Topic: SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues - page 4. (Read 13187 times)

From what CH/RS said, it's not the longest chain but the richest trusted node. So I guess if someone manages to grab more coin than anyone else they'll be in charge?

Legal action?  Really?  Legal action?

I'd love to see the contracts CH has with his 9 buddies.  What kind of compensation was exchanged in return for entering into those contracts?  Internet funbucks are great and all (especially if it's 1.2 million internet fun bucks that the guy issuing later claims can't be redeemed), but I wonder if those contracts would ever be enforceable.  For a contract to be valid a reasonable person must be capable of understanding the terms.  Any half-competent lawyer could spin the byzantine SC "architecture" into verbal spew complex enough to make it look like the scam it is.  If one of the 9 destroys what little value SC has there won't be enough money in the ecosystem to pay the kind of ninja lawyer that could make what looks like a scam contract stand up.

Then there's the whole jurisdiction thing.  What I said is valid in the US, international law may be different.

You have totally the wrong idea. I wasn't seriously suggesting I wanted to kill CoinHuter with a bus. I was only going to tap him gently with it to make a point. Maybe give him a few bruises, nothing more.

It was a joke, and I did see CoinHunters comment you quoted above in the original context. I'm pretty sure he was talking about legal action, not some kind of criminal punishment! He is a scammer not a mobster.

LOL. cold.

Since you cant tell sarcasm from reality I wont bother explaining the reference to you.

It only seems fair that if BTX was banned from here, we should give the same honor to RS/CH.

Not sure who the bigger troll is, quite honestly.

I am also Satoshi.

Agreed.  Threatening the lives of people involved with SC *is* in poor taste.

However, CH opened up this door himself when he made threats upon the SC 'super-node' holders.  "They're people with families, assets, things to lose...."

I dont like where that train of thought is headed. Considering many people have accused me of being coinhunter its not out of the realm of possibility a mistake could occur and the wrong person gets run over by a bus. This is getting rather threatening and distasteful.

And what if the blocks get "accepted" by one of the other supernodes?

Why should he care? It won't be his problem.

We should empirically test this. Anyone have the number of a bus hire company in Australia?

I was wonder about this too. I asked CH in an earlier post but I think that section of the post got derailed.

I seems implausible that they would go to all the trouble of adding in interleaving blocks (What I called a vector clock) without realizing they could be used in fork detection. Basically this would supplement or override "the longest chain" rule in cases where a long fork appears out of the blue. Otherwise, anyone who could isolate a single trusted peer could run wild.

However, I didn't think it was plausible to invent ten 1.2 MSC accounts to make interleave feature work either.

Where did you go, BitcoinMedia? Did you forget that you claimed to be RealSolid in that thread?

I'll quote it for posterity.

I can't resist, the problem of how to bootstrap a new chain in the face of massive, hostile hashing power fascinates me.

CoinHunter, what will happen to SolidCoin if, God forbid, you get hit by a bus? What are the plans for the trusted CPF wallets? Do your heirs get control of them?

And what if SolidCoin is wildly successful-- so successful that each SC is worth 1,000 euros? Will somebody still need 1 million of them (so have to be a euro billionaire) to be trusted?

What I like more is that initially, only a single million was supposed to be premined.

I am also still enamored with the "take 5% of miner's electricity" shtick - for the love of everything good in the world, what's the point of stealing from miners when you ALREADY HAVE A PREMINE IN THE MILLIONS?

Not only do we know the deepbit owner (Tycho), but I would trust him more than any "trusted SolidCoin millionaires account". And nothing in SolidCoin prevents a "trusted account" from setting up a pool and performing a majority attack. True, there are only 10 trusted accounts, but the same is true for Bitcoin (less than 10 large pools). In fact, have you ever considered the following viewpoint:

You present trusted SolidCoin millionaire accounts as people who have a lot invested in SolidCoin, therefore are unlikely to cheat the system and can be trusted to solve all even blocks. A large Bitcoin pool owner, in effect, fills the same role. He has invested a lot in Bitcoin (time developing and maintaining his pool), has a lot to lose (pool revenues), had to work on gaining very public trust from the users over time, and his pool effectively solves a good fraction of the blocks. I would argue that the Bitcoin model is superior to the SolidCoin model whose "trusted accounts" are unknown and anonymous and chosen by someone other than the users. Bitcoin gives power to the users by letting them dynamically vote who they trust by choosing where they mine. SolidCoin dangerously set the trusted accounts in stone with arbitrary static rules.

What do you think?

That said, Bitcoin and SolidCoin are different:

• On one hand, for Bitcoin, majority attacks ("51% attacks") are a non-problem. The hashrate is too high to attack, no one will spend $10M to attack it today. Pools have too much to lose to attempt the attack themselves. And Bitcoin has a long-term solution easily implementable anyway, by giving pool users control of the blocks: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/think-i-just-solved-the-pool-problem-9137 For all these reasons, your criticism of majority attacks being possible against Bitcoin is unfounded.
  
• On the other hand, majority attacks are a real problem for (and only for) startup cryptocurrencies, like SolidCoin, who have to start the hashrate from zero. So, in a way, I understand why you have to come up with a non-optimal mechanism to try to protect your network from attacks.

+1

Not quite—  You generate a normal block, then use your trust account to mine a trusted block right after it (especially easy since it's a minimal difficulty computation).  If someone else had beat you to the punch on the normal block it doesn't matter— the chain with the trusted block is the longest one.  So while the trusted block itself costs you coins it gives you a veto over the identity of the generator of the prior block.

It's even super extra special if you're the operator of this system— because the fee in the trusted blocks goes to to operator, so once he's extracted out the few hundred thousand in surplus coin those pre-mined accounts were equipped with he can simply recycle their fee and maintain them (and their ability to control the winning chain, and thus who the normal block coin goes to) indefinitely.

 Well, this satisfies me, folks.

 He's a self-professed advanced programmer who knows much about I.T.

 We should all rally behind this man.

No, you only generate the blocks with no coins in it for you. The real blocks with 32 SC2 will use the normal difficulty.