Topic: delete (Read 6006 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.

Actually, it's not. The reality is, pools are collections of members. 10's of thousands of members. If the members don't like the change, they can switch to other pools, p2pool, or even solo mining. Pool ops cannot force any change on anybody.

For example, if deepbit decided to double the fee they charge, their hashrate would plummet as miners moved to other pools. If deepbit started running code that gave them 1 billion coins, the miners would switch to other pools and invalidate deepbit's bogus blocks.

Keep spewing your lies and we'll keep smacking you down for it.

Ok so lets revise this. BTCGuild, deepbit and slush and mtgox are needed to force any change onto the bitcoin users. That's 4 people. You may say it's a stretch just like I say it's a stretch I and the other 9 trust account holders want to ruin SolidCoin and scam thousands of users.

So that's falsehood #1 from you.



If the major pools and the exchange which 96% of trade goes through accepts something the "original" bitcoin is now worthless. Also due to having central control of the main download points, soon enough most people will be on the new version.


Except they can do whatever they want. They may not be able to get "Deathandtaxes" running their "special brew" but they can get the people that matter on it and thereby make your "old" Bitcoins useless. Just like with the multisig change.


Yes you do, this multisig change provides a look into how any real update will be forced on you. If you don't want that at all, too bad, it's coming in. Go mine the "original bitcoin" with your 5 pals and see how valuable it is.

The weak arguments you use against SC can easily be applied to Bitcoin. In both cases you have just a handful of people able to control the source code and the network.  At least in SolidCoins case the trust nodes cannot double spend attack the network (Bitcoins trust nodes can).

1) Took the number from a post here..
2) Isnt that a problem? Imagine some big company would really start mining SLC - so generation increases more and more till 1000000 is only a fraction of the whole thing giving everyone a chance of getting a trusted note with a $value of less then a few bucks...
3) With no companies currently working with SLC i have to assume a miner is the most likely user to get that status.

that's the point, right?
"to protect the business" not the miner?

 

LOLZ.  Your sovereign Lord RealScam made sure that day is never happening.  ShortBusCoin generates 0.07 SC per block or 50 SC per day.  Less than 20,000 coins per year.  Unless you think anyone is going to have >10% of the global "wealth" it would take at least 30 years before there is any "natural trust node".  Of course with enforcer nodes only the strongest matters.  So having 1 million coins would simply allow King RealScam to over rule you with 1.01 million coins (or 2, or 5, or 10 million).

Lets crunch some numbers:
You need 1000000 coins to become a trusted node
Current payout per block is 0.0501 SC per block, right? So for a _new_ user to get the Status of a trusted note it would take 1996008 solo mined blocks. If you say that it takes in average 1min for a new real block to spawn it takes a solo miner 3.79 years straight to reach 1mil coins - that is if he finds every block in that timeframe.

For a regular user using a gpu miner and some good cpu to reach 180kh it takes 1000000 days or 2740 years to get the status of a trusted node. (I hope the math is right..)

If the above is right - who will ever get a trusted node status? Or ARE you really giving the older users a bonus hence doing what you ever claim not to: Being plain and stupid unfair towards new users.

let me guess, the world will end first before it happens?

When the day comes that we have many natural trust nodes, the original 10 trust wallets could be "destroyed" for everyone to see, by creating a regular trust tx but then setting the output of the tx to zero, and then have a special node mine them into a block where the generate tx of that block was for the regular amount. This would cause the coins that would have normally been considered a tx fee to simply be lost instead. And the entire world can verify they are now gone.

A lie.  

Falsehood #1:
"ensure Deepbit (trust node 1) , btcguild (trust node2)"

Truth:
Deepbit + btcguild don't have 51% of hashing power and as p2pool grows hopefully soon the top 3 pools will be <51%.  

Difference with ScamCoin:
You don't need support of anyone.  Getting 2 or 3 major pools plus largest exchange to do along with a scam that personally affects them also is a stretch.  You convincing yourself is a little easier (as evident by your numerous protocol changes which have only benefited you).

Falsehood #2:
"and mtgox accept the change"

Truth:
Even if 51% of miners agree on a change it will be a fork of the network.  The real (non billion btc block) Bitcoin will continue to exist.  The developers and their co-conspirators can't prevent existing Bitcoin from operating and likely the new "false" Bitcoin won't have any real support.  MtGox (and major pools) would suffer massively and their only compensation would be nearly worthless alt-bitcoins.  MtGox isn't essential for Bitcoin but Bitcoin is essential for MtGox.

Differences with ScamCoin:
Not only can you alter ScamCoin by royal decree you can also ensure the original fork dies off (via use of enforcer nodes).  This ensures users have absolutely no choice but to accept your changes.  Not doing so causes any ScamCoin holdings to "vanish".


No if you read the source code you will see theres a limit on how much can be transferred, and that's only 5% of a user block, per trust block. So we're talking millions of years at current rates before they would be transferred. They also are unusable in that manner once they drop under 1 million (trust node threshold), so the total amount possible to be given to CPF is 200K * 10 or 2 million, and at current rates that would take thousands of years.

Exactly.


Except they can't.  


