Topic: SolidCoin v2.01 Released - page 6. (Read 8375 times)

You, of course, having access to the source for some length of time, or at least important parts of it, expect the world to jump on the faithful bandwagon because the source has been in the wild for a couple of hours? That a full peer review and testing of the code can be done in the first 30 minutes or so?

Master and Con-mmander didn't release the source for two and one half weeks during what he claimed was peer review...

1) I thought there was no upper limit on scamcoins
2) That's a big if you're throwing out there - and by your own word you've built your 'trust' around the greed of money.  That negates 'right values'
3) This is beside the point of having -yourself- as the single point of failure.  As in, if SC -were- deemed a threat, and a government -did- want to squelch it, you've put a bullseye on your own back.  And with you go the private keys and the control of the network - either to be suspended or forcefully taken over.  These are kinda 'duh' things to consider when dealing with monetary systems and threats from the government.

I am reading the source (and god some of the coding is awful) however keep chanting "read the source, read the source" it doesn't change the fudamental flaw.

1) The person with the control nodes can CHANGE THE SOURCE and force that on the network.  As an example the original source has 32SC block reward.  If the source had been available one could "verify" yup the block reward is 32SC.  However the block reward is NOT 32SC is it?  It is only 5SC. Wait how could that happen?  Oh yeah the source code can be changed.

2) The control nodes can refuse to sign blocks they consider invalid thus when the person who controls the control nodes makes a change to the source (any change no matter how draconian like cutting miner rewards by 87%) the peasants MUST accept it or stop using the network.

3) A single person named "Real Solid" has private keys for all 10 control nodes (effectively a single control node).  They will enforce any change he makes to the network.

Were you able to follow that?  Can you see how the source code isn't the end all of an evolving protocol when a single person has absolute control.

Except by the time they see SolidCoin as a threat the people with the most money will be people who share the values of people like you and myself. There is only a limited amount of coins in existence and if they are owned by people with the right values then there is nothing a government can do.

Your argument that it makes it less secure than bitcoin is pretty stupid though. You do realize you need both MINING and MONEY to attack SolidCoin. In Bitcoin you only need mining. In essence to attack SolidCoin you need a lot more investment and if it goes as expected people with the right values will have the most "money" in the system. We are starting from scratch here, Rothschild isn't given SolidCoins from birth, nor are the Rockafellas. If you want to make a difference to that shit then you need to start helping instead of taking your current position.

You made it more vulnerable to government threats.  You are aware government have this thing called money.  Money that could be exchanged for ScamCoins.  Once they have 51% of the control ScamCoins they control the network.

The government doesn't need to build a massive hashing farm to takedown ScamCoin 2.0 you gave them a "buyout" option.  You have deluded yourself into thinking your are the King of the Turdhill.  If ScamCoin was ever deemed a threat by the government they could end it instantly.  You gave them the option.


I wish you had followed your own rules.  

 And this is why I have to ignore everything you say.

 You see yourself as the singular answer to all our woes. This is how cult leaders behave.

 Sorry bud. Not buying what you're selling.

e: Furthermore, you would do well not to make assumptions about people.

I'll happily claim to be one that felt the code should be released. And I will further state that I cannot, and will not read C++. I felt the code should be released so that critical eyes can take a look, who CAN read the code and offer a further review of this creature that seems to adopt so many forms. I believe that having hundreds, nay, thousands of people who are better educated on that particular type of source reviewing it, helps me to make an educated decision about adopting for my own uses or my business.

What you want to check in the source is whether or not you're told the truth about the "greatness" of a design. So the idea is, if the design sounds incoherent in the first place, there's much less of an incentive to check the source...

Well it depends what you mean by central authority. As the developer of a new product, I, using my experience and those of others implemented *ideas*. This of course makes most of the protocol, etc, centralized ideas. Just like satoshis first version was centralized with his magic values and protocol.

I designed SolidCoin v2.0 so that it could protect itself against government threats, the highest level of attacks we may face if very successful. To me there is no point in doing something if you don't have answers for problems. You don't really need to trust me to have your SolidCoins secure, that is the thing. If you think the network and protocol runs through a central authority you are probably misguided from ill informed people here.

Perhaps if people realized my values are anti system and anti bank they will realize why I made SolidCoin. If you want to live in lala land thinking Bitcoin is "the answer" to the banks and system then there isn't much I can do besides to continue to educate people. If you really want to bring an end to this shit you need real answers and real protection against the threats these types of currencies will face. Anyone who has been running Bitcoin over the last month can surely start to see cracks appearing in it with its 2 hour blocks and slow network. Bitcoin is no threat to banks or governments, they can own it at any moment they want.

Anyone using the SolidCoin client immediately notices the difference in performance and speed, and they can rest at night knowing their coins won't disappear or that someone will rewrite history and kill a chain by taking all the wealth from the system.

