Topic: [DEAD] Coiledcoin - yet another cryptocurrency, but with OP_EVAL! - page 8. (Read 68113 times)

Well that's pretty sad. Even though this wasn't probably going to be a "serious" alt-coin, it would have been a neat alt-currency to test out features not-yet supported by Bitcoin.

Good job enforcing your view as an arrogant prick, Luke-Jr.

What these bitcoin elitist dont realise, there is a ton of users who simply dont see a point in starting to mine bitcoins or get involved in it due to  very little hashing power (and not interested to invest their own $$ from the get go)

These altchains wether a scam to some give everyone a chance to get into bitcoins easier and not by dishing out money to get started and also making them feel like they own some piece of action.

Elitist dont think further than their own idealogies.

I thought the main point of these altchains was to do research. Attacking it right out of the gate seems counter productive.

I don't really buy the argument that alt chains detracts from Bitcoin in any way, just coz it's a copy paste or whatever.
Here is a bad anology: BMW cars still rocks even if KIA makes crap. And a copy BMW?, so what..

And saving stupid people from getting scammed? hah I don't buy that for one second. Besides you can't save people from their
own greed/stupidity whatever anyway. Most of you are free market libertarians, you don't want a nanny- anything and neither do I.

So then I guess it's back to human egos and their feelings...sadly.

Can you please grow up and understand that the more altchains we get, the the closer we will get to our goal.
Bitcoin is the best so far, but it's not perfect. Try to help innovation rather than stifling it.  A 51% attack is trivial, we know about it.
It's easy to do and it does not bring us any further. I want to thank makomk for his time and effort while sending him some coins too.

So as you say stop with the trivial clones of bitcoin, then I say Stop with the trivial attacks too. You're not helping.

Yup, that's pretty much the issue here. Attacking a chain, okay that's not nice but we're getting used to that. But hijacking other people's resources (misusing their trust) to do so, that's ****ing ***. I hope his rotten pool gets as deserted as it deserves.

Email me at the address on the mmpool site.

I think you miss the whole point, all the other attacks were done by users with their own personal(or rented) resources while luke-joker used the resources of his pool which doesnt belong to him unless he asked every user mining there if they consent to what he is doing.

Luke-Joker never did any of that except whip out his catwomen spandex and snapped his fluffy whip.

News at 11

Luke Jr. can't take down LTC so he 51% attacks a new GPU currency

Thank you very much for your excellent reply. I used up my entertainment time quota for today, so I'll just sketch my answer.


1) Some Bitcoin luminaries (like Gavin, casascius, Death&Taxes) have already begun thinking about other ways of defending the block-chain besides the brute force. Link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.660862 and the following discussion. I just observe that conflict of interest (by being materially involved in mining) seems to be the biggest obstacle to understanding them.

2)  Bitcoin can be viewed as a way to collect banking fees without incurring the fiduciary obligations. The concept of fiduciary duty is older than banking and as old as human societies. In majority of cases fiduciary duty has a positive value and lowers the cost of transactions in a society. In some narrow cases fiduciary duty has a large negative value and increases the cost of transactions: bank is fiducially obliged to prevent payment for contraband or financial support for Wikileaks. As it stands right now Bitcoin solves the problem of negative externalities only for relatively narrow class of users: smugglers, money launderers, etc. By reintroducing the concept of fiduciary obligation to the protocol the majority of users (for whom the externalities are positive) the overall cost of securing the network will be lower.

Thank you.  I've worked for years on my rhetoric so that when the new world order came I could at least find a place for myself as a an author of propaganda for The Authority.


The challenges here were previously forseen: This is why litecoin uses an alternative POW, merged mining is the opposite extreme: You don't even have to stop mining bitcoin to mine a merged coin.  Part of the argument for bitcoin's security, since day one, has been that it's more profitable to cooperate than it is to defect. At the introduction point of competitive bitcoin clone which is merged-mined the opposite is true.  This is a class of error that the altchains make over and over again: Starting up another copy of bitcoin without really understanding the first ones.

But to be clear, I'm not talking about paying people not to attack. I'm talking about paying them to be positive instead of indifferent. Paying them to take the currently non-trivial cost of setting up another merged mining chain and mining it with default rules.  There is no reason to mine the obscure currency altchains except for the hope of getting in on a ponzi scheme, or a fringe hope that they eventually mature to compete with bitcoin— and for people who care about Bitcoin's value and credibility those are the last things we want.  If you offed people some bitcoin, that might easily overcome these reservations (after all, chances are no one will hear about any of these alt-cryptocurrencies) and help out providing the startup security that you need.