The whole implicit trust thing.  I don't need to trust the developers of Bitcoin to do the "right thing" because it is outside their control.  ScamCoin is absolutely controlled by you and you have done numerous things so hurt it.   Someone can negatively affect something through intent/malice ("I am going to hack this system") or through disprortionate gain ("I am going to sell off my online game to some hearless company like Sony") or through ignorance ("hey let me make the coinz go up by cutting reward 80%.  Didn't work?  lets try 99.9%").   Even if you were driven to not intentionally damage the value of ScamCoin you can (and have) still damage it by ignorance and greed.


The only useful and honest thing you have said in last month or so.

I dont believe there are any solidcoins in existence

If you ever fall out of favour with the mafia they block your node so you may as well kiss all your coins goodbye in any case. AVOID. I'll be pushing for CH to get a scammer label on his forum account.

And if they don't agree to your forced changes, you can revoke their accounts because you have the private keys to those wallets. They are nothing but shills.

You're such a liar. The Bitcoin devs have no control over what users/miners run.

Paid me? That's hilarious. The people who have trust nodes have invested time and money into SolidCoin (not me personally), given the protection system in place they are the best people to ensure SolidCoin remains protected until we get completely unknown trust nodes.

Your same argument can be applied to "mining nodes". You may say anyone can become a mining node on Bitcoin, I can say anyone can become a trusted node in SolidCoin. It's just a matter of scale. Mining nodes in Bitcoin have more power than nodes that just do transactions! Sounds like centralization there!


10 largest banks? All the trusted nodes do is ensure no double spends occur. Even if you have a trusted node you cannot do a double spend (unlike Bitcoins trusted node system called pools which can).

Your analogies are way off base with trying to represent SolidCoin as federal or centralized. You just don't understand how it works. Just because some people are allowed to mine the "worthless" even blocks on the SolidCoin network doesn't mean you can't obtain that "power" yourself. If you truly believe what you write then you would see the exact thing applies to Bitcoin pools. If you counter with "there is p2pool" it still doesn't change the fact that right now Bitcoin is a "Federal bank" under your narrow definitions.

You mean the account holders that you appointed after they paid you?  No room for corruption there...    Just how many of them are there?  Who are they?  You've stated that there are 10 trusted nodes, so does this mean there are 10 machines with 1 man, or 1 machine for 10 men?  Do they get a special client or something?  Can you see how these are important questions only if the currency is centralized, like you say it isn't?

You may say that you've solved the 51% attack problem, but all you've done is mimicked the exact system you're attempting to replace.  You're the Federal Reserve chairman and your "trusted nodes" are the 10 largest private banks.  Get it?  You're not decentralized.  The fact that information is exchanged from SolidCoin peer to SolidCoin peer no more makes your currency decentralized than this forum, where I can type in a post, and it gets to you if you click on the topic.  See how we're talking to each other?  What a revolution in decentralized forum peer to peer software!  (Please ignore the closed source, privately owned and operated middleman.)

Yes except I would have to convince the other trust account holders to agree to such a forking change, just like the Bitcoin devs would with mtgox and deepbit. Your mistake is that you think I'm the sole developer and sole trust account holder.

It's also possible for anyone to become a trust node. We don't have a trust node which isn't coming from one of the initial 10 "trust accounts" yet but no one is stopping anyone from becoming one and this is a part of the network security.

I don't think the word "force" means what you think it means.  Force means, "Do what I say or suffer the consequences."  So if the sole developer of SolidCoin decided to spend those "unspendable coins" with an update that everyone must use, or be prevented from spending the coins, that is force.  "Update to the new code, validating my actions, or make your own coins worthless."  That's force.

Should the Bitcoin developers decide to write a block with a billion coins, they cannot do what you can do.  They must convince the top pools to accept the block.  If they don't want to accept the block, there are no consequences.  Saying the Bitcoin developers can force others to do something is like saying I am forcing you to wear black socks instead of white by the mere suggestion.

Bitcoin - Do something you don't want to do.

SolidCoin - Do something you don't want to do, or else I will get you!

See the difference?

Yes this is possible. Just like it's possible for Bitcoin developers to force a special block into the network to give them a billion coins. Doesn't mean either will happen. All the Bitcoin developers need to do is ensure Deepbit (trust node 1) , btcguild (trust node2) and mtgox accept the change. Not much difference between our networks from that perspective.


No if you read the source code you will see theres a limit on how much can be transferred, and that's only 5% of a user block, per trust block. So we're talking millions of years at current rates before they would be transferred. They also are unusable in that manner once they drop under 1 million (trust node threshold), so the total amount possible to be given to CPF is 200K * 10 or 2 million, and at current rates that would take thousands of years.

Acting like I can flip a switch and make those coins spendable is a laugh. I could flick a switch and do anything I wanted with the source code, just like the Bitcoin developers could. I have no reason to do so though as it would hurt SolidCoin, just like they likely won't for the same reasons.

The development process is centralized, this is nothing new and even applies to Bitcoin. If you don't trust me or the other SolidCoin developers, stay away from SolidCoin. If you care to educate yourself, read our myths page.

http://solidcoin.info/myths.html

The protocol isn't changing so they are still needed, v3.0 of SolidCoin is still compatible with v2.04.

Since those trust accounts can't be spent (can easily be verified in source code in block.cpp and transactions.cpp) it's not really an issue if they ever become unneeded for protecting the network. They'll just simply sit there , forever unused in that case.

delete