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.
