Topic: So Bitcoin Leaders what is your position on the ongoing Altcoinocide? - page 2. (Read 5810 times)

Maybe you've heard about the post-democratic invention called "republic"? You even may be living in one. Although in my experience majority of people don't understand the difference and think they are living in a "democracy".

Anyway, fun thread to read.

How many even know?
How many care?

No matter. Whitehat derpxecutions like Luke's tactic will not work in the near future.

(my apologies for posting, since I'm not a Bitcoin leader)


In a way, everyone in that pool HAS now been asked that question, and current pool hashing power should reflect their answer.

I WISH I had so many choices in phone companies as miners have in pools!

So mob violence is correct?  Might makes right? 

"Don't like your contract just beat a new contract out of the counterparty".  Yup sounds like a great basis for a prosperous society.

Fair enough. I accept your clarification on pools and their operators. Where you and I differ is whether Luke harmed his users. I believe he did not. I think Luke is only guilty of being a prick to the creator of CLC. Luke could have handled this situation in a much more mature fashion. Instead, he humiliated the CLC creator when he could have merely demonstrated the weakness in the altcoin and then backed off. If at that point, the creator of CLC still refuses to acknowledge the flaw, then take the gloves off and bodyslam the blockchain.

CLC did serve a valuable purpose. It demonstrated that there is a serious chicken & egg problem with launching altcoins.

I don't care if it is a million people a contract is a contract.  Changing the law to make certain actions illegal is after the fact and would affect future contracts.  It doesn't change the fact that the contract is right at the time it was enforced and no amount of feelings can/should change that.

Oh brother.

Both K & Z fail at logic.

One wants all injuries monetized.
The other wants the mob to decide.

Preventing the operation of a system built by someone else is wrong. However, as long as you are merely disruptive, I may not feel too bad about it. You come out trying to destroy and you will find me to be some quite fierce opposition.

LOGIC is the GLUE not the SUBSTANCE of a DECISION.

Stop using logic as a crutch and actually consider the other person's experience.

Worst idea ever.  So even if a contract says x is valid if people "feel" wronged you can be guilty of something?

The enforcement of contracts is the cornerstone of modern industry.  To overturn contract law based on feelings is got to be the stupidest thing I have heard today.

If contract says X and someone gets X buts feels wronged then they should look at contracts better or select a provider who advertizes they do/don't do the thing that person feels wronged about.

Your position is now much clearer. You hate all pool operators as you consider them to be evil and you view mining software as an infection. There is, in fact, no way for you to avoid hating Luke because he is a pool operator. I see now why you want to discourage all Eligius users from using that pool and to cast off the infected software that they have on their computers.

I do not share your views.

It will. The same way that the car dealership will not end up in court for selling the pedobear his windowless white van. The same way Bushnell will not get in trouble for making and selling the binoculars the pedobear used to stalk his victims. The same way the construction company who built pedobears basement where he keeps the kids will not get in trouble.

You sold the results of a math equation that has plenty of legitimate uses. You had absolutely no say over what the results of that math equation are used for. You are mischaracterizing Lukes relationship with his users. The system would never work if Luke had *any* control over his users resources. Nobody should trust some random pool operator to run any code they like on their computer. That is why the parameters for the work are fixed beforehand, and why all the execution is done at the users behest, not the pool operator.


I apologize for my posts that were well thought out and disagreed with your preconceived notions. I guess people who disagree with you in such a way that you cannot logically disprove their assertions are your definition of evil. I am glad that I do not share your "personal notion of actual right and wrong". If people used logic instead of visceral instincts, they wouldn't need a "moral compass" prepackaged in the form of religion.

You ought to have something to complain about before posting things for other people to read.

It has become clear that you and others in these threads have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between a pool operator and pool users.

