Topic: delete - page 4. (Read 9592 times)

Thats based off of historical facts.

I'm asking the rational of the protocol.  Why mining as a means of distribution?

Don't you think CoinHunter has alot more to loose by not pre-coding that clause into the code, and proving people like you wrong?

I see nothing.. Only you talking, nothing more, no proof whatsoever...


Your sarcasm detector is broken, dude... Was that caused by an imaginary BCX attack on your sarcasm neural network?

My weather attack:
1. Season knowledge
2. I said it was going to snow in the winter, right before it did
3. At one point it was very clear that this was because of the low temperature
4. In the spring I raised temperature again, and it stopped to snow!

Remember these trusted nodes also MINE as well . If no one else is mining the difficulty stays low and they eat a bigger chunk of the pie.

^ and I wasn't

Edit: you'd known that if you looked at who i quoted instead of removing it

That decision is up to the public, if they would rather buy the coins instead of mine them, then they are free to do so.

Just forget about Solidcoin 2.0... Let people will realize by themselves that this is crap...  ;-)

Let's make the Bitcoin better and better!!

Forget about SC2 BCX!

Also if someone could tell me the 'why' of mining in SC 2.0 - if protection has already been achieved with the 'trusted nodes', why have 'the public' waste all that electricity mining?  Why is distribution still through mining?

Are you talking about BCX attacks on Solidcoin 2.0?
How do you know they happened?

Lure yourself out of this one...

Has the code been reviewed by an "independent third party", no it has not. The public will have to wait until the scheduled source release this weekend.

We know because he said so =O
but we really don't KNOW

If you did that yes, but that part is not "very easy". You are talking about denying thousands of nodes instead of mere 10. It's just a matter of scale. The point is not if these networks can survive in their infancy, it's about which technology will be more resilient when they are big enough. That's why BCX's attack is not very useful at proving the point as well. When controlling these networks will be worth enough, DDOS will work for neither, just like DDOS'ing paypal wouldn't. The only point to be made, which is enough in my opinion, is that fewer points of failure is worse in principle. There is nothing stopping powerful entities from physically intervening with these nodes. I wouldn't want my money to be subject to the judgement of a few controlling entities.

Think of it this way... You could create a network of issuers and servers with OpenTransactions. Let's say, there are tens of these. There can be proxies and whatnot to protect their privacy, so the same methods apply. This way, you don't need to waste electricity on proof-of-work at all, and get the same protection of integrity. There are no 51% attacks. No more being subject to the "unfair distribution" argument as well. Distribute the money with free development bounties, so that all will be earned by hard work and issuers won't unjustly make money off of the currency itself. How is this not better?

Yes, if anyone gets around to answering my distribution question above:  How do ya'll all know this?  Is this what the source says, or just what CH says (honest question)

Yes and to add to this point if you go under 1,000,000 you automatically loose super-node status.

You have it wrong, only the original 10 trusted node's wallets can't be spent on the network.

He has hardcoded the addresses of the premined trusted nodes... These can't be spent, but every other address with 1mio+ can act as a trusted node if they want and also spend their coins.

Even if you could DDoS a lot of the users on btc, its not a long term issue, eventually you wont have enough computers to take down a lot of the users on the network.

see edit above