Topic: Does RealSolid manipulate the vote that could make him step down? (Read 2518 times)

It's guaranteed that when the exchange rate is high enough, he's going to cash out as many coins as possible. He'll justify it in his mind by saying he's worked thousands of hours for free, the chain owes him even more than that, because he's one of the valuable programmers in the world.

You can make those coins spendable with a single client update. Saying you won't is just asking us to trust that you won't ever do it.  Soiledcoin just boils down to asking people to trust a pathological liar with multiple personality disorder.

lmao

"just have faith"
some people are just gullible for things..i guess.

that's a good way to scam someone.

TL/DR:  The stupidest part is the claim it would require breaking changes to protocol is false, granted it is a horrible excuse and KingRealScam hasn't worried about breaking protocol changes that transfered wealth from others to himself but the excuse isn't even factual.


Long version:
Personally I don't like this kind of centralization but lets say you wanted/needed the trust nodes of ScamCoin but done in a nonscammy cryptographically secure methods which eliminates the need for single absolute control and massive premine.

1 ) Pick x people (could be 10 like in ScamCoin but the # could be open to public debate) to be "trustees".  This is the part most manipulatable but if x is relatively large it reduces the risk.  Some of those x entities could be pseudo random (lottery) to prevent concentration of power and seleciton bias issues.  The key thing is a public open, and honest discussion.  Satoshi took a year from his whitepaper to the genesis block and took advice, corrections, and improvements over that timeframe.  Granted the community was much smaller but it was a public development.

2 ) Have those trustees (not a single person) privately and securely (offline computer, live distro) generate a public/private key pair (the exact method isn't important it could be as simple as a regular ECC public/private keypair).

3 ) Those x people (trustees) now publicly publish their PUBLIC KEY.  Developer(s) will include them in the genesis block.  The protocol is now protected by x trust nodes but no single entity has control over more than 1 of them.  If x is relatively large it would require significant collusion to force any undesirable changes on the network.  No doubt it is centralization but I will take centralization in hands of 20-30 unaligned parties than centralization in the hands of an all powerful tyrant any day.

4 ) We will call the x initial trust nodes "transition trust nodes" due to their limited nature and lifespan.  The protocol is written so that clients maintain a list of current trust node public keys and use them to verify any trust node blocks.   This will require a public list of trust nodes with timestamped irrevocable changes.  Hmm where could we put that?  Oh yeah the blockchain.

5 ) Written into the protocol is criteria for "native trust nodes".  It could be 1 million coins, or it could be x% of outstanding coins.  The cutoff could change based on the block #.  These rules can be debated publicly and openly before the genesis block.  Changing those rules after launch would require collusion among 51% of trustees.  

6 ) Wait CoinHunter/RealSolid says there is no method to handle transition to "native trust" nodes unless it involves coins.  This is beyond foolish.   Each node that meets criteria for trust node (see #5) would use a transaction to elevate itself and announce its public "trust key" to the network.  Once included in a block, clients on the network will see this and update their list of trusted nodes.  To avoid issues with re-orgs the elevation could be delayed 120 blocks just like generated coins are.  The protocol (once again public and open debate) would include rules that allow native nodes to supersede transition nodes.  So if the # of trust nodes is y and y is > x then (y-x) trust nodes are deactivated.  Since clients follow the rules of the protocol without any breaking change they can simply mark transition nodes as disabled by predetermined rules.  As one new native trust nodes comes online it will displace a single transition trust node.   When there are x ACTIVE "native" trust nodes none of the transition trust nodes have any effect.

7 ) When 1 native node comes online the method to determine which transition trust nodes to displace should also be open and public.  It could be deterministic random (based on combining the x public keys), it could be realtime random (based on a future block after native nodes goes online).  It could be predetermined by the community with those having the most interest staying "live" the longest and hardcoded by a priority value in the public key (clients would disable nodes in order of priority).

