Managed to get out at .0085 BTC/SC on btce while everyone was discussing the magnitude of this scam. Thanks for the free BTC. There's still 70 BTC up for grabs if people are fast.
Topic: SC Releases his 'white paper', hilarity ensues - page 6. (Read 13187 times)
b) smart enough to come up with a mechanism to funnel 12 million coins into his personal wallet every year into perpetuity
It's actually 200K * 10, or 2 million total that can be "Funneled" back into CPF. Like I said, once they drop past 1 million they are useless and cannot be used. Have you worked out how long that 2 million would take to be completely funneled to CPF? Perhaps you should.
You've already stated you've receieved 32k today alone. 2m/32k = 62.5 days.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? 5% every second block is from a trusted node, not 10%. 5% is created like a normal generate, 5% is from trusted node.
So that's 1.6SC currently every other block, or 16K at the moment. As difficulty increases block generation will decrease and we are seeing that now. Trying to use the "low diff" situation to formulate your ratio is quite stupid.
b) smart enough to come up with a mechanism to funnel 12 million coins into his personal wallet every year into perpetuity
It's actually 200K * 10, or 2 million total that can be "Funneled" back into CPF. Like I said, once they drop past 1 million they are useless and cannot be used. Have you worked out how long that 2 million would take to be completely funneled to CPF? Perhaps you should.
You've already stated you've receieved 32k today alone. 2m/32k = 62.5 days.
b) smart enough to come up with a mechanism to funnel 12 million coins into his personal wallet every year into perpetuity
It's actually 200K * 10, or 2 million total that can be "Funneled" back into CPF. Like I said, once they drop past 1 million they are useless and cannot be used. Have you worked out how long that 2 million would take to be completely funneled to CPF? Perhaps you should.
If the nodes run <1m that means each one has sent 200k coins to the CPF, 10 x 200,000 = 2,000,000 coins premined with delayed delivery.
Coinhunter,
You do realize you just countered everything you stated prior to releasing Solidcoin 2.0.
In the above post you openly admit with no room for misunderstanding that a few large miners control 60% of the SC wealth. What happened to fair distribution?
BTW does CPF = Coinhunter Personal Fund?
You do realize you just countered everything you stated prior to releasing Solidcoin 2.0.
In the above post you openly admit with no room for misunderstanding that a few large miners control 60% of the SC wealth. What happened to fair distribution?
BTW does CPF = Coinhunter Personal Fund?
Unfortunately I cannot control the mining nodes, who mines, who prepares etc. The SC1 launch was a lot fairer but since SC2 was public it was hard to "Surprise" people. Only about 320K coins have been generated and I'd say 60% of that went to about 15-20 people.
But you can control what you falsely advertise. This reinforces the bait-and-switch accusation: Your original bait, in your own words, was designed to be a 'fair distribution'. Now it turns out the distribution of a gross 330k coins (in one day) went to ~15 people. Which isn't taking into account the 13m+ premined.
Scam.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE FRAKING POINT. Secure commerce without trust.
The problem with SolidCoin is for it to work, the only way it works we have to implicitly trust Coin Hunter.
That's only IF you use solidcoin...
And the part about secure commerce without trust is also lacking on Bitcoin. A LOT! One doesn't even need to step out of this forums to know that commerce is in no way secure with Bitcoin in it's current state. But maybe that's a problem with the way commercial transactions should be made and not with bitcoin. If money or any other good is changing hands there must be trust between the 2 parties that conduct the business, and honnestly i don't see Bitcoin or any other p2p crypto-currency solving that problem.
I understand that some of you might have thought that Solidcoin would be the one to resolve that problem, or at least to contribute some solutions to the problem.
Coinhunter,
You do realize you just countered everything you stated prior to releasing Solidcoin 2.0.
In the above post you openly admit with no room for misunderstanding that a few large miners control 60% of the SC wealth. What happened to fair distribution?
BTW does CPF = Coinhunter Personal Fund?
You do realize you just countered everything you stated prior to releasing Solidcoin 2.0.
In the above post you openly admit with no room for misunderstanding that a few large miners control 60% of the SC wealth. What happened to fair distribution?
BTW does CPF = Coinhunter Personal Fund?
Unfortunately I cannot control the mining nodes, who mines, who prepares etc. The SC1 launch was a lot fairer but since SC2 was public it was hard to "Surprise" people. Only about 320K coins have been generated and I'd say 60% of that went to about 15-20 people. That breaks down to about 9600 per person. Not exactly rich by any standard measure. My I7 found 10 blocks in the first 90 minutes then nothing for 3 hours. So personally I didn't mine very much either. To put that in perspective, I'm the one who did all the work and because I'm coding up to the last minute I didn't have time to setup servers for mining, etc. Do I really care that much? Not really, if people are happy with SC I'm sure they'll donate some SC to me.
