Topic: [DEAD] Coiledcoin - yet another cryptocurrency, but with OP_EVAL! - page 9. (Read 68108 times)

Coinhunter, advertising in the Bitcoin community has done little to help your cause. It is the divide between ideology that is killing Solidcoin now. Imagine advertising atheism in a church, or socialism in the US congress. Solidcoin would be done much good if instead you chose to listen and take the suggestions of Solidcoin community members, who have all pushed for more openness, to heart.

Whatever benifits Solidcoin offers are overshadowed by the problems with Solidcoin's internal community right now. Deal with civil unrest before invading other territories.

Post it again somewhere else...

gmaxwell .....
Why was My thread in regards to "Pool Ops being the new Alt Coin Police" DELETED from the Pools Forum ?

No one believes in you.

How do I withdraw my CLC compensation from mmpool if I didnt register my ID with a btc address?

BEX did it (assuming he really did) by himself.

LukeJr used a bunch of other people in his pool.
That's a pretty big difference IMO.

They're both scum though.

So it looks like he deleted my thread and then went offline.

If this is the case, it's a complete miss use of MOD powers and the Forum Staff should strongly reconsider his status as a MOD.

Here's a fun exercise by the way: figure out what flaw in Bitcoin's implementation of OP_EVAL this code triggers, and if you've got a copy of the Coiledcoin source take a look at how it fixes it. (Only just got around to looking into this properly.) For bonus points, can you guess why Luke Jr is really lucky I don't hold a grudge?

gmaxwell .....
Why was My thread in regards to "Pool Ops being the new Alt Coin Police" DELETED from the Pools Forum ?

I think the folk whose major innovation was to be that someone would actually "back" the currency to provide price stability and to ensure it actually has value from the start have mostly chosen the "centralisation can go away later" route. Start with Open Transactions, don't bother to move to a blockchain format until transaction volume is sufficient to support "miners" without needing to have "miners" mint coins.

They had hoped merged mining would allow quite a number of chains to be secured quite easily and rapidly, but didn't really put all plans on hold to wait for it, instead they pushed me to get Open Transactions up and running.

-MarkM-

WTF is wrong with this forum?

So when BCX did it all was good because he was attacking Solidcoin and you didn't like Coinhunter but now you all get pissed off because someone else did it to CoiledCoin?
Talk about duality of criteria...

LOC wise the SC code is something like 99% bitcoin code, be realistic here.  And these great rewrites all added security vulnerabilities like the trust block rebindings.

"Secure" depends on your definition of secure. If people think that cryptocurrencies ought to be decentralized, which was the point of bitcoin of course, then SC2 is not secure at all.  Of course, bitcoin has centralization problems now due to big pools— though there is a fix for that maturing nicely. ... if you don't care about decentralization at all then SC2 is a pretty poor implementation of one:   The POW hashchain stuff exists purely to have a decentralized decision. It's a fairly inefficient approach compared to e.g. just having trusted nodes sign transaction records.

What the current percentage of newly mined SC's which are diverted to your 'protection' account? I haven't been keeping up with all the forced changes made possible by the central control of SC.


Do you usually call people who disagree with you a scumbag?


Identical is a liability, not an asset.  Taking the pre-release version of bitcoin and slapping a few tweaks (and far from enough, in fact) and a new name on it creates something which is pretty valueless.  Decentralized systems depend on their users perceiving them as valable in order to expend resources contributing to the system instead of ignoring it, or using resources to make sure it doesn't distract attention from the established cryptocoins.

The more different your system is the more likely it is on both technical and economic reasons to survive and find its niche; the more it's just a stupid ripoff of something else exploiting the liberal licensing to make an identical clone the less likely.   Even the SC2 folks know this: They restrictively licensed their fork of the bitcoin code because they knew that something just like SC2 but run with people with better reputation, or executed with slightly more intelligence (e.g. centralization that really did go away in a meaningful way as it grew) would replace them overnight.

Well that was quick

Give up on planes/flight?

Not at all. We should launch hundreds, or dozens, of identical planes until we find out how many we can in fact keep in the air, then we will know how many innovation test-tubes we have available for innovating among so can compare that number to the number of innovations we'd like to try in order to determine whether we have enough to try one innovation per or will have to put more than one innovation into each slot in order to get all the innovations out there in a secured chain to see how they fly.

But if we cannot even just get a dozen or few identical clones secured there's no point worrying about so called "innovation".

Maybe its just the age old war of neophobes versus neophiles being played out yet again?

-MarkM-

Well, as much as he cried and whined about Litecoin being another scamcoin, it seems safe from his exploits, as he doesn't have the power or resources to attack it the same way as Coiledcoin.

It would be much, much harder to do a 51% attack on Bitcoin. The only reason this attack was even possible was because of merged mining from a major pool; there is no bigger hashing network than Bitcoin that one could leverage in such a way.

We can launch a cryptocurrency wrong and watch it fail every day of the week. I could make a plane that doesn't fly, too. Does that mean we must abandon planes?

Isn't it a little easier now to better understand Coinhunter's frustration ? ...and views of the Bitcoin project ?

OR, we could all simply subsidize miners with additional BTC/USD and coax them into mining at Deepbit......

Taking down bitcoin could maybe be paid for with bitcoins. It might just take some seed capital to throw together 51%+ hashing farm, which could then pay for itself plus make profit plus bring down bitcoin once the desired / targetted profit has been made.

-MarkM-

I for one, am all for that as well. It's funny how after months of reading posts written by the BTC Gods, against RS/CH/whatever...that I FINALLY find myself able to understand his frustration and views on Bitcoin and the project as a whole.

Up till yesterday, I simply thought he had a bad attitude, although I always saw merit in his skills and continuously posed questions such as "If he could keep his Ego in check, don't you think BTC would be better WITH HIM, rather than without him, leaving him as a competitor rather than a contributor ?".

Well, now I know that is not possible, because there is only so much room at the head of the 'BTC Table' as it were......and regardless of how big RS/CH's Ego is, it still pales in comparison to some others in this community. Atleast he codes and runs a project. WTF does everyone else do, that is of great consequence, or that can compare to what he does solo ?

If I had to deal with all of the douche-nozzles on a constant basis, putting down MY work, then begging me for bug fixes prior to them going public, as to not exploit BTC.....I'D BE PISSED OFF ALL THE TIME TOO.

I can't wait to start mining SC.