Pages:
Author

Topic: delete - page 2. (Read 3661 times)

member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
September 04, 2011, 10:21:42 PM
#18
Back on topic

SolidCoin's decision to close the license will kill and probably already has killed SC. Without Bitparking and Ruxum there are no exchanges worth trading on.

No way to trade, means no future.

Well, except as an internet currency with its own inherent value not tied to another currency.

Oh, wait. That's what Bitcoin is, and Bitcoin is actually open source, not "open source until the guy who first mined in what I copied pissed me off."

Yer right. No future!
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
Cosmonaut
September 04, 2011, 10:08:05 PM
#17
You used as a point of argument that someone supported doublec's closed source application, and implied that meant their disapproval of the SolidCoin license change was disingenuous. Your exact words: "The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source."

You made a completely invalid "point" and I simply explained why it was invalid.

I really don't mean to be rude but I believe your comprehension of that statement is faulty. In your first post you seemed to interpret my statement as meaning as absolutely that I believe it was wrong for doublec to have his exchange closed, which is not what I said at all. So when you defended the statement that I didn't make by saying

"doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business."

You were in fact arguing a point I never made, which is by definition a strawman argument. I invite you to read this article on the subject if you are interested in the specifics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Now this most recent post seems to argue something completely different, and it still seems to fail to understand my statement. So please let me clarify: Clearly he believes that it possible for closed source software to be functional and successful. To me it reads that he shows no preference long as the software is good. Even though what realsolid is doing is clearly a bad move its not breaking any laws so long as he continues to maintain it I don't understand why someone with that position would care what the licensing of the software is.

Regardless I have no interest in being involved in this discussion unless it is either civil or at the very least results in substantial feedback which I can use to improve the open source project which work on.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
September 04, 2011, 10:07:41 PM
#16
Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.

Now those would be interesting TLD's; .con / . scam / .ponzi / .hyp...

We also need .troll as the companion to .me if you think about it. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
September 04, 2011, 10:06:30 PM
#15
Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.

Now those would be interesting TLD's; .con / . scam / .ponzi / .hyp...
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
September 04, 2011, 10:04:24 PM
#14
Ya.... wasn't mybitcoin a .com .con?.....

Fixed it for you. And yes.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
September 04, 2011, 09:53:50 PM
#13
No shit! You guys are like implying that someone with a .com domain is automatically "honest" or "trustworthy".

That's not even pathetic, that's overwhelming pathetic.
People just tend to look after .com if they're total newbies, the same noobs who when you ask their email address they will start: www.(...) - those folks seams to believe everything in the web starts with www. and ends with .com

You can do your business with whatever TLD, with .TK, unless paid, you'll have a hard time due the spam and pop-ups it will bring up, not because "tk is bad".
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
Cosmonaut
September 04, 2011, 09:53:24 PM
#12
it is possible to like closed source and open source simultaneously LOL. Double C never represented his exchange as open source then closed it, Coinhunter/Realcoin certainly did.

I don't think I made the claim that you couldn't I just thought it just appeared to me that the logic didn't pan out. I could have misunderstood.  Not that I believe Realsolid did the right thing (I certainly support open source), it should be noted that under the MIT license he is capable of doing what he did legally, so if it is successful (which I personally believe it won't be) I don't see why it matters if you don't have a preference. Which appears to me to be your new claim, but I may be misunderstanding again.

and the answer to your original question, Try and use it sometime.

I do use it, even when I'm traveling and it appears to work without flaw for me. Do you have any substantial criticism that would actually help me improve the project? Because I would appreciate it.

Also, trying to run a serious financial site with a .in, are you serious??? Huh Huh Huh

MtGox.com, Bitparking.com, btc-e.com, ruxum.com, tradehill.com, paypal.com, libertyreserve.com.......See a pattern here?

Maybe it's just me but .in and anything financial is huge red flag.

Do you really think having a different tld then what is currently (and it won't be once the DNS servers open up every possible combination) makes my site any less secure? If this is your only real legitimate criticism I feel like I'm doing well.
 
