Topic: Ruxum SolidCoin Trading....GONE! (Read 5629 times)

Have you read Ruxum's T&C of usage?  Basically you agree they get to do what they want, and you agree you will compensate them for their and others screwups.

As soon as I read it I knew I didn't want to get involved.

There is a larger issue here that is getting lost. Ruxum froze all SC assets and didn't allow any transfers out, at least bitparking allowed that and has given notice. I'm actually pretty pissed at Ruxum for how they handled this. And even if transfers were borked on the network for a time, Ruxum could have allowed trading to go on (as bitparking did). There were obviously a number of suckers that were still buying yesterday. Now anybody that has SC at Ruxum is totally fucked. Full disclosure: My last 600 or so SC are there, but compared to the 20k I've offloaded prior to that, it really is not that much. Still, the point is how badly Ruxum has gone about this, because people still could have been liquidating at a quasi decent price. Now, not so much.

I have withdrawn all of my btc and usd from there. I would hate for them to suddenly decide, without notice, to freeze my remaining assets and not allow me to get them out. I understand the site is in beta, but still. It looks pretty though.

As a solidcoin supporter, I like to ask you to stop this pointless flame war.

Before that, I'll like to set the record straight. 

Do you really believe that if you keep repeating "it was a malicious attack, we at SC are clean, BTC guys are idiots", it will make problems go away and everybody forgets why and how this simple attack actually got started?

RealCoin (in IRC) was told that he has a problem in SC code after "fixing" something he did not fully understood. RealSolid told ArtForz, the evil attacker who found the problem, to just fuck off. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.501363)
(BTW, if I remember correctly, in #solidcoin IRC, someone else told that ArtForz is really good at finding problems)

I am not defending or saying what ArtForz did was correct, but I am actually more pissed off at this pompous RealSolid than ArtForz.
Why? Not because RealSolid fucked up by "fixing" something he did not fully understood (shit happens) but for ignoring a warning from a more experienced developer.

 
Sorry to say but CoinHunters (noagendamarket in IRC) desperate attempt at damage control wave turned in to a Freshly Squeezed Kool-Aid Super Sale.
 
I, as a SC supported hope that someone is going to tell this little bitter joker RealCoin to get off he's donkey and start listen to other developers. Especially those people, who have order of magnitude more experience than SC "team of computer scientist" (BS from your own web page!).

RealCoin, Bitcoin is not your enemy! Bitcoin code is the core of your fork. If you do not understand it, go and ask btc developers! No one will think less of you.

I believe, that SC has a future. Yes there is a "but". But if this bull shit and Kool-Aid selling goes on too long, YOU  will kill the SC before it even takes off.

CoinHunter and you minions, before you type up your next pile of solidcoin damaging bull shit, let it simmer there for 10 min, read it again, rewrite it and  then publish.

(sorry, I can not resist, I had to)   
PS! Smoothie, I am going to call your mom and she is going to whip your pimple covered ass to a real smoothie... and probably stick a banana in to it too... if you do not start playing nice.

Can we now please stop this crap war and move on?

What you say is correct. However the big public companies die without constant and heavy growth. If we can give companies a profit that keeps them alive and allows them to upgrade a bit but not expand like a virus then that is what I consider "enough fees". Basically we will need people with a different mindset running the mining companies than exists in the existing large companies.

From what I have seen of the pool operators many of them have some altruistic qualities, they also want to provide for their family. People that want to get rich merely off doing a simple task which requires little work aren't exactly the type of people we want to attract to the project. People that don't mind doing some work and making a decent living keeping the world's #1 cryptocurrency running smoothly we like.

But there are still problems to solve, so it's not exactly utopia yet.

If there were some correlation between transaction size and amount, it would make sense.


AFAIK it's not at the protocol level, so yes, it's tangential but not the same problem. It's hardcoded in the client to minimize usability problems. This at least proves your point about convenience though. I'll think more about this, thank you.


I don't see how fixed fees solve this particular problem. With a small profit margin, big companies are at an advantage (more investment decreases costs). With a large profit margin, big companies are at an advantage, because they can invest more (the same mechanics: decreasing profit margin by increasing difficulty, thereby putting small miners out of business). So it's not really about it being against free market ideals, it's because the market SolidCoin applies to is necessarily free.

You could try to fix this by giving people mining licenses (blocks would need to be signed by these). This will also ensure that miners will comply with the fees determined by you and not revolt.

To ramble a bit more: The main vulnerability of such a top-down control structure is that there will be people who would want to control it. I'm not too critical about the idea, since, as you said current Bitcoin development also has a lot of control over the network. On the other hand, there is nothing in the protocol (in principle) that makes this necessary, whereas SC seems to aspire in the other direction.

agreed.

If we added demurrage to Solidcoin we wouldn't even have to charge fees. One flat fee that is pre-programmed & that sucks a tiny amount of lost/stored coins and injects them right into the mining population! This right here would mean mining forever (which is the best approach imho), and a constant psychological pressure to spend/invest your coins which Bitcoin simply does not have. I would be willing to send all my Solidcoins & Bitcoins to a system like that.

Over time the fee will have to drop obviously. And there are going to be times when the fee is perhaps slightly more expensive than is required (and hence miners make more profit than needed). Is that a bad thing? Not really, it's just not optimal. However you must realize Bitcoin also hardcodes its fees (and they also very variable), and it will be a similar problem with it.

I have yet to see a "fee system" proposed which can completely handle the value of the currency changing drastically. We basically need to be moved away from fiat, or have some sort of "centralization" to correct it. I also don't like the potential for miners to be able to set fees (as when they become large organizations it's a one way ladder to heaven in regards to never ending fee increases).

