No, he cannot make anyone upgrade. Every single miner chooses for himself which version to run. No matter what Gavin does, miners always have the choice whether to download and run the new changes. If 51% of the miners don't do that, then nothing will change.
If 51% of the miners don't upgrade, then their blocks will be treated as invalid to those that do upgrade. All the developers need to do is to convince enough of the users that if they don't upgrade they'll be screwed, and they have the advantage of being able to broadcast alerts to them through the client itself. 
Topic: On the Solidcoin Economic Changes - page 3. (Read 7833 times)
BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.
He probably could, and in fact one of the proposed solutions to BIP 16 missing the deadline involves him doing exactly that, it's just that he's chosen not to approach the problem in that way. So far anyway.Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way? And the fact that miners refusing to accept the change themselves get rejected from the network? I had faith in Bitcoin's decentralization before. But unfortunately for me not to accept P2SH is for me to fight a losing battle.
Misinformation. Please get a new source.
In the case of P2SH, the development team could easily deploy this functionality against the will of the miners: they'd simply issue a new client that enforces the BIP16 rule and send an alert which would pop up a message for every bitcoin user telling them to update. Miners that failed to update would eventually extend a chain containing a contradictory transaction and from that moment they would no longer be miners from the perspective of the majority of Bitcoin users, no matter how many yottahashes they had. Done.
(If users reject the change too—well, they can get themselves some new developers, but the miners never come into that picture except as users)
Now, a fun puzzle for you - how can users find out enough information to know whether to reject the changes, given that the Bitcoin developers in general and particularly gmaxwell are opposed to anyone saying anything on here beyond the fact that the developers think this is a good idea?(If users reject the change too—well, they can get themselves some new developers, but the miners never come into that picture except as users)
BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.
He probably could, and in fact one of the proposed solutions to BIP 16 missing the deadline involves him doing exactly that, it's just that he's chosen not to approach the problem in that way. So far anyway. Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way?
BIP16 isn't inevitable. Gavin implemented BIP16, checked it in, and nothing happened, because Gavin cannot force any change on anybody. Bitcoin is decentralized.CoinHunter implemented block reward change, pushed it to his enforcer-nodes, and every single SolidCoin user is required to instantly upgrade or their client is completely broken. Yesterday's change broke one of the largest SolidCoin exchanges. Today, btc-e.com still can't process SolidCoin blocks. SolidCoin is centralized.
Okay then, so is it any different from the inevitable release of BIP16 without testing just because one developer thinks that way? And the fact that miners refusing to accept the change themselves get rejected from the network? I had faith in Bitcoin's decentralization before. But unfortunately for me not to accept P2SH is for me to fight a losing battle.
Misinformation. Please get a new source.
Also, please explain the technical issues you have with BIP16.
Is this different from bitcoin, where the blockchain checkpoints are hardcoded into the client at regular intervals by the developers?
Yes, because those checkpoints are entirely optional, as witnessed by the fact that there are alternate clients that don't include those checkpoints. Or you could download the source and remove every checkpoint. Bitcoin will still work perfectly.
That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month?
Paypal doesn't have a decentralized P2P network
And neither does ScamCoin. There is nothing decentralized about ScamCoin. The miners are token and provide nothing of value to the network.
Is this different from bitcoin, where the blockchain checkpoints are hardcoded into the client at regular intervals by the developers?
And neither does ScamCoin. There is nothing decentralized about ScamCoin. The miners are token and provide nothing of value to the network.
You're wrong. The sad thing is you know it but just like to spread FUD.
Fascinating
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.
yes, what a great response
looking at your post history you are not adding anything of value - why did you bother trolling here?
producer surplus = ∫0_q (equilibrium price - marginal cost(q)) dq
consumer surplus = ∫0_q (demand(q) - equilibrium price) dq
Much better - thanks.
Fascinating
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.
yes, what a great response
looking at your post history you are not adding anything of value - why did you bother trolling here?
producer surplus = ∫0_q (equilibrium price - marginal cost(q)) dq
consumer surplus = ∫0_q (demand(q) - equilibrium price) dq
That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month?
Paypal doesn't have a decentralized P2P network, it also doesn't let everyone with a PC create "paypal dollars". As much as you may hate some things in SolidCoin compared to government/central bank controlled money it's leaps and bounds better, and that's good enough for most people. I think you'll find your values are extremely niche, but I can understand that people like yourself will never accept SC due to them and you can continue to use whatever it is you want. We aren't going to force you.
It's our luxury with 51% protection...
That's like saying PayPal has 51% protection. You might as well run a single enforcer node that processes all transactions. Or is that the plan for SC3 next month? Fascinating
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.
yes, what a great response
looking at your post history you are not adding anything of value - why did you bother trolling here?
Fascinating
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
Idiot.
Your grade = F.
You know nothing.
You are mis-educating the other idiots.
This only intensifies the already intolerable level of idiocy here.
Fascinating
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So the cost of production is going to equal it's price. Then, the consumer surplus will tend to (price - cost) => zero.
From an economics point of view, I thought the previous change from 32 to 5 with bonuses was "interesting" and it had all died down a bit. This one is micro-cosmic monetary policy experiment worth watching.
Wonder if I can sell my 70 virgin SC1.0 coins as collectibles yet?
So when can we expect V3 of SpongyCoin?
I say it will take a while for most of the non-cultists to stop mining.
Anyone want to future bet what the version will be by the 1 year mark?
I say it will take a while for most of the non-cultists to stop mining.
Anyone want to future bet what the version will be by the 1 year mark?
All existing SC owners prior to the change can now bail out at a price which is 5 times higher than a week ago. If they want to bail they can do so at a nice profit.
And it's what, 10 times, 100 times harder to mine (I've heard both .7 sc per block and .07 sc per block, so I'm not sure the correct figure)? Seems like the change only benefited early adapters. But then, that was probably the point to the chain all along.Edit: Looks like it's about .08 per block, plus a few tx fees, let's say it's .1 sc per block, down from about 7 sc per block. Difficulty goes up 70x, price goes up 5x. I expect network hashrate to plummet once miners figure out they can't get anything anymore from mining. Good thing SC is designed for plummeting hashrate. In a couple weeks it's going to just be the enforcer nodes hashing away.
I guess that's why SolidCoin is so "Lucky" to be protected against mining attacks eh?
We now aren't flooding the economy with coins. Like you said, I personally don't think price will increase 70x immediately, because it was dropping previously , which indicates too much mining for the amount of investors we had. That's what the change addresses.
It's our luxury with 51% protection that we can have a coin flow based on actual investment and development instead of "heres a fixed coin rate, let the value fluctuate like a wild beast". If you want a currency to work you can't have massive value fluctuations in my opinion. I guess we'll see how this goes over the coming months.
I suspect few people here have actually tried to argue Bitcoins to a business because if you did they would ask things like "What are they worth?" and the answer you give is "depends, $2 a month ago, $5 now, 6 months ago it was $30, 1 year ago it was $1" . We had the same problem with SolidCoin so we are fixing it. Personally I don't think Bitcoin is a currency and it never will be due to issues like this. But it could continue as some sort of "commodity" for a little while longer.
And I think you'll find very few of our investors are going "short solidcoin" we've been at this for 7 months and we want a working, secure currency. Most of the key people aren't profit motivated, we are motivated to get rid of the shitty systems in place like banks and governments having their fingers in each pie. That said I'm sure there are plenty of people in the SC community which are 100% profit driven, that's life I guess.
All existing SC owners prior to the change can now bail out at a price which is 5 times higher than a week ago. If they want to bail they can do so at a nice profit.
And it's what, 10 times, 100 times harder to mine (I've heard both .7 sc per block and .07 sc per block, so I'm not sure the correct figure)? Seems like the change only benefited early adapters. But then, that was probably the point to the chain all along.Edit: Looks like it's about .08 per block, plus a few tx fees, let's say it's .1 sc per block, down from about 7 sc per block. Difficulty goes up 70x, price goes up 5x. I expect network hashrate to plummet once miners figure out they can't get anything anymore from mining. Good thing SC is designed for plummeting hashrate. In a couple weeks it's going to just be the enforcer nodes hashing away.
All existing SC owners prior to the change can now bail out at a price which is 5 times higher than a week ago. If they want to bail they can do so at a nice profit.
pump and dump.
pretty much like all other alts.
It will be the death of SC2. As soon as the currency is worth something it will be shredded by more talented programmers who can find security holes in the trusted node system, or by a simpler sybil attack.
You do know SolidCoin has many more nodes than Litecoin right? Sybil attack is much easier on Litecoin. Either way, the top end SC guys are aware of the risks and have a "backbone" of nodes which will always connect to each other. Are Litecoin developers aware ? It took them 2 days to even notice their network was being spammed. Sounds real proven.
The reason all my money is in LTC is because the system is proven robust as it does not strongly deviate from the original protocol -- with SC2, you're trusting a single person's programming skills with your money. The fact that the trusted node system has already been attacked successfully should be an ominous sign to anyone who wants to invest their money into SC2. I think a lot of people in the end are going to get shafted and one person is going to walk away with a lot of everyone else's cash.
Well we have 4 developers now so unfortunately we can't just blame me for all the good (or bad) things
. SolidCoin is the most "Wanting to be attacked" chain out there and has survived everything people have thrown at it. Luke-Jr, artforz, large botnets. Maybe we need satoshi to hit it hard? Just get Gavin to give him a call. All existing SC owners prior to the change can now bail out at a price which is 5 times higher than a week ago. If they want to bail they can do so at a nice profit.
Jump to: