My goal is not get BTC2 "unbanned"
I just wanted a legit reason to the basis.
~BCX~
The legit reasons of the time, were due to the warnings by those initially releasing download links to the coin. As I posted earlier today, the first "official" Scrypt BTC thread had this warning.
IMPORTANT NOTE
Installing the wallet: Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder. You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client. BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file.
Also, CryptoCoinTalk.com just posts cryptocoin releases. Don't shoot the messenger.
If you check on Page two an excerpt from Fablio's post, as a Scrypt Bitcoin supporter.
2. There is an instruction how to install wallet:
"
IMPORTANT NOTEInstalling the wallet: Since this is an EXACT copy of Bitcoin when you install the client it will attempt to use the existing bitcoin roaming (windows) folder. You're going to need to rename the Bitcoin SHA-256 roaming folder to something else to use the Bitcoin Scrypt client. BEWARE, this could destroy your wallet if you start mining Bitcoin Scrypt using the Bitcoin SHA-256 wallet.dat file."
*************
3. Soon will be renamed version (Bitcoin2) for convenience. Of course you do not lose your coins.
So as I said,
the original reason behind the ban was because the evidence was that the coin could damage your SHA BTC Wallet. As it stands, yes it still does, however it doesn't completely overwrite your keys. That was the reason it was banned. Prior to that info, we just had people put disclaimers in their threads.
My post to be discussed by the staff:
Well, the coin's announcement thread on the Alt Coin forum has been changed to,
IMPORTANT NOTE
Installing Bitcoin Scrypt will not delete your SHA Bitcoin folder, it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.
In light of it not actually overwriting SHA Bitcoin wallets, does anyone feel that we should go back to allowing the threads with disclaimers?
A point that gmaxwell brought up which I find particularly relevant,
it will just integrate with it, so when you run the SHA version, your Scrypt BTC will be unconfirmed and not usable and vice versa.
Translation: it will shit all over your wallet and probably blow out your blockchain. Your coins keys may not be lost, but there is more to "doesn't break things" than not erasing your keys.
There are still the other issues that I posted originally which was the general consensus that lead us to request that everyone used disclaimers to signify they were talking about Scrypt Bitcoin, however like I said we are discussing everything again. At this point, I would personally return to the disclaimer section, however, its not entirely my call as I don't feel that I should impose my personal judgements on anyone. Thats what leads to unnecessary abuse and overall jerkery. For that reason, I've opened up the discussion with the rest of the staff, and I'm waiting for others feedback. I have my own ideas, but I value the opinions of the rest of the forums staff.
There are a lot of staff and adminstrators that have no other reach into the Alt Coin community, so their opinions are solely based on how great the potential for abuse is and how it will effect the BTCTalk members and their BTC. No one is afraid of Scrypt taking over, or that Scrypt BTC will outcompete SHA BTC or the other odd claims that some people are making. If that was the case, we wouldn't allow any Scrypt Coins, which clearly isn't the case. There are no alterior motives, I've listed all of the factors that lead to the decision, with the commonly held knowledge that Scrypt BTC could damage your SHA BTC keys. Now that that has been more or less proven untrue, discussion is back open.