Topic: SolidCoin 2 Release - Monday 10th October 23:35 UTC (Read 21322 times)

Nice one ! LOL

... looking at BTC-E at the moment SC2 could drop down to as low as .00001 BTC in the not too far future,
(buys are a total of 50BTC including all the fake ones - everyone seems to be selling)
so you could get 1mil SC for 10BTC (at .00001) and become a truted node
(or even .000001 thus trusted for only 1BTC)

Looks like trust will be cheap soon

Well here's a clue.  All crypto-currencies other than BTC curentl;y have no significant use other than to speculate on and trade against BTC.  Mervchants aren't touching them.  If you belive you have soimne iside infoirmation then by all means trade them - otherwise ou're just gambling on the success of BTC but insulatingyourself from that success by one step.

Arguably you could invest in SC2 rather than BTC if you believe some anonymous guy with control over 12 million premined coins and over the netowrk is a better bet than the consensus on which BTC operates. 


If you don't have inside info or trust in RS then investing in alt-chains is gambling at best and burning money at worst.

I don't know what exactly any cryptocurrency is actually being used for; they are difficult to trace to the point of being practically anonymous. I also cannot measure scumbag factors. I see no reason to trust anyone here or speculate on their motives, and I couldn't care less about forum drama.

So I have no choice but to minimize trust. The only meaningful difference between the two is whether to trust the Bitcoin block chain or some anonymous guy. Yeah I choose the block chain, but a constant stream of hate is not constructive.

And clearly there was time for "proper testing" during the three updates within a few hours mess, right?

Minor correction:
The actual usage of the coins other than to trade for other coins/cash.

I said goodbye to common sense once I started using magical imaginary internet money. 

SolidCoin makes only slightly less sense than Bitcoin when you look at both from afar.

Seriously, that has nothing to do with it.

Just get ANY unbiased opinion of it (yes ignore mine as well) and you will find that they will not say that common sense has anything to do with SolidCoin.

Obviously a completely unbiased arena for free and open discussion of SolidCoin!

Maybe because of common sense and following SC forum + IRC? 

My guess? He's either CoinHunter or a "friend" of his. Either way, he's got his head pretty far up CoinHunter's ass.

No major software project is 100% bug free, you could test for years and still not find every bug. Granted, the hashrate bugs in the mining portion of the client are embarrassing and should have been captured, but nobody's perfect!

"Proper" testing, in my opinion, ensures that core functionalities or "Minimum Marketable Features" are 100% working, and allows for some minor defects. You can learn about this approach on Wikipedia if you like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_software_development#Lean_software_practices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_testing

There's a balance to be struck between time spent testing and speed of updates, you're always going to have to trade one for the other.

You could spend 3 months testing each new version and release maybe 2-3 updates a year, or you can test enough to be satisfied the core functionality is working well and release new features quickly. I think SolidCoin is a project which benefits from the latter approach.


I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't hold any Bitcoins at all. Sold the majority at $8 when it was on the way down from $10, and transferred the last few I had into SolidCoins a few days ago. It's a dead currency with no future, makes no sense to hold it...


This wallet corruption was in one of the early private Betas, it never occurred in any version that was released to the public.

The point of private beta testing is to find bugs in untested features, this was one of them. The users who had their wallets corrupted knew the risks and had wallet backups, so you'll be pleased to know that there was no harm done.

I'm thrilled that you're all following the development of the SolidCoin client so closely, but if you really want to keep up to date with all the goings on in the fast-paced ever-changing world of SolidCoin I strongly recommend checking out the new SolidCoin Wiki: http://wiki.solidcoin.info/

Peace out, and thanks again as always for your continued interest in our little project

Whoops, panties showing.

You loudly proclaimed on an exchange chat earlier today that you hold "5% of your wealth in SC, and over 75% in BTC."

So I guess that we should take your statements with the same Gibraltar-sized grain of salt that once must use to filter any agitprop about sc. You have learned your lessons well, you lie, like he codes, pathetic, arrogant and sad. And your stories have as many holes as his security.

Sorry - but that is quite ridiculous of CH.
He's taken untested code from bitcoin and here CH acolytes are saying how it makes it better than bitcoin, but that code corrupts wallets?
I wonder if that explains a post I saw elsewhere where someone had SC wallet corruption - i.e. when was it fixed in SC? (or has it been fixed?)

Really?  I mean, really?  Are you honestly trying to claim that he does proper testing when he's constantly releasing bugfixes?
You do know what bugfixes are for, right?  Fixing bugs.
What's a bug?  Something that wasn't found and fixed before being released.
Proper testing exposes those bugs before release, leading to bug-free releases.

Are we entirely sure about this? The addresses can apparently only be used for trusted blocks, and creating those apparently requires 1 million solidcoins - but what happens if RealSolid combines two of these depleted addresses to fulfil the million-coin requirement? I have no idea if this would be allowed by the rules and I'm not sure if RealSolid's thought about it much, but if this was possible then a full 11 million premined coins could eventually end up in RealSolid's CPF wallet.

Funnily enough the Bitcoin developers actually wrote a lot of the internal changes to support multiple wallets that RealSolid piggy-backed on - not that long before he started work on it in fact - and that code exists in the official Bitcoin client. They just haven't got around to exposing it yet, possibly because of the difficulty of doing proper testing. (RealSolid's initial release with it had an unfortunate bug that corrupted users wallets' if they used wallet encryption and multi-wallet support at the  same time.)

Isn't the official block chain defined by RealSolid and his trusted nodes? He could take down the whole network again and start SC3.

Is anyone arguing that SolidCoin is decentralized? I thought its centralization was the whole point, what distinguishes it from other cryptocurrencies. Like halfway between Bitcoin and e-gold.

I'm actually hoping that the value of SolidCoin goes up, just to see what happens. We already have reason to believe RealSolid is in Australia, I wonder what other organizations are better at finding people than we are...

Once again based on what assurances?  How do you KNOW (not just believe) funds can't be trusfered out of those accounts?

....

...

...

You don't.  The system only works if you have 100% implicit trust in a single human being.  A king of the network if you will (one who also collects a 10% tax into perpetuity, has the private keys to all 12 million SC trusted nodes, has complete control of source code, has kept things like GPU mining from general public, can kill the network at will, etc).

Where is the source code?
How do you know the coins can't be spent or moved?

100% implicit trust in a single fallable human.  Yeah that is a great basis for a decentralized peer to peer network.