Topic: delete - page 3. (Read 6393 times)

I'm inclined to specifically agree with the bold portion of your post.  The developers have attempted to thwart an attack by reducing the median time-stamp from 11 blocks to 3 blocks and by reducing the time-stamp to current time difference from 2 hours to 20 minutes.  I still think this chain is vulnerable to an attack.  These preventative measures do make it more difficult to attack the chain by increasing the amount of time an attacker must spend building his own chain, but one must remember, an attacker will be working outside of time when he builds his chain.  In essence, he has all the time he needs.  If you combine a coordinated effort to make pools inaccessible with the assumption that most miners do not have multiple pools or solo-mining set as a back-up, this chain is still highly vulnerable.  Prove me wrong.

You are saying 99% is the same as 0%. Again, come back when you find perfection.

That's a brilliant idea, and before long we might see a coin that does something like that.

That's ridiculous semantics.  You've already said you don't care how they choose the coin you destroy.  Well, they choose through extortion.  Whoever doesn't pay.

They rely on you to carry out the plan.  You unleash on the chosen coin, and you've already said that whichever they choose is fine with you and you don't need a reason.

It's absurd to claim that you are not part of the extortion plot just because you are not the one receiving the money.  

i agree.  but who ddossed a service/pool?

the blockchain is designed to be mined.  and KGW implementation is designed to foil certain types of mining.  there is a flaw in KGW, that was being investigated in vivo.   By creating a blockchain-based currency, the developers are inviting everyone to mine it, however they want with whatever equipment they have.  

the currency's design should account for possible exploits, and potential investors should be given as much information.  if the development team is going forward with a flawed KGW implementation, then everyone should know this.

you claims "ddossing pools/services... trying to wreck coins":  my opinion is the auroracoin developers wrecked their own coin by using a blockchain design they could not secure, and using an anti-switching-pool technology they didn't completely understand.  they were worrying about a couple of coin-switching pools when they should have been getting their shit together.  remember at one point this house of cards was protecting close to $300,000,000 in "market cap".    

On that I agree entirely. I suggested education and discussion as alternatives to destroying coins in that shitcoin killing thread.

Discussion is fine and should be encouraged.

But  ddossing pools/services and trying to wreck coins, based on a suspicion, isn't right to me. I'm not even quite sure of the legality of ddossing services/pools -- guess it depends on what nation it originates from.

I see...

Regarding bad exchanges, yes, I missed that one. Perhaps also miners don't think much about mining a scam coin as long as is the most profitable, as I did before when I was clueless or when I didn't care about looking. Also some kinds of coin pumping in this forum. Nobody is innocent here. But things must change or we're all screwed.

there's also absolutely no reason to stop discussion about a possible scam.  in fact, we should be encouraging a debate and discussion, and a free exchange of information.  the only side that wanted to stop discussion was the pro-auroracoin side, not the skeptics. 

there is also nothing wrong to warn people the currency's fundamentals are flawed.

for investments sunlight is the best disinfectant.  

Well, my point posting in this thread was simply the fact that the AUR dev may not be committing a scam, and it's wrong to take action just based on suspicion.

Personally, I think the scene is dying not because of junkcoins, IPO scams, or any of that. It's bad exchanges. But that is a different discussion.

I see you added this after my reply, so will respond:


I stated there was an extortion claim in that shitcoin thread. I said those who promoted that movement should have dispelled it. That is all I claimed. I didn't say BCX was taking money, here, or anywhere else.

I think it would be better to have BCX test and potentially destroy a scam/shit coin since he does so with no malicious intent of profiting for said tests.

To me it just sounds like all these whining supporters would rather risk someone else coming along and pwning them all in the face for profit or God forbid risk the fact that the dev himself is pwning them in the face for financial gain.

I said this week's ago but it deserves to be said again. The Air Drop is a perfect laundering mechanism to scam with. You Air Drop a few coins to your targeted audience and Air Drop the rest into your own random wallet addresses. The fact that the Air Drop will take a year or longer just sweetens this much more because it gives the scammer enough time to launder and dump at a controlled rate and simply blame the targeted audience for the dump.