I don't really understand how it's my fault such things happen, if I was to place some sort of ID on everyone who mined I'd then be criticized for doing that, so I'd never win regardless. People who have a lot of mining power, whether GPU or CPU make the most money. Happens in BTC will happen in SC. However unlike BTC at least we can have more people making _something_ due to use of CPU. There was an interesting theory about using human work instead of CPU work on our forum, I may investigate this at some point and see if it's feasible.
THAT IS THE ENTIRE FRAKING POINT. Secure commerce without trust.
The problem with SolidCoin is for it to work, the only way it works we have to implicitly trust Coin Hunter.
But he's more trustworthy than Visa, which is why he and his cronies deserve 10% of the network revenue in perpetuity, and a 13 million coin head start. On top of whatever pittance the rest of the peasants propping up his scam get.
In answer to 1) the blockchain has a set of rules for creation of money. These rules are well known (generates, and now cpf). No one can create money out of nowhere except under the conditions all the clients accept. It's not one million in a wallet, it's one million in an ADDRESS. So hopefully that clears it up for you.
The source code will verify that all clients will not accept the initial trusted accounts in any normal transaction. I could even show you in a live demonstration by attempting to send it right now and watching your client spit out "block failed trusted fund trying to be spent" in debug.log . You can analyse the EXE to find this string in there now if you want.
In regards to 3) Yes this could have been done in a split system whereby "some licenses" say this guy can create a trusted block. However this is quite limited and doesn't get around the fact these accounts will forever be accepted by clients. I think we should let the initial trust funds go under one million and then become "completely null" once we have some real millionaires.
The source code will verify that all clients will not accept the initial trusted accounts in any normal transaction. I could even show you in a live demonstration by attempting to send it right now and watching your client spit out "block failed trusted fund trying to be spent" in debug.log . You can analyse the EXE to find this string in there now if you want.
In regards to 3) Yes this could have been done in a split system whereby "some licenses" say this guy can create a trusted block. However this is quite limited and doesn't get around the fact these accounts will forever be accepted by clients. I think we should let the initial trust funds go under one million and then become "completely null" once we have some real millionaires.
So to be clear on this, the sole criteria to generate the alternate blocks (at difficulty 1) is that you have control of an address with a balance of 1 million+ SC2s.
And when clients verify the block they check the address signing it and scan the whole block-chain to make sure they have a balance of 1 million+ SC2?
That leads to two questions:
1. Isn't calculating the balance of addresses signing those blocks rather computation intensive? Is there some short-cut to work out the bal;ance of an address that doesn't involve reading the whole block-chain? If that's really what happens then isn't the network vulnerable to someone spamming 1 difficulty blocks signed with loads of different addresses - the time to parse the whole block-chain for an address is gonna be longer than the time to generate a 1 difficulty block.
2. If the client knows the addresses of the 1 million-holding accounts (to block spends from them) then I still don't see why yo udidn't have the criteria for generating the alternate blocks being "either it's one of these known addresses OR it holds 1 million+ SC2". Down the line you could remove that code if you chose (meaning only the 'real' millionaires could make them) and there wouldn't be all this controversy about the pre-generated coins.
On an aside, I assume you still have the private keys for the super-node wallets (or we have to take your word for it that you deleted them)? So saying you don't have control ofthem is misleading - as you have access to them and the ability to remove the hard-coded spend-block on them from the source-code.
I'm by no means totally opposed to the PRINCIPLE of how you're stopping 51% attacks - but the pre-genned coins seems needless and hence LOOKS like scam. And there's a fair bit of hypocrisy in your comments elsewhere about exchanges providing RL info on their operators (to reduce the likelihood of them scamming), but you (with the ability - and a past record - of rewriting the block-chain) give no information at all on yourself and fail to identify who the trusted nodes are.
You think anyone is trying to convince CH? The point is to make a record of his false claims, and dubious schemes. If people still fall for it and get scammed well that is their fault. At least the issues are documented. Much like pointing out a scammer in the marketplace. Nobody is trying to "reform" the scammer but simply point out his game.
Which once established, the scammer label would save lots of newcomers time,energy,and effort from getting scammed by this guy.
He still has an open offer to go through and address each of the many grievous accusations.
13 million premine, 10% tax, flood of coins during the first few days? Constant lies (amount of pre-mine less than GG and Tenebrix? Really? In what world is 13 odd million < 7.7?), half-truths and misdirection? Are you KIDDING me? Why is anyone even debating whether this is in any way shape or form a scam or not? There are no doubt even more pleasant surprises to be found when (or if?) the source is ever released.
You would have to be braindamaged to support this centralized, crony-driven cryptopyramid clusterfuck. Why it's even allowed to advertise for free on a forum devoted to an open source, non-commercial, distributed crypto currency is beyond me.
