Topic: bitcoin vs solidcoin - page 4. (Read 19345 times)

That still affects the exchange operator in that they have angry clients who lose their solidcoins that they've paid bitcoins for. The first couple of solidcoin releases did include checkpoints btw. Based on my reading the latest only contains the fix to the transaction spam issue.

Not if you fork the blockhain from block 1. But again  they could hardcode fork prevention into the client. Is it not what all the new updates all about by any chance?

Not to mention that such an attack affects the exchange operator and doesn't affect the creator or developers.

I think SolidCoin could survive such a theoretical attack!   There is no way in hell a huge great competitor to Bitcoin could fall prey to some lame brain scheme concocted in some random thread on some unofficial Bitcoin forum.   Prove me wrong guys, prove me wrong

I thought as much. :-) Just to make that clear: I didn't want to imply that you were suggestion such an attack. I understand you were just discussing the theoretical technical side of it and I just quoted you for some context. I was mostly talking to others in this thread, who seem to entertain such an idea.

I do not disagree with you jav.

It would also be an asshole move. Of course young projects can easily be trampled to death by cyber bullies. That proofs nothing at all about the technical side of SolidCoin. Even if one day a clearly superior alternative to Bitcoin emerges (and I don't believe SolidCoin to be that), then this SuperiorCoin will most likely go through the same vulnerable phase and it would be a disservice to the progress of crypto-currencies to take advantage of this vulnerability and kill it off early.

If you think, like me, that SolidCoin does not bring enough advantages over Bitcoin to be a serious competitor, then just let them alone and run their course. I don't see it cause much harm. It even provides a nice field test for some of the alternative approaches, like the new difficulty adjustment algorithm. If this turns out to be a worthwhile change, it could be even adopted for Bitcoin in the future, starting from some checkpoint block number, and we would already have a better understanding how that would play out.

Apparently Ruxum paused their solidcoin trading:
http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/questions/34063-soildcoin-trading-area-disappeared-
Seems the solidcoin "developer" needs to fix solidcoin
http://help.ruxum.com/customer/portal/articles/147455-solidcoin-faq
Lol, solidcoin looks very solid

They hit a low of 91.5GH.  I expect it'll get lower.

would need 300GH or so at the moment...  the seven largest pools could pull it off

I bet most  big miners and pool operators are fully aware about this possibility, most probably just cannot be bothered, when the alternative is simply to do nothing and shitcoins will just die out on their own.

But if someone does this it would be technically a very interesting event. Pass the popcorn.

+1. This sounds like fun. I'm in if somebody sets up a pool to do it.

@Vladimir (or other big miner) there is a business opportunity for you:

1) mine yourself some solidcoins.
2) fork the solidcoin block chain by disconnecting your miner from the network.
3) send all your solidcoins to https://btc-e.com (or some other exchange).
4) sell them for USD/BTC and withdraw the money.
5) ensure that your block chain is the longest in the solidcoin network.
6) sync your block chain into the solidcoin network - yours will be the valid one as it is the longest.
7) now you have your former sent solidcoins back (the tx is no longer in the blockchain) and the withdrawn USD/BTC and the new mined solidcoins.
goto 2 until solidcoin==$0

The beauty of this is that on every iteration you can sell not only the new mined solidcoins but also the already sold onces, so your profit is ever increasing.
The only thing that could prevent this, is that there are not that many stupid people out there buying solidcoins. Probably even less after their solidcoins did disappear a few times

Deflation does indeed discourage spending but the key issue is that I don't actually think that's a bad thing. It's better for the people if they have more incentive to save money instead of spending it and it's way better for the environment and our sustainability in general. An economic model based on infinite growth is absolutely utopian-ridiculous taking account the current realities so any system based on that is basically doomed, this is one of the main reasons why we're seeing so many problems in the real world right now.

Of course if the deflation is massive it's causing problems, just like massive inflation. But I think a low deflation rate is better than low inflation. It's not the best for optimal economic growth, but optimal economic growth is a load of crap that has nothing to do with social and ecological sustainability which is all I care about.

And the thing of it is, even with deflation people will use money to purchase what they need to live. They will even purchase luxuries, you see this very clearly with electronics. Electronics get better (deflate) massively in a very short amount of time but still people keep buying them even if they can get much better ones later with the same amount of money. Deflation is not a serious problem unless it's totally out of control.

The one that isn't completely screwed?

the fork, the fanboys and the old dragon...    (http://sinfest.net)

I didn't say superior.  Try to check your assumptions.

Actually the gold standard was mostly inflationary. Between 1880 and 1914 the average annual inflation rate was 0.1%, and from 1914 to 1932 it was 1.43%.


Can you expand on this? I believe deflation discourages spending, investing, lending and borrowing, making the economy contract. I can't see it as being benign in any way, no matter how gentle and predictable.