Topic: Coinhunter is wasting his talent (Read 3071 times)

I think it's likely that he did test it offline first, but in order to easily notice the DB bug, you needed to run out of disk space (or memory?), which he probably didn't. But whatever, I find it unlikely that I can convince you on anything on that front.

Overall I find that you are grasping for straws, trying to find something or someone other than CoinHunter to blame for all the bad things happening around Solidcoin.

Vast majority of people here have zero problems with alternative currencies. They are a good way to experiment with new approaches to cryptocurrencies, and there are some good ideas in Solidcoin, like trying to fix the Bitcoin difficulty adjustment system which has been shown to have issues (though Solidcoin system is not perfect either).

People don't hate Solidcoin. They hate CoinHunter, and all that bad mojo just rubs on Solidcoin. People who don't want Solidcoin to succeed, are usually not against it because they are afraid their BTC investment are in danger, but because they are afraid that some cryptocurrency with a person like Coinhunter in charge might gain some foothold, giving a bad name to us all.

Whether true or not IRL, the online image Coinhunter gives of himself is of someone who is paranoid, narcissistic and delusional. He might be a competent coder, but it's just impossible to trust him on anything, let alone my finances.

How about you kindly go fuck off?

There was no test network for SolidCoin and you know it. So basically what you're saying is, ArtForz should have ... done the impossible and used a resource CoinHunter chose not to create because he was convinced he was the cryptocurrency god.

An interesting thought. Though the network didn't survive a "DoS attack". It barely even survived a demonstration of an exploit. Sorry but if anyone really cared about attacking the network, it wouldn't be there right now, not only because the protocol is faulty but because the network is small (not SC's fault, can happen to anyone). On the other hand, the retargeting algorithm seems to have been useful in surviving the miner drop-off. With your line of reasoning, we should forward bitcoin.org to goatse.cx and see what happens.

Calling him a dick is understating it. He is a conman as well as a dick.

From @feydr today, assuming this is coinhunter:

AFAIK currency is destroyed only in the beginning to discourage domain name hoarding. Network cost of domain name registration goes steadily down as the time goes on, eventually going to zero.


So when you judge the "morality" of someones actions, you should concentrate more on what the intent was, and less on accidental and unforeseeable consequences of those actions. Without that bug, the demonstration would have gone largely unnoticed, and served the purpose of showing the possibility of a more serious attack.

This database bug can be fixed with this patch:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/491

which you can use in Solidcoin as well.. You know, without asking a permission from ArtForz (who ended up fixing the bug for everyone's benefit) or anything.

Viper, thank you for your honesty. My motives were purely profit and they will be. I don't mind giving input on a concept or project but i don't take too kind to taunting and blatant disrespect like coinhunter displayed.

If you choose to be a part of the solidcoin project then that's great. I personally think it will end at some point due to overshadowing from other alt-chains that come out.

Solidcoin to me was a good step in the right direction but the term "solidcoin" now leaves me and possibly others with a bad taste in our mouths when we hear the term.

Thanks again.

+1 on everything JBM said.

If CoinHunter is a natural born leader I dread to see what someone too emotionally fragile and immature to lead would look like.

That being stated, speaking from a position of relative ignorance, I have yet to see a technically compelling explanation of the claims that the changes he made to the Bitcoin heuristics are intrinsically detrimental to network security (which is not to say that those claims are incorrect, just that I don't understand them, and I'm not about to presume that they are true just 'cause some people said so in the middle of a flame war).

Speaking of having a serious effect on the psychology and price of this place.


You and your damn changed name, I forgot about your forum to the list.  Just an unofficial list, but BTC communities if anyone wants to keep track of this sort of thing.  Such as anoncoin that I believe is for many currencies.

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/
http://bitcoin.org.uk/forums/
http://www.anoncoin.org/
http://www.bitcoinforums.net/
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/
http://forum.qbizy.com

I was referring to the technical attacks that have taken place. Flame wars on the Internet are irrelevant to me. I want a network that works, that can survive a drop off, and that has a future of only becoming better. Solidcoin is now bigger than any single individual, and with that being said there is no reason why we should begin to loose respect of each other. This is exactly what the (real) trolls wanted, all the infighting that has been going on for the past couple of weeks has had a serious effect on the psychology and price of this place.

Fixed that.

So far we have survived a DOS attack, a huge miner drop off, and a huge price drop off. The algorithm however follows these unintended events, and protects the overall network from crashing to a halt. Who knows, maybe this was all a plot foiled by Realsolid, so that people would attack the network, and it could get some "serious" testing, before being released as a finished product. This is all still "beta" you know .

Think about it... There's no better testing than having an entire community attack a product that should be "invulnerable" to attacks...

I almost slapped my forehead when I read it in confusion and amusement, fucking icing on the cake for me.  SolidCoin is definitely the most amusing digital currency ever to exist.    It almost makes you wish this was all an elaborate scam instead of this sad reality lol

Nope. Probability of a attacker with a given % of network hashrate (below 50%) to successfully find N blocks in a row before the rest of the network does is independent of average time/block. See the original paper.
Now, here's the fun part: What about the probability of our attacker succeeding at least once in fixed timespan?

I'm not sure why you guys defend him, he really is a perfect asshole to even to people who support SC.  I loved this line today:

"...So stick around, perhaps lose the condescending "I know better" tone and you may do well with this"  -RealSolid in response to Bitcoinporn's advice to lay low for a bit
 
lol.. Who talks like that?  Like Bitcoinporn is the condescending one.  He did the same thing to me yesterday when I said he should reconsider the open lisence.  At first I thought trolls were just picking on him, but he treats people with no respect.  Why defend him?

Yeah, it's faster, but it's not more secure. A bitcoin confirmation is 3.33 times more secure than a solidcoin confirmation.

Bitcoin can have fast transactions too. Just accept a transaction after you see it sent to the network: http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/
Sure, a double spend attack is possible. But unless the transaction amount is large, you really don't need to be worried about a double spend attack. So there you go, instant transactions but not secure.

Algorithm -> Test -> Confidence.

That's how it should go. In SC's case, it's been

Confidence -> Algorithm -> Test

How do you know it's an untested algorithm without testing it?

Confidence in an untested algorithm?  Yeah, that's a trick.

So the faster algorithm is all just a "confidence trick" right?