8 ) Once all "transition" trust nodes have been permanently disabled, the relevant portions of the codebase could be deprecated and updated version of client issued which reduce the code footprint.

Optional ways to improve the system further:
A) Have revocation codes.  Similar to SSL.  Each trust node could generate at time of creation a cryptographically secure revocation code.  If the trust node is ever compromised the owner could issue a transaction to the block chain signed by the revokation code which permanently kills that trust node.  Much like SSL revocation once it propagates the blockchain and network, any compromised node becomes useless to an attacker.  As long as all x initial nodes aren't compromised they system can still function even w/ some nodes revoked.  When the client detects a block with one of these revocation transactions it will update its internal list of trust nodes to exclude the compromised ones.

B) Allow transferring trust nodes cryptographically.  KingRealScam says he gave access to the private keys.  Of course this requires implicit trust which is asinine is a cryptocurrency.  Even if he DID give the private keys he still retains them and could use them.  One could build into the protocol a transaction in the block chain which would allow transferring control of a transition trust node permanently and irrevocably.  When the client detects a block containing one of these "transfer" transactions it will update its list of transition trust nodes, adding the public key of the new node and and ignore commands from old node going forward.

C) Have a hard block # of transition trust node termination.  The use of trust nodes should be a community decision.  If nobody wants them the transition trust nodes shouldn't stay in power forever.  So after block z the hardcoded nodes simply cease to have any function.  Alternatively one could have it that every z blocks one node is permanently disabled.  This created an situation where native nodes must eventually "step up".  Today if Bitcoin had a system like this I would imagine an entity like Bitpay, or MtGox would step up and pay the cost of being a trust node simply because they have a lot to lose if Bitcoin goes down.  Having a termination date/block prevents allowing the network to be secured by the initial group forever.

D) Financial compensation for transition trust nodes.  To provide compensation for service in protecting the network during the early blocks a "retirement" payment (generated from ungenerated coins) could be the output of the transaction that shuts down a transition trust node.  Thus operators have an incentive to safeguard the network to collect their retirement.

E) Blockchain generating trust nodes.  Have trust node private keys generated deterministic and randomly by block signing.  One implementation (obviously parameters should be studied and analyzed) every 1000 blocks if the block hash is above some "super difficulty" threshold then the public key in the coinbase (or largest if multiple exist) is elevated to a trust nodes.  Clients detecting this will add this public key to their internal list of trust nodes.  By having it occur only every x blocks prevents working in private to guarantee a trust node key.  The logic being that while an attacker may by chance gain one trust node key it won't gain 51% of them randomly.  Having the trust node keys generated only every 1000 blocks and at higher difficulty puts an upper limit on number of keys that can be generated this way.  Bitcoin for example would only have 167 trust keys.    If the "super difficulty" was 10x normal difficulty then on average only 16.7 would have been generated so far.  To further protect this one would make a minimum "super difficulty" (say 1 million so that even if difficulty is 1 then super difficulty is still 1 million).

Had KingRealScam decided to make SolidCoin open and public these kinds of alternatives could have been discussed.  His "rational" is that secrecy was necessary.  Security through obscurity is no security at all.  WEP, CSS, GSM were all kept secret to make them secure and all were flawed implementations.

Once again I don't like the centralization this created but a system that was
a) allowed cryptographically secure transfers
b) ensures no single party has access to all "control codes"
c) doesn't involve millions of coins

is obviously superior to a system that
a) has no verifiable way to transfer ownership/control
b) ensures a single party will retain access to all "control codes" into perpetuity.
c) has the trust issue of millions of coins.  Even people with good intentions can be tempted/corrupted.

if you can change the code to make the 12mil spendable, then they are not unspendable

You are trying make us to belive that extra-coding to make coins unspadable is lower overhead to make just trust nodes without any coins ?
Ah ... i understand... the "bugs in code making this coins spendable are very nice for you" ... that's why ....
Well sure ... one day you are spending it after new "security update" or "new economic changes" update you'll claim  "Ah our nice comunity had a trust in XXX and this XXX missused our trust and dumped all 1.200.000 coins ... ah ah he is such bad person" ... but the real thing will be YOU will be spending this coins and YOU will be person XXX.