Bring on Litecoin. I'm support a scammer tag for CH 100%.
You would have to be braindamaged to support this centralized, crony-driven cryptopyramid clusterfuck. Why it's even allowed to advertise for free on a forum devoted to an open source, non-commercial, distributed crypto currency is beyond me.
Bring on Litecoin. I'm support a scammer tag for CH 100%.
(Double spends are nearly impossible even with trust accounts due to manual shutdown on large reorgs).
Kill switches always help trust. Always.Also, the banks have a tremendous amount of money, yet they still gambled both their money and our money.
Clearly money alone does not make one trustworthy.
With the 10% tax, CH is sure that he will always remain the most trusted node on the network.
A nice single point of failure.
He could as well have hardcoded his key in the code. That would have spared everybody a lot of time trying to figure wtf.
CH's home is now the one-stop shop to take over the SolidCoin network.
Terrorists, goverments, mafia, and burglars welcome.
CH, I really hope for you and your family that SC2.0 doesn't end up being a success against the odds.
And for the 9 other (un)lucky guys who got a control account, I am sorry for you.
On top of having a contract on your head, you'll have CH's lawyer on your back if you hand over your private key in an attempt to save your life.
I wouldn't like to be at your position.
But anyway, thanks for doing this experiment.
When you figure out why Satoshi decided to keep a low profile, please make sure to share your experience with the community.
A nice single point of failure.
He could as well have hardcoded his key in the code. That would have spared everybody a lot of time trying to figure wtf.
CH's home is now the one-stop shop to take over the SolidCoin network.
Terrorists, goverments, mafia, and burglars welcome.
CH, I really hope for you and your family that SC2.0 doesn't end up being a success against the odds.
And for the 9 other (un)lucky guys who got a control account, I am sorry for you.
On top of having a contract on your head, you'll have CH's lawyer on your back if you hand over your private key in an attempt to save your life.
I wouldn't like to be at your position.
But anyway, thanks for doing this experiment.
When you figure out why Satoshi decided to keep a low profile, please make sure to share your experience with the community.
I'm not even sure what you are arguing here...
Re-read my post. I edited it so the persons with slower brains can understand what i said.
But I'll resume it here anyway: What you think is the truth about Solidcoin or Bitcoin is just your opinion, and several other people around the world agree or disagree with you, so tell me again, what are you guys trying to achieve with this shit?
If you are not willing to change your opinion about things you take as facts, altho they are just your opinion, why should others change theirs?
Honestly, I've changed opinions about SolidCoin quite a few times. CoinHunter initially seemed was very intelligent and knew what he was doing and created quite an innovate coin. Then I got banned from his IRC channel because I asked one too many questions about some of the technicalities of SolidCoin. I was pissed, but then people convinced me that he was just stressed out from the launch so I gave him another chance. And then the whole solidcoin will destroy bitcoin article, gavin trashtalking, and closing open source happened. And the whole community turned on him except for a select few that I can count on one hand. You guys probably run his trusted nodes.
I can gaurantee you that bitcoinexpress is lying about his SC holdings because of the people who have told me what they made mining on the first day. All the biggest miners I know of made more than 60% of it. Leaving the smaller miners to take their share and then possibly whatever this guy thinks he got.
He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said.
He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said.
So now the biggest miners hold 60% of the coins, eh? I guess throw that fairness right out the window. Weren't we promised that unlike bitcoin, solidcoin distribution will be more fair?
And what's up with you attacking Lolcust for 7.7 mil premine when YOU premined 13 mil? Sure you claimed it's locked up in the code. Where's the source code?
With no source code available, CH could remove the client's restriction on trusted address spending, get everyone to upgrade, and go to town. Unlike with Bitcoin, users would have no recourse as they can't build their own version with that restriction in place.
I can gaurantee you that bitcoinexpress is lying about his SC holdings because of the people who have told me what they made mining on the first day. All the biggest miners I know of made more than 60% of it. Leaving the smaller miners to take their share and then possibly whatever this guy thinks he got.
He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said.
He doesn't have a significant holding of SC, ask him to prove it and he'll be unable to. Simply ask him to move SC around on the network so we can see it's under his control. Won't happen, like I've said.
So now the biggest miners hold 60% of the coins, eh? I guess throw that fairness right out the window. Weren't we promised that unlike bitcoin, solidcoin distribution will be more fair?
And what's up with you attacking Lolcust for 7.7 mil premine when YOU premined 13 mil? Sure you claimed it's locked up in the code. Where's the source code?
Well there's a few obvious questions that spring to mind from it:
1. How does the network "know" that a node has more than 1 million SCs in a wallet? Are all generated blocks somehow signed with the address of the largest wallet you own?
2. How are these wallets with the 1 million coins not able to be used for transactions? Are we suppsoed to just take SC's word for it - or is there some special functionailty about those accounts?