I basically would prefer a system whereby miners can profit, a little, from their operation and fees are kept very low. I don't want to be in the situation where a few mining companies can control the entire network simply due to massive profits. A small profit, nothing Apple/Intel like. Some would say that's against a free market, and I simply say not everything about a free market is good. If people want capitalism 2.0 currency they can perhaps find another alternative as that is not where I see SolidCoin going.

I want a currency that is fair to everyone, as much as it can be. People shouldn't be making millions of dollars off the network itself in my opinion. They should be more altruistic. I'm realistic enough to realize that human nature may not allow it to happen. But I'm naive enough to try.

I get that you are disappointed but you advertise the system as "more secure" and pay people (?!) to spread that message without even waiting for the network to mature. Compare it to the attitude of Bitcoin devs who advertise it as "probably not secure enough for mainstream use". If Artforz weren't a white hat, things would go real bad for SolidCoin. He also says he came to you (most white hats wouldn't, if only for the praise) and you blew him off?


Thank you for the details, the convenience part makes sense. But I don't think the only reason for the design choice was to avoid attacks. Mining fees are from a realm "outside" of the currency. Hashing and storage costs depend on external factors. So it's more related to economics than security. Since SolidCoin's exchange value fluctuates, the potential exchange value of the fees also do. Your strategy is very much like how NameCoin has fixed fees. But IMHO it makes more sense for NameCoin, since the average exchange value of names is expected to converge to the pricing of other alternatives. I don't see how this can be useful for a currency. So your design choice also involves limiting exchange value of SC. Or otherwise you would have to update the fees constantly in a top-to-bottom manner. Does what I say make sense?

1) Because there are more important things to do like code at the moment. Especially when I'm getting 100s of pms and emails
2) ^
3) Because not everyone needs explaining for why they are better. Maybe some hype. I can't try and determine why SC is so popular right now when I've only done about 20% of the changes I've wanted and thought would be required to get more people moving to the better network.

Honest Questions:

1) Why can't they be explained sooner?

2) If they can't be explained sooner, why will it be weeks until it is?

3) If the information of the reasonings/math/simulations/whatever involved with the design of SC isn't availabe yet, what exactly are people investing in now?  Hype?

No it was a blackhat attack, designed to crash computers on the network by flooding them with "shit" transactions (increasing memory usage) and also to increase block chain size. However the block chain size is limited to a certain amount each block anyhow, so they would have had limited success. I acted quickly to remedy the situation to limit the effects of it.

You are right that there needs to be more discussion about the design decisions for SolidCoin. If you currently don't like them then you can decide not to invest until they have been explained properly. Which they will be over the coming weeks.

In regards to fixed fees it's simply more viable for businesses and users to know in advance what a fee will be, helps them with pricing decisions and other things. If you knew a fee was going to be upwards of $5 to offer your customers it changes a lot of your decisions. The fact is you can't even know what the fee will be in bitcoin until you try to send. They added the current fee structure to avoid attacks (like the one done to SC by artforz), not for actual usage reasons.

However I have solved the problem of attacks in another way, one which is still friendly to businesses and users. It may still need some tweaking.

EDIT: Ah, you are talking about the database journal. Sorry for missing that point. Well, would you be interested to a bet on who will fix it first? Winner donates the winnings to devs who fix it.

What kind of fix are you proposing? A remedy like, maybe, variable fees instead of a fixed one? But it must be a major inconvenience, isn't it why SolidCoin changed it without openly debating the problems with it and then promoting it as a solution to a problem? Don't you really see the problem with this kind of approach? We've been asking for justifications about these "features" since me and a few friends started mining SolidCoin, one of whom even got a bounty for promoting SC. Never got satisfying answers, not from the devs, not from the community. When are they going to start seeing this as a step towards a common goal instead of a turf war? Why don't you and I start discussing if fixed fees are a good feature or not and cut the political nonsense?

I don't know how long you've been around this kind of development, but what happened is surely a good thing for SolidCoin. If there is really a fix, then SC will go on stronger. This is how experiments work. In this specific case, things would go smoother for the user base if SC devs did work hand in hand with people who have expertise enough to know what's going on. If this really was an attack, the blockchain would've grown to an unmanageable size right now and the fix would almost be impossible (somebody correct me if I'm wrong). It was just a white hat demonstration, albeit a critical one, but a necessary one, which will only cause a slight inconvenience for the users. If it weren't for this demonstration, there could be a real attack at a more critical stage of the currency's evolution. You're right about one thing though, it's not a free market thing at all.

When the entire management of Goldman Sachs is in prison you can use that argument.

Seriously if you can't play by or accept the free-market rules then go play another game like the FOREX or the stock market.

You crying about someone doing something malicious could be in fact righteous given the current circumstances of solidcoin not being a regulated market.

lol you don't even deny it.  I didn't say those markets are regulated and I don't live in the US myself.  I was just pointing out that he's doing some seedy stuff, but I see you already knew that.  It doesn't matter anyway because SC is going to be around for a while.  I think it would be better for both currencies in the long run if we didn't take every opportunity to exaggerate shortcomings, but you made 205btc so you know what you're doing right?

SC is so new, what it 'is' to the market hasn't been set yet, so you can't portray a falsehood of something that doesn't yet have a truth value.

+1

Neither Bitcoin nor Solidcoin are regulated markets.

Market manipulation describes a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a security, commodity or currency.  Market manipulation is prohibited in the United States under Section 9(a)(2)[2] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

For example, a "Bear raid": "Attempting to push the price of a stock down by heavy selling or short selling."

You're borderlining on organizing some of this Smoothie + co.  Just live and let live guys.