He will reply back with 'anyone with 1m SC can become a trusted node'.  But this does nothing in reality, as CH still has the majority of the 'trust accounts', he can block out the lone wolf if he disagrees with him.  Aside from technical reasoning, CH has no problem 'freezing' people out of 'the solidcoin community' if those people still wanted to support SC 1.0, as well as banning much dissension among his ranks.

Of course I may be overstepping myself, lets see what he comes up with  

You have all the private keys to all the control nodes. You control them.  You may make some sockpuppets in the future who claim to be independent but there is no proof, no evidence, no irrevocability in your losing control.  

We just need to "trust you".  An entire economic system that requires complete and absolute trust in a semi-anonymous unemployed programmer.  You have complete control and we need to trust you will never misuse that.  Hell even the Federal Reserve doesn't have that kind of power.

Exactly and currently you control 100% of it.  Thanks for admitting you can make any change to the network and the control nodes will enforce your divine will.  Even if someone did have 1M SC then don't have more than you and thus your will still stands.  If someone got close to getting 12M coins (to have 51% of control money) you could simply change the rules like you can now and at any point in the future.


There is 1 control node.  There are millions of miners.  If even one of them continues to mine the network will continue and ACCEPT your forced changes.  Just like the drop from 32 SC to 5 SC.  Sure if every single miner rejected them the network would stop but given you are also a miner that will never happen.

You have complete control of the network both now and in the future.  None of your obfuscation or half truths change that.

okay, it's centralized on 10 accounts. What difference does it make anyway? I mean, obviously a same account is controlled by a same person (no matter how many nodes it has), and my concern is about people centralization, not machine centralization.

1: No: everyone had the same power
2: Somewhat, but reversibly: people give hashing power to pools, but they're not forced to

 Let me ask you an honest question. No trolling.

 Why should we trust you as the central authority for SolidCoin ?

 Why do you keep making the point that 3 pools have 80% of the hashing power ? The likelihood of even two of those pools getting together in a coordinated attack is a rather mind-boggling proposal.

Yes the entire network would halt until the code was fixed.

Just like how in Bitcoin the same would happen if difficulty was increased to 100 million by the government.

I said the trust accounts could in the future be refilled if code was added to support it. Currently those trust accounts cannot be moved in ANY way, including collecting donations to themselves. So it would be impossible _currently_ to do such a thing with them. They are really locked down.


This is incorrect because I don't run all the trust nodes. All decisions need to be agreed upon by those holders or they could decide not to support the changes and chaos would ensue. These 10 trust accounts are a short term measure to get us into the real millionaire realm, it's not a permanent thing by any mean which is why they are designed to die.


No, they need a majority of trust money if they want to force decisions on the network. Think of SolidCoin as two forces fighting, both mining and money, you need both to attack the network which is why it's so secure. Without mining power the trust nodes really have nothing and vice versa.

Just as trust nodes can not accept certain blocks non trust nodes don't have to accept trust node blocks if they don't meet criteria of their choosing. You are really simplifying things if you don't realize you need both forces working together, those with the money and those with the mining power.

Indeed, saying people "go read the source" isn't nearly as efficient as explaining in a convincing and coherent manner how things work. Speaking of coherence (or lack of thereof), cf posts by DeathAndTaxes and Bobnova.

I LOVE LITECOIN. 

Interesting change from what you've been saying up till now about them being able to be refilled from the CPF and that being a main reason for the CPF's existence.



Regardless of how centralized RS may believe bitcoin to be based on three people with three pools having most of the hashing power, SC2 is more centralized, with one (1) person having 100% of the control.

Call the wealth transfer from the Node to the CPF a tax, or a loss-due-to-signing, or anything else, it's still a transfer of wealth.

1) You have indicated in the past they could be refilled when asked what happens when they run out of money.  What would happen if the balance of all trusted nodes fell below 1M SC and no "real millionaire" existed?  The entire network would halt forever?  You are saying absolutely there is no possible way to add a single coin to the "control node" accounts by any method?

2) You can force any change to the network.  If ever there was a need for you to continue to retain absolute control you could remove the restriction, you could change the even block protocol so it refills the trusted node automatically.  You could increase the limit for what makes a trusted node (to lock out competitors).  You could remove the restrctions on spending funds from trusted node.  You could increase the kings ransom from 10% to 30% or any amount to ensure you will always be in complete control of the network.

If a single person controls the funds & the keys there is no checks and balances.  Just obfuscation.



And you would still override them by having >1M coins.  Also you could at any time change that if you wanted to just like you can change any aspect of the network on a whim.

I think CH is used to having the 'ban' function when it comes to people asking hard questions.

He's tripping all over his own words.

Again if you could read C++ you would see that isn't the case. Go get an education before pretending to know things.