Topic: Pool Ops are now the Alt Currency Police (Read 13951 times)

He didn't say the pool op has access to the miners' computers to do nefarious things with. In a technical sense, miners *only* provide hashes to the pool, nothing more.  In a moral sense, there is an unwritten agreement as to what those hashes will be used for.  Namely, to mine BTC and possibly NMC. If the pool op uses those hashes for other purposes and without the miners' consent, it's morally iffy to wrong.

If he was simply purchasing hashes for a fixed price, to use as he wanted it would be a different moral situation than a cooperative where hundreds of people pool their resources and split the profit.

LOL ... with the exception of ...

I'm thrilled luke-jr did this. Alt currencies (with the exception of maybe Litecoin) are scum.

The end.

Luke can print out my hashes and use it as toilet paper if he want as long as he sticks to his fair reward scheme and pays in virgin generation txs. It's just random numbers.

The statement you made is false. You don't understand mining. You do not provide your computer as a platform that others can run their code on.

Facts. They are not needed in this thread.

How can a hash be used to hack Paypal?

The miners didn't give the pool op access to run custom code on their systems/GPUs.

You do realize that the miners simply provided hashes.  Period.  Nothing more, nothing less.
It would be like saying the electrical company could be liable because they supplied the electricity.

Luke shows it could put you in legal jeopardy joining a pool. How are you going to claim you didnt know they were going to hack paypal? What is one of these rogue pool ops decides he wants to attack congress over sopa. It is very important to know and trust your pool.

And obviously luke cant be. What baffles me, is he claims to be a christian and yet he betrays the trust of his users with a whim. Ok plenty of scum bag Christians out there, just like in every other group, but luke likes to at least pretend he actually believes and doesnt just wear it on his sleeve. But it turns out he is a self centered little shit, who has his panties shoved so far up his ass, i can see the label sticking out his mouth.

Different people have different opinions of if they give a damn about anyone but themselves.
I'll say clearly I agree with the idea that one should care about the follow-on of one's actions.
I will certainly never mine at Eligius (though I have never before) since I do not think that Luke has the right to do with my hashing power as he pleases and he has done something that I would not wish to be a part of - even if everyone here disagrees - well that's your opinion.
Hiding behind some rule or law for not caring about anyone else is truly the way these days by many and most unfortunate in my opinion.

Of course if deepbit did use some floor in Bitcoin to effectively destroy it, suddenly most people here would be upset about that ...

Many years ago I did some work through a friend without knowing who the client was.
When I received payment I returned it. It was from BATA and I could not in good conscience accept payment from such a company (and proceeded to point out to my friend that I would never do that again! and I would check first who it was )
I suspect few people here would do the same.

Scammer vs scammer, I'm about to pull out the popcorn.

I explained in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57288.40 how your assumptions about how pools interact with their users are unwarranted and thus your entire cause for complaint moot.

Your spirit of the law is based on flawed presumptions. When are you going to stop presuming that every pool must offer every altcoin that can be merged mined? In another thread, I announced the creation of 100 altcoin block chains that can be merge mined from day 1. To date, all of the pools except 1 are refusing to grant their users access to these new and valuable coins.

This really boils down to different axioms that cannot be resolved, such as presumed guilt vs presumed innocence.
Luke did it, but he did it with information that his users had no claim on whatsoever.

Should he have done it? That is a far stickier question.
After warnings were not heeded, action to demonstrate is the next step. AFAIK, Luke did not doublespend any CLC, he merely forked the block chain in such a way that it is very difficult to mine. He certainly could have approached this in a less abrasive manner. He could have forked the chain, demonstrated that he could block it, and then released his hold after a patch was released to mitigate the vulnerability. He could have notified his users beforehand that he was going to use the results of their BTC hashes to demonstrate a vulnerability in another blockchain. He could have explained to his users why he would not offer merge mining of CLC until such a time as it was not vulnerable. In short, there are many things he could have done to come off as less of a phallus.

IMO all Luke is guilty of is bad public relations and an abrasive personality, not computer crimes or fraud.