No that's just what an idiot thinks. Either you don't have the brainpower to understand how SolidCoin works or you are deliberately being obtuse to serve some other purpose. If you think 12 million coins that can't be spent is "holding it back" then you shouldn't use any cryptocurrency because it is software and it can be changed! You need to leave the "big time thinking" to the people that can understand it and just have faith. You seem to have faith in Bitcoin for whatever reason, good, stick with it, see how you go.

I guess the answer is:


He thinks that this solution is better because it doesn't require a code change to eliminate the 10 trusted nodes when they are no longer needed. Oh no! Not a code change. There's no way RealSolid can force that on everyone!

And the 12 million spendable coins hovering over everyone's heads is whats holding Solidcoin back...

No matter how you slice it, there are 12 million coins that can be used at any time to scam the entire user base.

Haha, "dude there is like this code that is open source, simple copy-paste job". Well you just outed yourself as NOT A PROGRAMMER. Let's keep listening to you the moron about programming should we? No let's not.


If a theoretical forceful change did harm the network then other people could easily resume the network from a prior point WITH NEW KEYS. It's hilarious to think that you believe RealSolid could scam other people and simultaneously claim a license hold over the project! hint: it's only one or the other.

Bitcoin devs could easily change whatever they wanted and force the people that matter onto that route. You believing otherwise is what we call delusion.


Look what you did there you made a pun, "soiled coin devs use it loosely". Real mature kid. Idiots like you with the brain the size of a pea and the damaged self image of columbine loner are what is helping bring Bitcoin down. Thanks for making our job easier.

So that is why you shut down the mined block rewards, to prevent any one else from getting enforcer nodes. BWT, web of trust isn't a slogan or keyword. It is in fact what PGP authentication was originally based on and you could have just cut and paste that code (after removing all the licenses and claiming it as your own work of course). No wonder the Bitcoin devs didn't give you the time of day.


You can force changes on the Solidcoin network with code updates and people have to upgrade or your enforcer nodes shut them out of the network. That is what the enforcer nodes are there for, to "protect" the solidcoin blockchain from undesirables. Bitcoin has no such capability, they require the community support to make protocol changes. If the community doesn't use the new version, the changes cannot be forced on them by a single meglo-maniacal agent.


The Soiledcoin "devs" (and I used that word loosely) are on the same page because you hold all the keys and they know it. They have 1.2 million coins, they just keep their mouths shut and wait for the pump and hope they get in on the dump. No shit they don't disagree with anything you say. Plus, anyone who ever disagreed with you has already been run off anyway.

LOL. I don't even know who I'm talking to anymore. CoinHunter is either lying now and lying before when he claimed he was RealSolid. I'd rather not deal with liars.

Says the person who uses slogans and keywords like "Web of trust" without actually ever implementing anything. There is no problem with using coins to protect the network and it means anyone can become a trust node once suitable investment is made. This is protection and it's decentralized.

People worrying about some existing 12 million coins become spendable should be just as worried that the next SolidCoin or Bitcoin update contains even more coins. Because they can be created out of nowhere, it's only a news shock to the idiots who think Bitcoin is somehow protected from this "flaw". Like any protocol it can be updated, it can be changed and if people are nefarious it may indeed happen!

Maybe SolidCoin will work out a way to avoid this situation so it can't happen to it. It already does many things better than Bitcoin so why not add one more. Unlike Bitcoin we have only a small group of dedicated coders that have clear goals. We don't have "in fights" because we are all on the SAME PAGE. People that actually do the research know what they are going to get. The bitcoin fanboys just want to believe it's a scam so they can soothe their poor "why isn't bitcoin progressing" souls.

