Topic: delete - page 6. (Read 113473 times)

@MarkM

I have already thanked Math. And only after reading through his link understand what timewarp is. But neither you nor BCX have any understanding about it.

Further, you are claiming this coin is a scam now. You are falling on ideology when nothing by your capability can be done? It's not a scam. Scam is when early miners get into a coin and people get it last. You are the scamsters. And have no skill apart from spreading lies.

not the 'bet', but eventually someone invariably steps up and asks bcx to "shut up or put his money where his mouth is."

as to what happened last time, why do you think we're posting in this thread right now?

Math's detailed explications were unintelligible to laypeople? What grade are laypeople nowadays in your neigborhood?

Links to detailed discussions were given and so on, didn't you follow them and read the original threads they linked to?

-MarkM-

It is a pump and dump scam, the pump done by pretending it would be a viable coin and of use/value to Icelanders. The pump and dump was already long done by the time the airdrop happened, the whole airdrop and everything after it only existing to "justify" the original scamming of money out of people mislead into buying the stuff before the airdrop even happened. The fact that people even had any available to exchange, let alone that it was on an exchange, prior to the airdrop was a massive red flag screaming scam. It was all about scamming investors prior to the airdrop by pretending the airdrop would not crash the value, or that the thing was actually intedned to be a viable, secure currency Icelanders could actually trust as a ecure store of value and transfer of value mechanism going forward.

This nation coin crap is just the latest greatest scam since the IPO wave of scams.

-MarkM-

@MarkM

My request for description in layman terms of the attack. Denied.

Public wager. Denied.

I tell you what's happening here. Neither you nor BCX knows a thing beyond mining hardware configuration. BCX throws some tech mumble as he has been in Bitcoin since long without even understanding what he is talking about. You, although trying to present case about mining, also know nothing about that.

So please guys, stop pretending. And threats about attack. Come on. It's looking more and more childish. I am not writing here to correct you or BCX. But to expose the likes of you. So people don't pay any attention to threats like this again.

That's not even the point, honestly, I'm just bored.

tbh, the issue I have with this, IF (big if) AUR isn't a scam and really a cryptocurrency for Icelanders, then it's actually none of our business to meddle into those people's lifes. Why are non-Icelanders trolling, making threats, posting FUD or on the other side of the fence, shilling or showing "bag holder's" syndrome for a coin they shouldn't be speculating on, in the first place?

In other words, I saw Auroracoin and qualified it as a "laboratory rat experiment" in the very beginning and I still see signs of this. So, Icelanders were screwed by banks, now they would be by random people on the internet...

Yes,  we do. AUR is not money, 50 AUR is not worth the time it would take to compile a wallet to hold it or even to ask an exchange that lists it to provide a deposit address for it so as to use the exchange as a wallet to receive it.

Try 50 bitcoins, maybe? Or more even?

Basically though you are demanding that the attack take place. So, again, we see that fanbois will not believe their scam is vulnerable until it is proven by attacking it. Someone earlier even mentioned soem pathetic worthless crapcoin no one likely even heard of before let alone imagined might be worth attacking and claimed that the fact it had not been attacked was proof that it was invulnerable to attack.

-MarkM-

Was the bet taken? Who won?

this eventually happens in every bcx thread i've read.  

i think last time it was ltex.

Sorry, I am not that rich. It should be free money to him. Why not take this bet? I think we all know.

If you want to bet against BCX and not be ignored or be laughed at, I suggest 100 ~ 250 BTC.  

Alright, I have read enough about the topic to understand that BCX knows nothing and is incapable of causing any harm.

So I kindly request him to shut up or put his money where his mouth is.

I challenge him to wager 50 AUR in bet. He should publicly announce a deadline by which he will invalidate the blockchain. If he does that, I will pay him 50 AUR in today's BTC (as AUR will be no more). If he fails, he should pay me 50 AUR then.

Fair?

Wouldn't a simpler solution than a master checkpoint node just be to have the client limit the number of blocks overwritten when switching from a shorter fork?  Maybe 15 or so blocks, whatever number would provide the best balance between attack prevention and avoiding natural problems (if you have a natural fork that's 15 blocks long, you probably have some other problems anyway).

Or is there some reason this would be inadequate or problematic to implement?

You could also allow an option to manually choose or set a flag to override this limit to increase versatility.