As far as I understand, this is clearly the case, however Luke claims that creating a custom coinbase to include CLC in the merged mining of his pool, does not have anything to do with Eligius miners. It's not the first time he used the coinbase to his personal whims. Their hashes therefore just "happened" to solve CLC blocks, which were passed to the CLC daemon that Luke was running in his "personal equipment". Instead of a CLC-related string, it could have been hymns or exorcisms.

Thus, the "I did not use Eligius hashing power to shut down CLC".

Anyone with a copy of the CLC blockchain and bitcoin-utils can easily verify that the bitcoin parent blocks used to attack CLC belong to eligius. Personal equipment my ass.

It's actually Libel....but thanks for playing, Sherlock.


I am still actually waiting to hear how the 'personal equipment' vs 'pool resources' thing plays out....and I still haven't got a response to this:

Actually, I've read his Family Blog and everything points to him being as broke as a joke......quite pathetic actually, so I can see his concerns with maintaining BTC's value, as he must use it to feed his family. It was some of most entertaining 'Coupon Clipping' and Religion garbage that I had ever come across.
I downloaded full mirrors of all of his online personal websites, for future reference.

Unfortunately, everything now seems to be removed from the net, as too many people were given the opportunity to get a glimpse inside the life of such a self-righteous Bible thumper.
He seems to be living on love, prayers and donations from the rest of his family (although with a boycott list, as to which products he will not accept as gifts).
That's right - a real man who let's the rest of his friends & family pay to raise his kids.....CLASSIC. 80 ghash, did you say ?

bulanula ?

thank you enema. i'm completely lost on most of what's going on in this thread, i thought it was about lukejr, but now its about solidcoin? either way that last post made me laugh really hard.

I have my gun right here. I no shoot you. What you want it fo'?


Are you still beating your wife?


Why would I lie? Don't you trust me? Free candy. Come to my van.


NO! What the people want is for themselves and not you to decide whether a project is malicious. I smell another Luke Jr.

You people actually support the financial architecture we are trying to escape. Next word, I bet, is going to be technocrat. You and all the idiot finance journalists cheering on the appointment "of those who know what's best for us".


Um. no. because no.


By that logic, Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, Stumble Upon should not exist. What's the point? Reminds me of Michael Dell refusing to build machines with AMD CPUs.

Diversity leads to stability. Efficiency leads to paranoia. Fer chrissake.

The reality is you control SolidCoin. You control the license. You control the source code. You control the wallets that run the control nodes. You control SolidCoin 100%.

I can fork it. I can improve it. I can attack it. I can experiment with it. I can run which ever version of it I like. It is called freedom.


If that power was in the hands of the people, it would be democracy. Unfortunately, you are head of Solidcoin for life and nobody voted you in. That is a dictatorship, not a democracy. You also define the term "non malicious" and you might consider any action counter to your wishes at the time a malicious one. Bad PR hasn't stopped you in the past from making choices, I don't see it stopping you in the future.


No, they don't control bitcoin. That is what you fail to understand. The users of bitcoin are free to do with it what they like. They can run it in any fashion, they can use any derivative work they choose. They can get their bitcoin code or binaries from competing sources. They can make their own mods and offer that as a competing client.

All Solidcoin derivative works are subject to your whim as you retain all rights to code & binary usage.

That is the difference and it is a major one. Perhaps Solidcoin2 needs this additional protection, who knows.

And what's the point of you being able to do anything with Bitcoin code? What do you want to do? If you want to do anything non malicious you have free right to use SolidCoin code provided it's a SolidCoin orientated project (ie not a chain fork). Revoking a source license for "no reason" wouldn't be very good PR would it. Revoking a malicious project would be what 99.999% of people want. That's democracy.

The point remains someone controls the actual bitcoin code that MOST people download and use. Regardless of the license. It was the same with SolidCoin v1, anyone could have forked it but what is the point when every google search and whatnot just heads to solidcoin.info ? Just because that's stated a little more clearly in the new solidcoin license doesn't change the actual reality.