Topic: delete - page 5. (Read 23927 times)

Personally I believe that BCX has the ability to do this.  Has he actually done anything?  That I'm unsure about.

If BCX can successfully do a 51% double spend - then I'd love to see the transaction history of that occurring.

Personally I don't think the onus is on Maged to proove that he didn't attack... I think the onus is on BCX to proove that he did do an attack.  Or that whoever made SC needs to proove that no attack has taken place...

Unless I'm wrong in assuming that Maged has nothing to do officially with SC?

And all of this attack vector stuff - if SC was as big as BTC, then would a 51% attack really be feasible?  I think it's a bit of apples to oranges to compare BTC to SC at the usage/acceptance rates they are experiencing is vastly different.

I really don't think what I've heard of SC describes something that I would "invest" in or follow, the solutions to the problems that SC has offered doesn't really solve the problems in an acceptable fashion.  One of the key points of BTC is it's decentralized nature - and this is one of the things SC has had to compromise to protect against a 51% attack.  That compromise alone in my mind defeats the very nature of BTC.  As a cryptocurrency SC may be very valid and may have a use, but as a decentralized cryptocurrency it does not.  Who controls these "trusted nodes"?  Why do they have trusts?  Why should I trust this unknown anonymous central authority?

I still havn't seen a single alternative BTC chain that has something useful, actually useful to offer.  BTC is hardly useful in itself right now, and yet it seems everyone is spending their energy trying to beat BTC.... I think what people need to do first is get BTC to a more generally accepted place.  If design considerations are a problem holding BTC from gaining that widespread usage, then I may try to hop on some alternative chain.  But the only reason to do that would be that chain has some sort of feature that would allow more widespread usage.  Maybe there are uses for side-by-side alt chains, but in my mind the usage cases for these things is much smaller and much more focused and niche-like.  Things like faster block generation in my mind are good for things like confirmations - near-instant confirmations.

What is it that SC has to offer feature wise that makes it so much better than BTC?  And at what cost?

I also have the ability to break some knee caps with my baseball bat, but that doesn't mean I broke any...

Yes, it was outright bullshiting and Maged was spot on.

Ask too many questions and you just might make the list...

The argument from the SolidCoin camp is that this is due to a continuous increase in the number of legitimate users, as SolidCoin continues on its trajectory to replace Bitcoin!

Soon there might be 10 

Comedy is this new centralized cryptocurrency called Solidcoin!!! LOL
Impossible to trust this.
It isn't even P2P anymore!!!
Anyway, go 4 it!

Holy shit, now there are nine japanese conspirators?

Guys this thread is just comedy gold. I think the network is going well but why does it seem to get stuck on some blocks etc. !?

It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases.

He didn't attack anything? I really don't know, and after reading this whole thread, I still don't know. No one has proven anything one way or the other, at least not clearly enough for poor ole' me to get it.

Last night price of small instance was $0.08 per hour.  400 instances would be only $32.  Amazon offers free computing time to repeat customers (I have 8000 hours of small instance time and I doubt I am what they consider a big spender).  They also offer volume discounts for major company buys.  Spot pricing was $0.025 per hour and looks like EC2 had almost 120 instances at that price (possible they could have had more earlier).  400 instances @ spot would have been $10 per hour.  Not sure where you are getting $100 per hour from? 

He may not have had 400 instances but one could easily run 400 instances for <$32 possibly even free. 

As you can see, it was good moderation. BitcoinEXpress never attacked anything. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.

It is ok to warn people of an attack. It's ok to disclose details about the attack before, during, or after the attack has been done. It is not ok lie about an attack. That's just trolling.

First off, we are taking out the trolls as we see them. Next, we don't ban people for disagreeing with us.

I understand EC2 just fine. I also understand that his company would have been charged about $100/hour for 400 instances, even on a contract (I don't know the exact amounts because he didn't say the types of instances). If I was just basing my opinion off of this thread, I would not have done anything. However, there's also the namecoin threat.

The simple reality is that his statements didn't add up.

All he needed to do was disclose his attack. He didn't. Even now there's no evidence that an attack ever happened.

Finally, I'm not even sure if he's banned. Only theymos can ban people, and he hasn't gotten back to me yet on his decision. If you look at his profile, he was at least still able to post for a hour or two after you guys started claiming that the attack was real.

What is worse:

1) A possibility of a 51% attack OR:

2) CoinHunter being the POLICE of your entire economy??! (and earning 10% of all coins to himself!!)

LOL

If you can understand English, why haven't you written the complete works of Shakespeare and Chaucer? Nice try, mongo.



The titanic isn't a good analogy. This is more like a 12' aluminum fishing boat sinking in the middle of a lake while the two drunk hillbillies in it wrestle each other over the last beer, both drowning in the process.

...you want to help, but you can't stop laughing long enough to catch your breath and swim out there.


Lastly, Maged, that was some shitty moderation.

You actually going to read any of my posts? The answer is above.

In case he refutes that's the answer Magik came up with...

This answer?
6 * (1.13^69) = 27578.0688

I give a Magik a +1 for remember the first difficulty drop and working off that 6 w/ one less transition.

Only one small problem....
Difficulty isn't 27,578 right now.  

Other than that small glitch your right, it makes perfect sense.

Speaking of that difficulty drop.... WHY DID IT HAPPEN?  The first 360 blocks occured w/ average time of 2.2 seconds per block vs target of 360 seconds yet difficulty went down.  Got an answer for that one?  Since it is so easy and nobody needs source code anyways.

I don't think it requires a common key. It does seem to require making a donation to the central fund though. Assuming anyone could participate as a trusted peer if they wanted, then you have the following dynamic.

Fork A: One hundred independent trusted peers interspersing donations between 1000 generated blocks, means 10 donations each.
Fork B: One clandestine group interspersing donations between 1000 generated blocks, means 1000 donations.

Perhaps that is the disincentive?

There were lots of invalid blocks, but only because valid blocks (thus valid SCs) were being created so fast.

On this we agree.

360. The target is 2-3 minutes (no I'm not sure what this means either, but anyone running the sc2 client can plainly see the difficulty change every 360 blocks).