Topic: So Bitcoin Leaders what is your position on the ongoing Altcoinocide? (Read 5810 times)

survival of the fittest lawl

http://bitcoinmedia.com/luke-dashjr-throws-book-at-solidcoin/

I found the above link written by Amir Taaki yesterday.

"I examined IxCoin’s sourcecode after unsuccessfully imploring him to drop his losing bet on IxCoin. Quickly it was apparent that the entire thing was unstable and a get rich quick scam. Within 6 years, the system would become unstable and shut down overnight because of technical reasons. IxCoin’s creator also spammed me and the other front-page developers offering us an ‘IxCoin bonus’. I tried to urge Jason to dump his IxCoins but he would not. It became unconciable for me to keep this knowledge secret. I made a forum post titled IxCoin is a SCAM and the value of IxCoins soon plummeted to zero (whether related or not). "

From what I understand, in 6 years when the 21,000,000 coin is minted, no new blocks will be minted?  Is that true? I think they will be minted, but just with no reward.  Hopefully, Nasakioto will add a 1 coin block reward at the end.  How do you know the "spammed me" was not just a reach out to give the main developers a bonus for all the work you did on the main client?  The only thing ixcoin showed is bounties do not work, almost all the bounty sites went down.  

From what I see these coins (ioc and ixc) are not scams.  The only two with massive pre-mine were gg and tbx, ixc were used in bounties.  The price of ixc has never gone to zero.

Who the hell is Joe?  I thought his name was Luke.  I am so confused.

So Joe cured cancer and eradicated a country full of thieves.
Sounds like a hero to me. 

Ah, but he pays for a network connection and electricity out of his profits. The hashing power belonged to his clients (the miners). They are trading their work, which they believed was for mining bitcoins, in exchange for a bitcoin payment.

In my eyes, this whole Luke vs CLC situation equates to the following:
Joe starts up a company (pool). Hires a bunch of scientists (miners) to do genetic research for curing cancer (work). In exchange, Joe pays the scientists for their work (bitcoins). Then one day Joe decides to use some of the results of the genetic research to make his own biological weapons and then proceeds to use those weapons to eradicate an entire country in its infancy, just because he thought the country was filled with thieves.

Could he have done it without electricity or a network connection?

could you have done it without the pool?

this.

this.

Same here.

How are they gaining Bitcoins if they are attacking the network?

Also no altcoin has sufficient depth, and value to support a miner with ~9TH of hashing power. 



The attack would be massively expensive.  The hardware, electrical, and labor costs in the tens of millions of dollars.  The only revenue an attacker would get from that would be the value of the double spent bitcoins which would crash massively in value resulting in an economic loss for the attacker.

There was no attack that I'm aware of from BTCGuild or anyone on i0c other than the double spend attack on the exchange much later in the chains history. Whoever did that is a mystery, other than knowing the i0coin addresses that hold the funds. i0coin's issue was broken difficulty adjustment code that used 'real world' time. ArtForZ actually provided the fix for this so the chain could continue.

How is a 51% merged mining attack on Bitcoins not free if such an attack on other coins is?

Actually I'd think such an attack on bitcoin might even be better than free, it might be profitable, for example if the bitcoins gained by the attacker cause their electricity bill barely or not quite covered by the other coins to be more than covered, or even if the other coins already cover their operating costs any money they can make from also mining bitcoins at the same time would be almost pure profit.

Arguing that they might lower the value of bitcoins by attacking them doesn't really change anything except for people who already have quite a few bitcoins before considering the attack.

-MarkM-

Hold up I think you got history wrong. All El did was put up a altcoin pool because quite a few of us was bugging him in IRC to do it to mine the coin. He/we did nothing apart from put hash onto the coin to mine it. Yes btc guild did have over 50% of the hash but was this an attack NOO. It was because at the start there was not many pools that did altcoin. So that meens the blame must rest with the miners who mined it when it was worth more than bitcoin then dumped it when it was not.
He then closed the pool when the altcoin broke due to faulty code and at the time no sign of it being fixed.

History shows the same happened with namecoin so do we blame DoubleC for providing the pool at the time. Or the people who mined it for the profit.

Did not post this to start a argument but still just had to post this to set the story right.

Deepbit can't take down Bitcoin.

All it shows it that merged mining and mining pools are dangerous.  The government could infiltate Deepbit and take down bitcoin whenever they want.  The larger pools can take down namecoin, ixcoin, iocoin whenever they want.

You. Hafta. Be. Trolling.

Everyone should just support Bitcoin...

Out of interest, could you apply this logic to slavery -- activity that used to be legal and considered 'right' by many people? Remember that when you own slaves, you own their offspring too...

Our legal/financial systems just do not work like you seem to think or hope they do. Exceptions and changes to contracts _are_ forced quite frequently. There are severe negative side-effects to that (some of which you mentioned) so their use is generally a last option but it happens.

Not entirely. Luke-Jr keeps making statements that whilst technically true are carefully worded to mislead people into thinking that Eligius was not in fact merged mining CLC, and I think a few people have come to believe this. (Not that it'd probably make much difference anyway.)

No, the problem is precisely the fact that he's attacking altcoins. The fact that he's using other people's calculations and these random people tolerate this is the sad/shocking part.

Criminals will always exist. But there's no reason to believe pooled mining attracts more criminals than honest people. So, in regards to being criminals or not, miners are a "random population". And this event shows that lots of random people simply don't care about helping an attack towards innocents if such attack is irrelevant to them.