This isn't working entirely too well for the dev if he is in fact laundering the pre-mined coins and dumping though (which seems the most likely of all scenarios). The network has recently been taking a crap on itself and taking upward 9-10 hours per block (this coupled with the fact there there still isn't any real liquidity in AUR makes it near impossible to dump large amounts of AUR without completely killing the coin), there isn't any real infrastructure that provides services in exchange for AUR even in Iceland (it's targeted audience. And no, a guy trading a used car for AUR is not infrastructure) and this just lowers the value of AUR and people are finally starting to realize it now, hence the drop to $2.73.

Once block 5400 comes. I truly hope BCX does test the exploit out on AUR. If the exploit is successful then AUR deserves what it gets regardless of any good perceived intentions by any of it's supporters (the road to hell is paved in good intentions). If it somehow survives in some sort of crippled state then it should be left in the hands of the Icelandic people to pick up the pieces (they want to use it as their currency, then so be it; they can have it, they can mine and support it to secure the blockchain themselves). I still don't understand why anyone here would want to give the Icelandic people money from their pockets instead of letting the Icelandic people themselves put money into AUR and give it value.

Damn I lost my previous reply! Just to say 2 things:

- People should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but cryptos are a trustless system, there shouldn't even be someone that can or cannot be accused in the first place. As I said before, this distribution should be algorithmic, not someone holding 50% premine.
- IPO's, scams, large premines, coin cloning for dumping at exchanges, instamines with loopsided block subsidy abound. It is in this context that we are talking about. Yes, the Aurora devs may be honest, but that is the exception. The fact that we still have to trust someone and cannot do anything against scammers is why is the scene is dying.

Edit: regarding extortion claims, you were unable to back up with facts. So if you brought up the hypocrisy argument, put you also a rest to the accusation

you're confusing perfection with transparency.

not asking for perfection.  bitcoin QT is at 0.9.0, and it will continue to iterate.  

security through obscurity, like you are justifying the obscurement of essential details of the coin, is no security at all.  

Someone in another thread said a while back, if you want perfection, let us know when you find it (or something like that). At some point you just have to take the step and do it.

If you note, I didn't say that members of that group will definitely extort anyone, just that the actions they should have taken to dismiss the claims that someone there made. Personally, I think anyone would have to be really dumb to post criminal intent on a public board, and then actually commit the crime. I also mentioned twice in this thread that BCX has stated he won't accept money from any extortion.

But you do bring up one interesting point -- a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty, correct? The burden of proof is not on the accused... your own words.

Yet BCX is not heeding those words in regard to the AUR dev. He is assuming the accused (AUR dev) is guilty. Before any scam is committed. Before any wrongdoing is proven. It just looks fishy, so must be a scam.

Two wrongs don't make a right, which again, is why I didn't say BCX is taking any money. It's just hypocritical to say in one instance the burden of proof is not on the accused, and in the other to say a person is guilty, because they can't prove their innocence.

Exactly.

Perhaps some should have dismissed the claims to clarify the situation yes, but the burden of proof is not on the accused! If I'm accused of something on any context, I expect evidence of it, not making the uphill effort to struggle against B.S. accusations.

So, back up your accusation with facts, and quote posts of WHO exactly agrees with extortion. The ones you can't, are not to be throw mud at. Perhaps you can claim "hidden agenda" or "you also made shitcoins in the past", etc... which you also would have to prove as fact or be relevant  to the discussion, but not extortion

My only issue with this coin is the blatent disregard for fixing KNOWN security flaws pre airdrop. If it wasnt BTX then it would of been anyone else. This is not a good launch.

Not everyone extorts people for a payment

If I'm not mistaken, you BCX, have the resources and knowledge to set up your own test platforms. Why  would you use a coin people care about and not your own?

Auroracoin and it's idea is one of those projects against political will, until the breaking point, where enough people gets educated and politicians need to obey as they should.
It is a wise thing to remain anonymous for the time being.

Sometimes you have to believe in someone. Give it a try. But risk accordingly.

I don't see why you should be the judge of what currency (lives or) dies along with some people dreams/scam.

Is there some?

The problem was the fact that almost nobody who organized that group or promoted it, dispelled the notion of extortion either. BCX did, which is why I said he stated he wouldn't accept any money. It doesn't mean we know who that newbie actually was, if he was a puppet, or whatever.

The way promoters of that thread should have acted was to dismiss the extortion claims outright.