The problem of indifference making new merged chains trivial to attack exists even without any pool centralization. If you subtract the big pools from the hash rate that CLC reached, what would it take to 50% it?  10GH?   How many CLC advocates are solo bitcoin miners with a merged mining setup that could compete with that?

SAC, you're on my list of cool people, so don't take this as a slam, but I think you're on the wrong side of the argument here.  ArtForz did the exact same thing with i0coin when it was released.  BitcoinExpress did the exact same thing with SC (or at least BCX was the public face with high likelihood someone else did the actual heavy lifting).  And now Luke did it with CLC.  The first two examples lead to more secure implementations of the alt-coins and gave us a glimpse of what real-world impact a 51% attack has. 

The sweet isn't as sweet without the sour.

This is better than I could ever imagine: religious freakery mixed with golden calf worship really produces comedy gold.

Godminer-Jr is warning you: if you have a nice little research chain it would be sad to see it unable to process transactions. It has been written on the tablets revealed on Mt.Sinai: Thou shalt have none other chains before mine (Deuteronomy 5:4-21).

+1

Who is the pool operator of Bitcoin P2Pool?! It have a pool operator?!

Wow, I had a feeling that Eligius sucked, now I know my intuition was tons more right than I could ever expect!

Born quick, die quick.

That was quick.

I don't particularly have any incentive to respond to the scammers that I foiled, given the significant cost (in time) to do so. Nor do I have any financial loss or care particularly if people want to stop mining on Eligius because they were in on the scam (or any other reason). I will clarify that Eligius miners were not adversely impacted by this, and that the CLC mining involved only adding data that I hashed myself to my own transactions; and I was careful to ensure that nobody lost any confirmed CLC. If any Eligius miner wishes to inquire further, I will take the time to answer specific to-the-point questions which are signmessage'd with an active (ie, has mined in the past week) Eligius payout address that has earned at least 2000 TBC (5.36870912 BTC) over all time.

Eligius is a Bitcoin mining pool and I am, as always, committed to doing my best to contribute to and protect the Bitcoin ecosystem. Pyramid schemes built upon forks of the Bitcoin software ultimately discredit and harm Bitcoin's reputation. I hope CoiledCoin will be the last of such scams now that it is clear there are people (not just myself) willing to stand up to them. Namecoin alone demonstrates a legitimate, innovative use of Bitcoin technology, and while I don't personally agree with their ideals/goals, I see it as a good thing for Bitcoin and worth cooperating with.

cablepair, regarding Devcoin, I don't see any reason to treat it as different from any other scamcoin. I will at least discuss it with you on IRC before doing anything other than mining it with the almost-unmodified (zero txn fee, zero post-maturity delay) Devcoin client.

P.S. While the opposition seem to be very venemous and vocal, I have gotten a lot more positive support from a head-count perspective.

I bet we probably could get plenty of Bitcoin clones running like you describe. A good launch example was LiteCoin - despite similarity to Tenebrix, it wasn't successfully attacked because everyone had time to prepare ahead of time. If ALL the major Bitcoin pools had been configured to merge mine CoiledCoin, then a 51% attack would have been just as unlikely as it is with Bitcoin.

Another option that might help in the future would be to base off the current Bitcoin block chain at the time of launch instead of creating a new genesis block. That way, everyone who has invested in Bitcoin automatically has some CoiledCoins too, so they have less incentive to attack until after they exchange away their CoiledCoins. We would see less hostility towards alternate cryptocurrencies if they presented less of a long-term threat to the community's savings, and looked more like a fork than a pump-and-dump.

I'm doing a full quote of gmaxwell's post to try to preserve it for posterity.

I like it the most where he came up with "tiping the incentives" as an euphemism for extortion.

Luke-Jr has a very stilted writing style. gmaxwell is a world-class copy-writer.

We used to joke about "mining cartel". But now we have "mining mafia" consolidating the control of their territory. Forget about doing a collection for Max Keiser to shoot a short about Bitcoin. We should do a round of fund-raising to induce F.F.Coppola to direct and produce a "Godminer" triptych. 

With enough complaints to Luke's ISP, I am sure something can be done......after all, just because his immediate connection wasn't responsible for teh attack, he used that connection to orchestrate a large scale attack using remote computers at his disposal.....like a BOTNET OP.

Am I the only one who sees the attack on CLC as (an illegal) DOS?

At a minimum, alt chains are a playground/proving ground for new features that may (or may not) be worthwhile for inclusion in Bitcoin proper.  Regardless of any monetary value in those chains, they provide the community with the opportunity to experiment and try out new ideas.  Attacking and destroying something just because you don't like it and you can is wrong.  

DOS attacks are against the law (criminal and civil in the US).  We can't sit around and let people get away with DOS'ing new chains just because they're new.  I hope those responsible start getting prosecuted.