This is fascinating, didn't even know mining can be consolidated from several currencies into one.
I don't want to call AUR a scam, because there are simpler ways to run a scam. They do seem to be putting in some genuine effort. All the data about Iceland is accurate, and they do seem to be distributing the currency. And this is a fun experiment, I love experiments.
Don't make things black and white people!

Is it probably the Dev will make some moneys of this? Probably
Are they actually distributing cash to Icelanders? Yeah, evidently so if you check twitter.
Is it a cool experiment? Hell yeah.

To clarify i wasn't saying the checkpoint sync system was decentralized but that the bitcoin (and all altcoin) protocol is decentralized. 

Thus trying to implement something that in a decentralized way do automatic checkpointing would be a flawed concept, because you need some way of peer agreement (and/or centralizing)

That is not a decentralised system.

Yes, it's becoming hard to understand if he is genuine, "just" biased (due to his KnC Saturn miner and being an old dev of merged mined coins), or a concern troll.

thanks for this, and for your many other informative posts. 

regarding the idea of a miner's obligation, e.g. i've been mining litecoin since i got here, i've had machines for litecoin that only do litecoin blockchain, and i've never sold a single litecoin.  however, in the intervening few months i've been here, the difficulty has gone up from 1000 to about 5700.  would you suggest that a miner is also obligated to also increase his hashrate to keep up with the increasing network difficulty? 

i'm interested in your idea that mining should ultimately be a non-profitable industry.  in the scenario where mining is a commodity industry and will eventually gravitate to areas with the cheapest overhead and electricity, how does this solve the problem of either subsidized or stolen electricity?  if some country were to offer free or near-free power to incentivise miner relocation, or if someone was able to steal electricity i'd think it would favour illegal mining/national mining at some point in the future. 

you have previously recommended p2pool and a globally distributed blockchain would make a stronger currency.  However, wouldn't the commoditisation of mining power result in consolidation, rather than distribution, in mining power?  is an oligopoly of the largest leased mining pools the best we can do in this current situation? 

Just spent the last 20 minutes catching up with this thread and fuck me, MarkM has now made me never want to use the word secu... again!

Change the record man FFS!

You sound worse than Spunknik calling Scam on anything he doesn't like the look of.

It appears the automated checkpoint system comes directly from Peercoins automated checkpoints.  Of that I am no expert, but I will give you my thoughts.  Automated checkpoints do provide an extra layer of security, but at the same time, implementing such a system requires some give and take.  The entire idea behind Bitcoin was to provide decentralization through a peer consensus, but automated checkpoints, in this sense, require centralization.  In order to take the benefit of additional security that automated checkpoints provide, I must give up some decentralization. 

As I said earlier, I am no expert, but it seems to me that centralized, automated checkpoints have a central point of failure - the master checkpoint node.  What were to happen if the master node is down?  In the instance of an attack, it could go down by means of a sustained DoS.  While the checkpoint node is down, an attacker can begin to focus on the chain.  One other thing to note is that automated checkpoints are opt-in/opt-out.  If a portion of the network refuses to partake in the automatic checkpoints, that portion relies on a herd immunity of sorts to stay with the rest of the network.

I like to think of it like this: Locking the doors and windows to my house may keep a majority of criminals out, but the determined and skilled criminal will just need more time.


Try not to get yourself confused over the difference between a hard fork and a fork in the chain, or what you may call a soft fork.  A hard fork occurs by means of a protocol update.  Essentially, the old version will not be compatible with the new version.  This is what happened with Auroracoin at block 5400.  The old client still functions, but it will not be able to sync with the version of the chain the developer and community deem valid. 

When people like BCX talk about a fork in the chain, they are not referring to a hard fork.  I think this (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain) provides a simple explanation of what a blockchain is.  If you direct your attention to the picture, you'll notice that the blockchain looks like a tree of sorts.  If we think of the current chain as the trunk of a tree, BCX has threatened to create multiple branches from that trunk.  Some clients may choose to follow one branch while other clients choose to follow a separate branch.  When competing chains exist in the wild, it is up to the developer to decide which chain is valid.  The chain may be rolled back and a checkpoint instituted. 

Forks occur every day in most blockchains, and typically this is a none issue.  This is what causes an orphaned block.  Even Bitcoin forks daily.  The issue, however, is that an attacker can release multiple chains into the wild and nobody knows which is the valid chain.  A chain can can be forked from either the last hard fork or the last checkpoint.  Without enough hash power to secure the chain, it is free reign from that point forward.