Topic: delete - page 8. (Read 113460 times)

No enough attackers with the know-how, not enough LOLs in it for them and so on.

But once bitcoin built its super hashpower and implemented merged mining new coins no longer need face that if they have even merely just enough of a good idea to get a merged mining pool set up ready to add them to its merge at launch.

Plus now, even better, supposedly proof of work is no longer even needed to secure a distributed p2p ledger so anyone can easily issue a new secure currency simply by cloning a secure no proof of work required system instead of the insanely expensive to secure, insanely hard to secure old proof of work concept. Maybe clone Ripple, or NXT, or whatever of those things does in fact work, if any of them do in fact work.

Either by merged mining or by some newfangled no proof of work needed system, launching a currency that is secure from the get-go is easily do-able nowadays.

-MarkM-

You know, bitcoin didn't originally have enough hash power to secure itself.   We should have ignored that scam coin from the getgo.

There is no reasonable basis for deliberately failing to secure it let alone to deliberately try to prevent its being secure.

Why the heck NOT secure it? How does leaving it insecure benefit anyone (and if it does, who and how)?

You are just repeating the same old "let the scam run, if it scams enough people to prove it is a scam then oh well it was a scam so what" and "if the scam scams enough out of enough people then in theory the scammers could turn over a new leaf and actually try to support the thing instead of just moving on to yet another scam".

-MarkM-

Contrary to what you may like to think, you're no more of an authority on what is a scam and what isn't than any other market participant.

That's particularly true in this case where you're basically clueless about what your talking about when it comes to the real criteria that will give value to and "secure" this coin.

So why not just leave it to "market forces" for a while and stop whining on about network security till we see what genuine commercial and social basis there is for the initiative.

so what now？

+1

Greedy noobs are the cancer of crypto-currencies.

In other words just keep churning out scams and whichever scam the public falls for will magically turn into a legitimate business enterprise, just like all those coke dealers who got rich selling cocaine to kids bought houses in nice neighborhoods had kids and now are legitimate businesspeople because they do not want cocaine being dealt to their kids in their neighborhoods.

A get rich quick scam is just the thing for launching legitimate enterprises...

Your argment is the same one the largest ponzi schemes use, they then blame the failure of their scheme on the interference by the police / law-enforcement / SEC, because the scheme would have worked fine if only it had been permitted to suck in enough money, because once enough money is sucked in any flaws in the scheme can easily be fixed by throwing money at them. Money is the "socioeconomic forces" you mention, that will magically make up for all the damage done by the broken scheme.

Even broken socioeconomic forces like the law, the law enforcement systems, the SEC and so on can be fixed if only they can be prevented from squashing the scheme before it is rich enough to "fix" such "problems" by buying lawmakers.

-MarkM-

You've got this the wrong way around.

The "masses" decide what currency they're using and following that the network will be secured. They don't decide that on the basis of technical aspects of the coin. The criteria for the success of cryptocurrency have nothing to do with network hashrate or technical security. They are socio-economic. The mining community will make sure is secures whatever currency see the most adoption through the network effect of those socio-economic forces.

That's why all the technical FUD being banded around here is largely irrelevant at the moment because we don't yet know what its fortune will be.

I will ask again, what do you think about the speculators in the Market should we round all of them up?
If you think they are essential in a market to protect it from runaway risk and moral hazard, then so do hackers, they protect IT infrastructure from runaway security holes, and make security risks into loss for those who are foolish.

It is not just hackers. Plenty of coins have fallen apart into forks simply due to their hashing power being so tiny that one person or just a few people making some silly little mistake breaks the whole consensus.

Also there should be no need for the ignorant masses to mine. It is the even more ignorant quick buck scam crowd that insists not only on mining but upon having fresh new scams daily to mine. The masses should be able to just sit back and use the world's most secure blockchains without worrying themselves at all about how it is that those particular blockchains happen to be the only secure ones. That however is undermined by floods and floods of scammers promoting the most insecure garbage possible and mouthing off about how their scam is as good as or better than an, or maybe even any, actually secure currency.

The masses are maybe even left wondering what chains they should risk, whichever scam of the day is climbing fastest on the scam exchange that promotes the most new scams the fastest, or a carefully chosen one or few of the tiny selection of coins offered by an exchange that tries really hard to only offer secure/quality coins.

(Though even such an exchange kind of undermines itself when it turns out to not be throwing off the exchange blockchains that are no longer anywhere near secure, hence the part about choose carefully even among the ones on a careful exchange...)

-MarkM-

You know the irony is if people like BCX didn't exist to attack security holes we wouldn't have to worry about it. Hackers are the bottom feeders of society and I wish more was done to round them up and put them away in federal prison for years. It's totally backwards thinking to suggest that if you want to trade in a coin, you should be mining to protect it as well. I guess if I want to use a Windows PC I should also be learning C++ and contributing daily to AVG or Norton on what viruses are out in the wild too?

since the coin is pretty much centralized, can't they interleave every one or so blocks a signed checkpoint blocks?

Fine, lets figure out a way to secure the blockchain or to get everyone out of it before it is PWNd, that would be constructive.

Unfortunately scamcoin devs seem chronically determined to prevent the blockchains from being able to be secured.

-MarkM-

It's my desire that somebody give this stuck record a nudge.

I have no desire for anything because I don't own any AUR, my only desire is to expose Operation Shitcoin as being a den of liars, cheats, hackers and sociopathic teenage boys that they are.

So it is your desire and intent that the coins remain insecure? Or is it that you have already dumped them or plan to dump them so soon/fast that it is unlikely anyone will steal them before you dump them?

-MarkM-

+1

In the absence of any substance we can expect a new all time high for the number of times the word "scam" can be crammed into a single post.

Look, at the end of the day, the Aurora dev came through on his promise and started delivering the coins. I like how the goal post has been moved from, "The dev is going to run off with and dump the premine" to "The dev and his supporters didn't secure the block chain"

What will it be next week if AUR continues to hang on or rises? I don't own any AUR but I respect a man of his word, I bet not one single member of this Operation Scamcoin cleanup would have the integrity to sit on a valuable premine and not cash out.

Not sure about that because usually toddlers do not think that throwing away their toys/valuables or losing them is a good thing, so usually I don't think toddlers think letting any idiot who comes along cripple/break their toys, steal all their goodies and so on is a good idea, so I had the impression that even toddlers think that securing their stuff, as in trying to stop other toddlers or even non-toddlers from arbitrarily running off with it without recourse, is a good idea.

They might not like the chore of putting all their toys in their toybox but do seem to prefer that the toys still be there when they want them.

So this whole 'no one cares whether their stuff is thrown all over the street with "take this stuff" written all over it' spiel seems very disingenuous.

The masses might not realise that they care about whether their money/wealth is secure, but watch how they react when their determined refusal to secure it or even to allow it to be secured results in their losing it...

In fact I have seen claims posted in other sections of these forums - sections other than this "scamcoin section" - claiming that cryptocurrency is useless and un-useable for normal people precisely because it is not secure enough for normal people to use, they constantly keep losing coins due to their own carelessness, irresponsibility, ineptness, ignorance, laziness, inattention and so on. Demanding that blockchains themselves be insecure though seems a pinnacle of ineptness - well, more like idiocy really - not normally encountered outside this "scamcoin section" of the forums.

-MarkM-

Whatever the merits or otherwise of his points, thankfully it isn't a couple of cryptocurrency naval-gazing anoraks - nor their 'hangers on' - who will decide the fate of this coin.

Nor will it be down to whether it's a "clone" or an "original".

Nobody who actually ends up using it is going to give 2 flying turkeys about network hash, source code, retargeting interval or what the F*ck a "premine" is. They're getting them for free anyway so it's not them who are being 'scammed'.

It will be down to commercial, political and social issues which most of the snarling cryptocoin trainspotters on here are clueless about and if it's successful on that basis then none of the technical FUD being thrown around here will matter.