Says some random guy who has nothing to do with Solidcoin. Get Realsolid in here to actually account for his lunacy. /wink /wink

P.S. Solidcoin created a special case currency that can't be spent (but could with a single update to the client) yet somehow can't create a class of keys that form a web of trust. Either he is a complete neophyte to security (likely) or is just trying to pump the currency value up before he dumps(more likely). Either way, I wouldn't want people thinking that nitwit had access to my forum account.

1) Any account on the network that has over 1 million in it, it can sign "trust blocks"
2) 10 trust accounts were created so that there were was more than only a few, 10 seemed like a good number
3) Each trust account started with 1.2 million SC in it. 200K over the 1 million requirement needed to sign blocks
4) By using "coins" instead of alternate methods (licensed mining, hardcoded keys, etc) for these trust accounts it simplified block processing code and also allowed anyone else to become a trust node instead of some hard coded number. This increases decentralization and gives us security if governments or large corps ever try to attack.
5) Obviously creating 12 million coins out of nowhere is bad if they can be spent, so code was added so they couldn't be spent, they can only be used to sign trust blocks
6) By signing a trust block the trust accounts lose money, this way eventually they will have to die and can't be used forever. ie It's a time limit that can be somewhat controlled without needing a network update

Yes if they were hardcoded like Coblee "the GPU scrypt failure" would put in, it would mean these trust accounts would either have to forever exist or need constant updates to keep them going. By letting them naturally decay and being unable to be spent in a normal fashion it means there is less complication in the code and a more natural mechanism to have them disappear in time.

There is nothing stopping SolidCoin developers if they wanted to insert 70 billion coins into it and forcing it onto the users, just like Bitcoin developers could do. You can argue semantics like "oh it's harder in Bitcoin because of X,Y,Z" and others will argue it's harder in SolidCoin becouse of "A,B,C" but as developers you have more power than non developers, that's just how things are. Don't abuse the trust, if you don't have trust in the developers of the currency there is no point in investing in it. Inserting new currency into the chain or abusing that 12 million is against SolidCoin principles, now you can either choose to believe they have principles and stop the whining, or you can choose to believe they have put thousands of hours into this project to eventually scam you. Your call.

What we can trust is RealSolid is a good coder, has developed custom solutions to problems and that these solutions have actively been protecting the SolidCoin network for months whilst many attack attempts have been made. Conversely compared to Litecoin which has gotten spammed to half Bitcoins size under Coblee's control and was secretly GPU mined by others..... SolidCoin looks mighty solid.

The point was to keep the code as simple as possible. Aside from a check to prevent the trust wallets form being spent, any of those original 10 trust account when used by a trust node, behave exactly like a natural (user created) trust node would. This means balance decaying naturally, ceasing to function when the balance drops below 1 million coins, etc.

LOL, FlipPro. You already know that there's no reason he needs 12 million coins to protect the network. Since it's just hardcoded into the system, he could have easily hardcoded 10 private keys into the software that can act as the trusted nodes without needing 1.2 million coins each. It will just be a special case for those 10 special trusted nodes until a real account has 1 million sc in it. So you won't get a straightforward answer from RealSolid/CoinHunter (although these 2 personalities seems to have split recently!), because it means one of three things:

1) He's incompetent and can't figure out that he can special case those 10 trusted nodes for the time being.

2) He's stupid and chooses to do the implementation this way and not realize that 12 million pre-mined coins will turn off a lot of users.

3) He's a scammer and plan to steal 12 millions coins when the time is right.

So yeah, good luck getting RS/CH to respond to your very valid question.

Did someone noticed that Solidcoins are more Scamcoins than every other of scamcoins out there?

Coinhunter I still don't get why the 12 million coins are needed to protect the network.

Can you please explain it to me in explicable detail?

I think you owe me at-least that much.

P.S This is a serious question RS. Don't dodge it like you always do.

Lets do this 1-1 WHY ARE THE 12 MILLION COINS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE NETWORK?