course, that results in two currencies with two discrete groups using them. That is the textbook definition of a "competing currency". What Coinhunter is saying with that license is that only he may fork his block-chains. That is how he shut down the earlier versions. The exchanges cannot withstand the threat of lawsuit and the revocation of the license in order to preserve a SoiledCoin fork. So he killed SoiledCoin 1, all the exchanges dropped it, he promised to give people their coins in a new block chain. Then he made a block chain with an extra 13 million coins for himself (diluting everyone else). Now he is shutting down that block chain and promising to re-issue some of those SoiledCoins in Microcash. If (when) Microcash is demonstrated to be insecure, they might shutdown that one as well. Do you feel safe investing in such an institution?

Do you think it is a good idea to launch and release the code for inspection at the same time? That is a recipe for idiocy. The code is reviewed only after it is in production? Nonsensical.

"Bitcoin did it"

Actually, we don't know how long Bitcoin was in beta, nor how many people reviewed and/or wrote the code. Certainly, they do not operate that way now. If you have evidence detailing Satoshi's identity(s), I would be interested.
Bitcoin did have a bizarre genesis no doubt. It also did not have thousands of people ready to pounce on it as soon as it was released. There was a chicken and egg scenario that protected it when it launched. Such a condition does not protect follow on currencies, which makes launching them very problematic.

This is standard operating procedure for the SoiledCoin crowd. They operate in secrecy and all critics are trolls. True security operates in the light of day, inviting all criticism.

I can hardly disagree with you here. But sentence #2 is exactly what satoshi did and critics of bitcoin are called trolls just the same. But since only 10 people use SC and 3 of those are the developers who are rather immature, they get involved in the name-calling as well.

All of the current developers of Bitcoin operate in the light of day. Critics of Bitcoin are not called trolls. If you have an issue with the code, or an idea of how things should work you can go into #bitcoin-dev and discuss it without fear of reprisal. I was banned from #Solidcoin before I was posting here about the currency. I asked two terrible questions: how many people were using it, and how did they know how many people were using it. When they claimed hundreds used it but could not provide a method by which they arrived at that number, I was banned for being a troll. I found that really bizarre and that piqued my interest in this subject. I guess there is an IRC Streisand effect.