You asked, I responded

That is what typically happens in civil discussions but I have this suspicion you are not interested in a civil discussion.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
September 04, 2011, 09:52:21 PM
#11
doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.
I don't see anywhere in my post where  make the claim he did not have this right. So this appears to me to be a strawman argument.

Straw man argument? Nope.

You used as a point of argument that someone supported doublec's closed source application, and implied that meant their disapproval of the SolidCoin license change was disingenuous. Your exact words: "The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source."

You made a completely invalid "point" and I simply explained why it was invalid.
hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 1009
September 04, 2011, 09:41:18 PM
#10
Sorry BCEX, judging business by TLD is more pathetic than your claims...  Grin

RLY? So how much business would you do with a .tk or .kn domain?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
September 04, 2011, 09:32:38 PM
#9
Sorry BCEX, judging business by TLD is more pathetic than your claims...  Grin
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
Cosmonaut
September 04, 2011, 09:29:14 PM
#8
doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.

I don't see anywhere in my post where  make the claim he did not have this right. So this appears to me to be a strawman argument.

You can't compare CoinHunter's apparent support of closed-source to that. He took an open-source application, did almost no real work on it, relied on others' significant prior work, released it as open-source, and then changed it because of a personal dispute, taking the opportunity to attack Bitcoin in the "change" and the text file.

I never made any claim to defend what happen, if anything I explicity said I believe the project should remain open source.



member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
September 04, 2011, 09:25:59 PM
#7
Care to explain why my exchange is pathetic? Feedback is appreciated as our project is open source and always looking to improve.

The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source. I believe the project should be open source (and if the community wishes to keep it around they will maintain it under open source) but it appears to me you have conflicting opinions.

doublec had every right to make a closed-source application for his business.

You can't compare CoinHunter's apparent support of closed-source to that. He took an open-source application, did almost no real work on it, relied on others' significant prior work, released it as open-source, and then changed it because of a personal dispute, taking the opportunity to attack Bitcoin in the "change" and the text file.

It was a major dickhead move. Add to that his complete unwillingness to listen to user input, his attitude problems, his clear lack of experience, and, frankly?

doublec went closed-source because it was a legitimate business decision.

CoinHunter made his derivative of someone else's work to try and attack the someone else because he's a crybaby.
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
Cosmonaut
September 04, 2011, 09:10:38 PM
#6
Care to explain why my exchange is pathetic? Feedback is appreciated as our project is open source and always looking to improve.

The exchanges you mentioned are closed source, so you in one breath are praising close sourced applications and demanding he remain open source. I believe the project should be open source (and if the community wishes to keep it around they will maintain it under open source) but it appears to me you have conflicting opinions.
newbie
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
September 04, 2011, 09:08:07 PM
#5
Why not just switch to i0coin...
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
September 04, 2011, 02:19:27 PM
#4
MIT isn't viral, like GPL, so he can do it.
However it's like burying his own project, taken SLC isn't substantially different than BTC.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
moOo
September 04, 2011, 02:16:24 PM
#3
I agree and i think time is running out to fix things.

jackjack is forking version 1.03
the price is going into terminal areas.

I think something must be done quickly or people will move on. if you wait days to address this, very few people will come back to solid coins. Especially with all the people losing money hands and fists now.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
September 04, 2011, 02:06:00 PM
#2
@CoinHunter

As someone who was one of the very first people to mine SC and have had a lot of fun doing so I say the following as a SC supporter.

The license change you made will KILL Solid Coin a 100 times faster than anything a few idiots here in this forum could ever do. You are reacting EXACTLY the way they wanted you to and even better.

Without the Bitparking Exchange and Ruxum, especially Bitparking, Solid Coin is terminal.

The remaining three exchanges are pathetic. Mooncoin and Solidcoin24, are you serious???

Your version 1.04 makes some very good changes, but the world will never see it if you don't update your license agreement.

~BCX~

At this point, IMHO, I say it is too late to backpedal.
legendary
Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024
September 04, 2011, 02:02:36 PM
#1
delete
Pages:
Jump to: