Topic: Poll - Should Proof of Stake be implemented in Litecoin? (Read 4714 times)

add PoS guys!

Makes total sense to me!

Seems to me that BCX is a very egotistical person, a person that would not take something like losing lightly.. So in this way BCX would cover herself at both ends..  An attempt to make sure she would win.. Basically a backup plan...

And now another backup plan must be in the works because of that very reason stated above^^

So lets keep on our toes..

Thank you for a credible answer and finally owning up that you made a mistake by not telling people.

I accept that answer as I am sure a lot people in the LTC community will.

Topic is closed in my books.



Mike

I guess that's why they say hindsight is 20/20. If you ask me now, I would tell you yeah I should have just told everyone it was a hoax. Not sure if it would have prevented a panic though. Since BCX would just come out and say that the PM was a lie and that I fell for it.

There's also a small possibility that BCX sent me that PM to give herself a way out. Think about it. If you (if you were BCX) knew that you might not be able to actually get enough hashrate to successfully attack Litecoin, the smartest thing to do is to PM me and tell me that it was a bluff beforehand. If the attack fails, then you can claim that it was all a hoax and that I knew about it all along.

Fair enough for the time being.

I still think you should have warned the community and prevented a panic sell, then mounted your defense against a 51% attack. So in effect are you supporting the contention this was designed to protect Litecoin in some sort of twisted BCEX way?

Mike

I thought I already answered this question. Here, let me try again.

I normally don't expose someone's private messages without getting permission from them first. And she did not come out and say that it was a hoax and that she wasn't going to do anything. What she said was: "Geez, don't sweat it, I'm not going to hit it hard enough to hurt it." I still don't understand what that means. Was she going to do a 51% attack but not do a double spend so that "it's not hard enough to hurt it." I sent her a few PMs to ask for clarification, but she did not respond to them. So I had to assume the threat was real, and the PM was just BCX trying to manipulate me. Or maybe she was smart enough to give herself a way out if the attack fails. Who knows. And at that point in time, some of the Litecoin pools were getting DDoS'd. So if it wasn't BCX, someone else might be launching a 51% attack.

So I had to act assuming the threat was real. And that's why I started a channel on IRC to discuss possible ways to defend this attack. And also why I checkpointed the block in the middle of the attack. I spent a lot of time trying to defend against this attack. I definitely did not collude with BCX. I've asked BCX to meet in person so that I can know once and for all who he/she is, but so far she has not responded to that PM. I have a feeling she won't.

I hope I have answered your questions.

people, just ignore him. obvious troll is obvious.

This is the alt currency forum, Microcash is a part of it. Coblee has not answered the question of why he didn't tell people that BCEX had PM'd that it was all a hoax very early on. What his reason behind that?

It's a fair question.

Mike

Coblee has already answered you. Obviously because you aren't getting the answer you WANT you keep asking for an answer.

Just STFU.

MicroCash has its own forum to wipe your ass on.

I've given my name, location and where I work....any intellegnt person can figure who I am. I have nothing to hide.

My questions are legit, I just want an honest answer on why Coblee participated in deceiving the entire LTC community, that's reasonable.

Mike

Really? Insulting and flaming other users? Please take this elsewhere, CoinHunter. We all know you are against LTC.

By his own admission Coblee knew at 8:00am Tuesday July 24th less than 8 hours after the initial BCEX post, later that evening Coblee arranges for a private IRC to mount a defense. Coblee allowed many members of the LTC community to incur a loss during a huge panic sell. He knowingly allowed miners to solo mine to protect the coin in vain, again incurring losses. I want an explanation on how or what justified him deceiving the whole LTC community.

Mike

I talked with coblee a few times during the events of the attack, and he had thought that /maybe/ it was a hoax, he had his doubts. He was unsure though, and from what he posted in that thread it seems he wasn't aware it was a hoax until BCEX PM'd him outright, and by then announcing it was a hoax wouldn't have changed anything.

I've already posted my take and I assume you've read it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1060442
So should I have told everyone that it was a bluff? Would you then call me irresponsible if BCX did indeed pull off a 51% attack because we were not ready?
What would you have done MicroCashMike?

I assume you hangout in #microcash, right? What's your username?

I'm not Coinhunter, Charles.

My name is Michael Westin, from New York City but temporarily live in LA. I've been a long time lurker but never posted till I registered yesterday and was whitelisted after moderators looked at my profile and info. I am also an LTC miner that happens to be pissed about your market manipulation scheme with BTC-e and BCEX. You knew a head of time and admitted you knew as of 8:00 am on Tuesday July 24th, less than 8 hours after BCEX posted his "attack" plans. This was market manipulation and I would love to hear your take on it.

Can you tell us why you didn't inform us for over four days you knew the attack was a hoax? You went through the charade of planning a defense in private IRC? What's up with that?

Mike

Thanks for your awesome advice, CoinHunter.

It's great to see LTC wanting to evolve beyond the limitations that effect major adoption by the larger financial community. Coblee should contact Realsolid  as Solidcoin was out in front of the very issue by a distance.


Mike

Whatever dude, be intentionally dense.

OK, apologies, when I read this part of your first post,


I wrongly assumed that the discussion is still generally related to the Bitcoin protocol framework, and took your comment to mean that as a standalone claim you're saying that cementing a checkpoint could be done without proof-of-stake. I didn't realize that you claim that these ideas hold for a substantially different protocol that doesn't use hashpower for proof-of-work etc., sorry for my confusion.