Topic: delete - page 3. (Read 6042 times)

Ok and say the fork happens and people have been trading on Mtgox and want to switch. Except now the old chain doesn't support their new coins. Oops.


What you call scambits others would call "Progression". What if there were opponents to the multisig (perhaps there are), are they going to convince everyone to mine the "non scambit coin" ?



You say its highly implausible, but it's possible. So you don't really have a good point, it's just subjective to say one is harder than the other, both are possible.


That's incorrect because I'm not the only trust account holder. I can't "undo" any of the keys given out unless the source is changed, and then SolidCoin would lose some key people that are important to the project. They would also then be able to continue the existing chain. So support for any change has to come from all of us with the trust accounts, any future trust nodes and the users themselves. None of the major SolidCoin changes have made any existing SolidCoin holders worse off, they have all benefited them and I think that's what people can expect going forward.


Again that's a fallacy with no supporting evidence that you choose to believe. You are in denial about the hold a handful of people have over Bitcoin, it's not this "decentralized" freedom you actually think it is. Furthermore if the "idiots" outweigh you, and "Democracy wins" then that is valid in the Bitcoin system and you have to eat it. Basically if over 50% of the mining power (that miners have chosen to support in deepbit, slush and btcguild) support something, then you should support it too. That's democracy! So let's see how that works out for you when those people want something you don't. It's going to happen, sooner or later.

At least with SolidCoin we clearly define our goals and what we are going to do. If you don't like that then you can make a choice up front. And even if you don't like some aspects of SolidCoin, if you were reasonable and not biased you can admit we do some things better than Bitcoin and are moving further forward than they are on those fronts. I think your posts come out of fear, you realize SolidCoin could take hold, which is why you go to extraordinary lengths to post FUD and get all "angry" about it.

tl;dr

Satoshi developed Bitcoin by himself, one person made most of the rules and people got on board. The initial development process wasn't "open source" it wasn't "decentralized" and yet he managed to do something fairly decent. Perhaps it's better not to have "too many cooks" in the kitchen when it comes to protocol and economic decisions. Provided the people doing the designing are intelligent and factor in as much as possible you will not get more out of an alternate model. You just get more bureaucracy and pointless fights ala multisig in Bitcoin.

If you're against the existing financial system, against government control of your finances, then you will like SolidCoin. That's what we are working towards. Quite simple.

In your biased opinion.

Mt Gox has most of the traffic because there is no compelling reason to use any other exchange.  I would say a hostile takeover and 99.9% devaluation of all coins would be a good reason for people to switch. 

Most users wouldn't even notice the "fork".  They would see hashing power fall by half as 50% of the network goes to mint ScamBits but their Bitcoins would continue to exist, could be traded and would be hashed into blocks by remaining miners.

Your other fallacy is thinking Tycho controls the 3 TH of his miners.  Facing a scam alt fork, and massive devaluation of their coins and revenue miners would simply switch.

So even under your highly implausible scenario where developers, 3 major pools, and largest exchange all conspire to destroy their own wealth Bitcoin would still continue.  Yes the original chain is Bitcoin.

With ShortBusCoins the original chain can't continue.  You have ensured that both with enforcer nodes AND with non closed source license on the source code.  Thus your control is absolute and completely centralized.

If you decided to give yourself 1 billion coins, or cut the block reward 99%, or ensure nobody else will be an enforcer node for next couple centuries you could and there is nothing absolutely nothing anyone else can do about it.  The irony is two of those three scenarios have already happened.  You have proved how absolute your control is.

Yes but very few exchanges would want to be incompatible with the "Mtgox network", so you would think most would change to whatever the 4 important people do. Not saying all would necessarily convert but you'd think most would. All that has to happen is Mtgox does and the old network essentially loses 99% of its value overnight.

I prefer btc-e.com myself, so yup, I couldn't care less what mtgox does. Once they allowed their password database to get hacked I swore them off forever. You can find lots of other exchanges at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade#Real-time_Trading

And if mtgox supports the new chain and you don't? You think 95% of the trade market is going to just move like liquid into another exchange that operates on the old rules? You think these other exchanges could even handle the load that mtgox has optimized itself for? Most people who use Bitcoin don't even understand how it works and will accept anything the developers tell them is good for them."Guys we need to put a special block in to give the development team more funds so we can continue to improve Bitcoin" - Most people go "yay that's good".

Just admit it, bitcoin is controlled by only a handful of people, you can try to wish that it was different as much as you like but it doesn't change the reality.