As I understand it:
A pool user asks the pool for work.
The pool supplies work.
The user completes the work, and trades the results of that work for BTC & NMC.
The pool pays the BTC & NMC in return for the completed work.
If the results are valuable then the pool submits the results to a blockchain for a reward.
The pool executes no code on the user's machine.
The form of the work is well defined beforehand.
The user is under no obligation to ask for work, or complete it.
The result is half of a math equation (a fact) and thus not subject to copyright or patent.
The result was volunteered to the pool operator, so it is not subject to trade secret.

If you think Luke is a phallus for attacking a block chain that is fine, that is your opinion of him and you have every right to not like him for such a thing. To suggest he violated his user's trust is wrong. The user sold him a fact. The transaction was completed according to the agreed upon terms. Luke is free to use that fact in any way he sees fit. If you don't like how Luke uses facts, don't sell him any. There was (and still is) no agreement restricting Lukes use of facts.

I am releasing 100 alt coins with merge mining in from day one. They will all be identical to Bitcoin, except their names won't start with "Bit" and they will use different port numbers (some of them are very secure because nobody checks port 1337!). I will then sue all the pool operators who fail to give me my merge mined alt coins.

Edit: Done. All of my new altcoins are released. Why are all the pool operators stealing everyone's coins?

No, for four reasons:
First, bitcoin is not launching today. The flaw is at its worst during launch. Now it is much more difficult to execute, but not impossible. Ultimately, the security of any software relies on its users. You can't force them to follow correct protocols, and you can't prevent them from volunteering the secure information. Byzantine corruption is one of the classic problems that faces cryptography.

Second, when BTC was launched there was no pre-existing base of BTC specific hash power that could overwhelm all of the other early adopters.

Third, there was no such thing as pools of miners when BTC was launched.

Fourth, nobody knew what a cryptocurrency was, what it could be used for, or exchange it for anything other than barter. So there was no economic incentive at all to attack bitcoin. The only incentive would have been intellectual.

Errrm... you do realize that Bitcoin has more or less the same cryptographic flaw, right?

Being broken on the initial release of the algorithm absolutely disqualifies it as cryptography. If initially it is uncrackable and over time new methods come to light which degrade its effectiveness, that is one thing (specifically your SHA1 example, which is a hash, not encryption btw). But calling ROT26 an encryption algorithm is senseless and just playing at semantics. Blaming someone for cracking ROT26 is mindless and betrays a complete misunderstanding of what cryptography is for.


If your uncle gets a sex change, he could be your aunt. Many things are possible, but before they become so, some things need to take place (turning an outie to an innie for instance). We don't judge based on what something might have been if incorrect assumptions are made (that everyone on the internet plays nice).

FYI, every potential encryption protocol goes through a testing period where some of the best math minds on the planet try to "destroy" it. Releasing something onto the world without an alpha or beta test and then blaming others for bugs is the work of a novice. Novices should stay out of the field of cryptography.
'

BTC Guild in an I0C attack? All I ever did was throw up a pool when I0C launched.  I0C had no attack, the coin itself was FUBAR'd at launch due to bad design in its time-based diff adjustment.

Just FYI my comment about joining the pool was meant to be sarcastic (post fixed), my main point was that I would expect people to vote by leaving the pool, the pool would then have little or no users - therefore little hashing power, problem solved!

Only a problem for those who mine at his pool then.  Not me.  Do you happen to be a miner in his pool?
They/You know now.
Now that everyone knows, they/you can move to a different pool if desired.
In fact those that support "alt chain busting" can mine at his pool and get the added benefit of helping to kill alt chains. 
Those that do not support "alt chain busting" can mine somewhere else.

That is exactly my point. Neither the method of cryptography (specifically sharing the BTC hash method, initial friendly hashpower too small or non-existent) nor the facilitation of trade (exchanges on day one) met the minimum required levels.

The experiment was valuable because it identified serious flaws in the launch protocol of potential cryptocurrencies.

But it aint a currency if people can't spend it, and it aint cryptography if it gets cracked on day 1.

The problem is not Luke attacking altcoins but Luke using his pool for attacking altcoins without his pool users knowing. This is a breach of trust.