Topic: delete (Read 3661 times)

Does Apple use bsd code for their os and konqueror code for their browser.  Bitparking is just going to lose out and allow other exchanges to grow stronger.  There are 3 other exchanges, and some open source.   solidcoin making their code non-gpl or non-open might be a mistake.  But, maybe not if people were just going to exploit it.  yes, solidcoin used 99.9% of bitcoin code and knowledge to make his client, but the guy is young and a little upset all the time he spent can be gone with a few clicks. 

To me the concept is not the licenses, it is the power of a full reserve, non-inflationary currency not based on gold.  If he succeeds god bless.

I'm OK with that, I'm in "buying SLC season", so the more they turn CH down the better. 
Already have more than 1K Solidcoins (and about 2K IXCoins) to put to my "pen freezer" and wait.

I've got my popcorn and am watching...

Yes except now mooncoin has all of bitparkings volume and the other pools are taking SCGuilds share. Strange how people keep wanting to mine and buy SolidCoin. If people want to make business decisions based on their religious like values that is fine, they'll just lose money and let other people take over.


Plenty of people are using it, thousands of downloads have been made since 1.04 was released. And just a FYI, people have been saying SolidCoin was dead/terminal/dying since the very first day I released it. It's not exactly shocking to hear someone else think/say it.

Out of all the SolidCoin soap opera, this weird attitude from the campaigners against SC is becoming my favorite part lol.   They are nearly making CoinHunter no longer seem like such a bad guy, and that really sucks, I think you all should tone it down a bit, stick to tech talk, and leave your personal issues with the guy out, it is really looking bad.

Here comes the usual straw-man arguments...
No, I'm not, but also not a Troll to go spam the forum with bs.

Wrong pal, I "chose" .com because there's no way I could register a .PT unless I've a company registered with that name or such is my civil name.
So, in the subject of legitimacy, .PT is way more legit than any .COM.

«I-dont-have-this-company-registered-anywhere-but-the-name-was-available-for-registering».COM exists
«I-dont-have-this-company-registered-anywhere-but-the-name-was-available-for-registering».PT doesn't

Here you've a little FAQ about the .pt TLD:

http://dominios.pt/domain/examples.aspx

Nope, but that's why society has lawyers.

RealSolid removed the COPYING file from the source distribution. That file, the license, states:
He also renamed the copyright in each file from 'Bitcoin Developers' to 'Solidcoin Developers'. When called out for this by one of the bitcoin developers he refused to change saying something to the effect of "Why should you have a copyright on the bugs you've added". Would you be happy if someone took your open source code, removed the license and changed all the copyright statements to be someone else?

Be sure to mention that when you write to [email protected] because the lawyers might realize CoinHunter is right and there's no way they could...

I'm sorry, I'm laughing too hard to finish the sarcastic reply to your sarcasm.

Should I take bets on whether he'll piss himself when Oracle goes after him for the money he owes them for using BerkeleyDB in a closed-source for-profit venture in violation of their IP rights?

Looks are not everything. DoubleC has been reliable and kept the exchanges up and has great support for all of its users.

It can look better but I rather it work correctly first.

Bitparking looked like a middle school students website project, it was very clunky to use and not very professional looking for it's purpose. The only thing it had going for it was the amount of users on it. I will miss the Ruxum exchange though.

And you take .com as your "primary thought"?! Wow!... Still, not many people knows or cares that .in stands for India. As .tv is for Tuvalu and .fm for Micronesia or .it to Italy.

I though you were american not for "superiority", believe in superiority is what inferior beings do, but for that obnoxious habit of speak ad orbi.
They don't say "our/the US/the American government", they say "THE government".
They don't say "FBI/CIA/our county's police", they say "THE police".

.ru has a bad name due to legions of "warez" sites loaded down with half a billion trojans.
.com/net/org have a good reputation for some reason or other, despite having plenty of attack sites themselves.  Regardless, they are viewed as safer than others.

Should they be?  Hell no.
Are they?  Hell yes.

You're absolutely right on that point. And frankly, the fact that most Americans think ".com" means something is pretty sad in and of itself.

It's pretty trivial for someone in, say, Nigeria (which Americans online think is where almost all scams come from) to get a .com, or a .net.

And just because someone has an .ru doesn't guarantee that's where the business is headquartered, etc.

The concept that the domain name system is simply a "yellow pages" phone book for IP addresses and not all entries will be correct or under honest names or even filed correctly is of course lost on the general public.

fix'd.  

Here folks would be looking prior to .pt rather than .com/.org/.net, at Russia they tend to look first at .ru, France .fr, Italy .it... too bad for you .us came a bit too late or .us would be your primarily "perception" regarding American businesses.

Actually your "perception" is a result of a massive scam in the late 90's, the so called Domain bubble. Even if the bubble in the end blasted, it's massive publicity helped to imprint some ".com friendliness" with internet users.

dot tk i agree with. Same with co.cc or any other free domains. Also, solidcoin's choice to use dot info was a bit of a put off since spammers use them all the time, they just have a bad rep.

You're the only place where the people who realize that BitcoinExpress is right can go to SELL SELL SELL!

Your SC volume is really just an epitaph for CoinHunter's series of arrogance-fueled fuckups.

That argument is extremely shallow. It is the equivalent to judging a site purely on the layout/style rather then the underlying code - it is in general a bad idea.

I do agree that this decision to move away from open source does threaten the future of solid coin. My site though is not tied to the success of SC, our primary currency has been bitcoin and will continue to be. However to be fair my exchange is now up to 85k volume for today so there is still a way to trade.

If you ever come up with some legitimate criticism of my exchange feel free to email me and I will try to resolve it as fast as possible.

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!

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.

We also need .troll as the companion to .me if you think about it.

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

Fixed it for you. And yes.

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".

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.


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.


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.
 

That is what typically happens in civil discussions but I have this suspicion you are not interested in a civil discussion.

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.

RLY? So how much business would you do with a .tk or .kn domain?

Sorry BCEX, judging business by TLD is more pathetic than your claims... 

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.


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

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.

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.

Why not just switch to i0coin...

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.

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.

At this point, IMHO, I say it is too late to backpedal.

delete