3. With any reasonable answers to the above two questions it seems likely to me that the same could have been achieved without pre-genning the 1 mill coins in the wallet. IF those 'special' accounts ARE somehow different to normal ones then surely the test could be that EITHER the node must hold 1 million coins OR it must own one of the special wallets (without them needing to actually hold 1 million coins).
Doubt we'll get straight answers to the above - but:
A. If the answer to 2 is "we have to take his word" then obviously his white-paper is intentionally misleading due to him claiming the money "can't" be used rather than that he "won't" use it.
B. If the answer to 2 is that those accounts are in some way different to other accounts then obviously it follows that there was no need to generate the coins - the special 'status' of those accounts could have been detected instead. And any such special status HAS to be detectable - or the network wouldn't be able to tell to disallow any attempts to use the content of them.
If he's either lied about the status of those accounts OR has generated millions of coins where there's no reason to (unles he wants to pump and dump with them ofc) then seems like it's just a get rich quick scheme at the exense of anyone gullible enough to buy SC2s (though I find it hard to have any sympathy for anyone that stupid).
1. How does the network "know" that a node has more than 1 million SCs in a wallet? Are all generated blocks somehow signed with the address of the largest wallet you own?
2. How are these wallets with the 1 million coins not able to be used for transactions? Are we suppsoed to just take SC's word for it - or is there some special functionailty about those accounts?
3. With any reasonable answers to the above two questions it seems likely to me that the same could have been achieved without pre-genning the 1 mill coins in the wallet. IF those 'special' accounts ARE somehow different to normal ones then surely the test could be that EITHER the node must hold 1 million coins OR it must own one of the special wallets (without them needing to actually hold 1 million coins).
Doubt we'll get straight answers to the above - but:
A. If the answer to 2 is "we have to take his word" then obviously his white-paper is intentionally misleading due to him claiming the money "can't" be used rather than that he "won't" use it.
B. If the answer to 2 is that those accounts are in some way different to other accounts then obviously it follows that there was no need to generate the coins - the special 'status' of those accounts could have been detected instead. And any such special status HAS to be detectable - or the network wouldn't be able to tell to disallow any attempts to use the content of them.
If he's either lied about the status of those accounts OR has generated millions of coins where there's no reason to (unles he wants to pump and dump with them ofc) then seems like it's just a get rich quick scheme at the exense of anyone gullible enough to buy SC2s (though I find it hard to have any sympathy for anyone that stupid).
Bumping this on the (very) unlikely chance that he overlooked what (I believe to be) serious questions addressing the very basis of the "trusted nodes" and pre-mined coins.
Sorry I thought this was a troll as it's obvious.
In answer to 1) the blockchain has a set of rules for creation of money. These rules are well known (generates, and now cpf). No one can create money out of nowhere except under the conditions all the clients accept. It's not one million in a wallet, it's one million in an ADDRESS. So hopefully that clears it up for you.
The source code will verify that all clients will not accept the initial trusted accounts in any normal transaction. I could even show you in a live demonstration by attempting to send it right now and watching your client spit out "block failed trusted fund trying to be spent" in debug.log . You can analyse the EXE to find this string in there now if you want.
In regards to 3) Yes this could have been done in a split system whereby "some licenses" say this guy can create a trusted block. However this is quite limited and doesn't get around the fact these accounts will forever be accepted by clients. I think we should let the initial trust funds go under one million and then become "completely null" once we have some real millionaires.
Nobody is giving deepbit the benefit of the doubt. It has less than 50% hashing power. There is no 49.9% vulnerability. Even at 50.1% the attack isn't instantaneous. Most entities require 6 confirmations for this exact reason. That requires sustaining >50% hashing power for >1 hour AND getting lucky that you solve the next 6 blocks.
Even with 50.1% hashing power the odds deepbit signs the next 6 blocks is ~1.53%. It is like flipping a coin and getting 6 heads in a row.
Even with 50.1% hashing power the odds deepbit signs the next 6 blocks is ~1.53%. It is like flipping a coin and getting 6 heads in a row.
Are you sure those numbers are correct? Who audited them? Who tells you that they aren't hiding 10% of their hashrate to give you all the warm feeling of them being trustworthy?
If you guys want to be paranoid, please wear your tinfoilhat at all times, not just when it suits your own personal agendas...
At the end i don't want nobody to be scammed. And like you are warning everybody about solidcoin being a possible scam, you were also all warned that bitcoin is a possible scam by others, yet you all keep insisting on using it(i use it also).
You can keep this dialog with coinhunter for 2 more years and it will lead none of you to nowhere except to more publicity to his solidcoin.
Both parts are stubborn and choose to believe what ever they want to believe.
EDIT: Serious question --> Are you guys just trolling him for the fun of it? If that's so forget all that I said, and... good job!
Jump to: