Topic: The Case against Solidcoin, and it's place on bitcointalk.org - page 2. (Read 6003 times)
IMHO the best bet is to just move it from "alternate cryptocurrencies" to "off-topic". I don't think we should ban/scamtag suspected socks unless an admin confirms identical IPs, like checkuser on Wikipedia. I just don't want to see some epic conflict that the media would portray as infighting.
I wholeheartedly support this decision.
Bitcoin does not need Solidcoin, and Solidcoin does not need Bitcoin. The "bitcoin" threads on the solidcoin forums is full of anti-bitcoin sentiment, just as the "solidcoin" threads here are full of anti-solidcoin sentiment. Maintaining this is impossible, and I believe that the two currencies - run by different ideals, different technology, and different user base should do whatever possible to avoid each other. It is an undeniable fact that the existance of solidcoin in these fora have negatively contributed to the quality of discussion. In fact, I would even go so far as to censor all alternate currencies from this board.
No bitcoin supporters-in-waiting need to know about its competitors.
Bitcoin does not need Solidcoin, and Solidcoin does not need Bitcoin. The "bitcoin" threads on the solidcoin forums is full of anti-bitcoin sentiment, just as the "solidcoin" threads here are full of anti-solidcoin sentiment. Maintaining this is impossible, and I believe that the two currencies - run by different ideals, different technology, and different user base should do whatever possible to avoid each other. It is an undeniable fact that the existance of solidcoin in these fora have negatively contributed to the quality of discussion. In fact, I would even go so far as to censor all alternate currencies from this board.
No bitcoin supporters-in-waiting need to know about its competitors.
Can we at least get the sockpuppet accounts ten98 and viperjbm banned and block any other accounts from their ip(s)?
That alone would clear up a great deal of the trolling on alt-currencies.
That alone would clear up a great deal of the trolling on alt-currencies.
These should be big red warning flags.
Edit: I'm not super clear about laws, but I'm pretty sure printing a currency and stating your intent is to subvert governments and 'take over the world' is frowned upon, legally.
Keep it. I read bitcointalk because it is the best uncensored news source available.
As a software professional I want to know all the news and all the rumours about all good and all bad projects. SHA-256-coin SCRYPT-coin ROT-13-coin, I want to read about all of them.
If some pro- or against- people give you moderators trouble then give them a week timeout to cool down.
But please don't get themselves involved into the censorship games.
Thank you for keeping this board open to all ideas, good and bad. Keep up the good work. If you start need to offer ads, please do so, I don't have any ad-blockers. Grow your site's traffic and business. Good luck.
As a software professional I want to know all the news and all the rumours about all good and all bad projects. SHA-256-coin SCRYPT-coin ROT-13-coin, I want to read about all of them.
If some pro- or against- people give you moderators trouble then give them a week timeout to cool down.
But please don't get themselves involved into the censorship games.
Thank you for keeping this board open to all ideas, good and bad. Keep up the good work. If you start need to offer ads, please do so, I don't have any ad-blockers. Grow your site's traffic and business. Good luck.
Great points about censorship, and good ideas and bad ideas can and should be promoted openly to build upon - that's how we get better at things.
However, SC 2.0 is closed source with no documentation save for one guys word - so there is little to 'build' upon as one can only guess as to whats going on inside. The further question I have is the disabling of valid coins from a centralized level. One person specifically invalidating another persons coins... I don't see how that isn't a scam, but I'm open for discussion about that aspect.
Keep it. I read bitcointalk because it is the best uncensored news source available.
As a software professional I want to know all the news and all the rumours about all good and all bad projects. SHA-256-coin SCRYPT-coin ROT-13-coin, I want to read about all of them.
If some pro- or against- people give you moderators trouble then give them a week timeout to cool down.
But please don't get themselves involved into the censorship games.
Thank you for keeping this board open to all ideas, good and bad. Keep up the good work. If you start need to offer ads, please do so, I don't have any ad-blockers. Grow your site's traffic and business. Good luck.
As a software professional I want to know all the news and all the rumours about all good and all bad projects. SHA-256-coin SCRYPT-coin ROT-13-coin, I want to read about all of them.
If some pro- or against- people give you moderators trouble then give them a week timeout to cool down.
But please don't get themselves involved into the censorship games.
Thank you for keeping this board open to all ideas, good and bad. Keep up the good work. If you start need to offer ads, please do so, I don't have any ad-blockers. Grow your site's traffic and business. Good luck.
If not an actual scam SolidCoin is so close it makes no difference. In its current incarnation its centrally controlled and badly designed. Solidcoin.info is full of outright lies. The only developer isn't capable of handling a complex project single handed and has introduced countless bugs and issues caused by a badly thought though design. SolidCoin also appears to be using Oracle's Berkeley database in violation of it's license. Did I mention it also has a mining tax paid to the developer as well as a massive premine?
If the mods are happy to let promotion of this project on their forums the very least they can do is add a scam warning thread, sticky it, and lock it so anyone who looks at alt currencies will get a clear warning about SolidCoin.
EDIT: I should also have mentioned the use of what appear to be sockpuppet accounts by CoinHunter ( The SolidCoin author ). The users Ten98 and viperjbm comment on every SolidCoin thread often in strict alternation. Their comments are often vague nonsense aimed at nothing more than derailing any SolidCoin discussion.
If the mods are happy to let promotion of this project on their forums the very least they can do is add a scam warning thread, sticky it, and lock it so anyone who looks at alt currencies will get a clear warning about SolidCoin.
EDIT: I should also have mentioned the use of what appear to be sockpuppet accounts by CoinHunter ( The SolidCoin author ). The users Ten98 and viperjbm comment on every SolidCoin thread often in strict alternation. Their comments are often vague nonsense aimed at nothing more than derailing any SolidCoin discussion.
Removing a specific topic seems to be against the general philosophy of bitcointalk. It wouldn't reflect well too. Let it be.
So if Paypal employees came here writing articles on how Paypal is a superior form of cryptocurrency, spreading misinformation, and duping users that would be ok too? What about eGold? Or other dubious centralized payment systems?
I just mean that it's a more general topic than SolidCoin. Bitcointalk is tolerating all kinds of views, even if they are deceiving. At one point, misinformation and FUD posts about Bitcoin were more abundant than actual Bitcoin talk, and they were not suppressed. I think Paypal can come here and try to dupe users as much as they like (up to the limit of being an obvious scam). Or else, Bitcointalk should become a more controlled environment. It's about consistency, otherwise (if you apply this specifically for SC) it would be perceived as if Bitcoin supporters were attacking alt chains, which is not the case.
Yes, I see the fine line that's being walked here, and I think discussion and points you raise are great. However SC may be an active 'scam' with the nullification of legitimate coins. Scammers are allowed to post but are given the appropriate 'scammer' label. I am unsure what the policy is of continued scamming by the same person/entity, and how the mods deal with it.
EDIT: For example, the casascius dot net scam that popped up yesterday. If the .net (the scam one) had threads inviting people to come try out the scam website, I would like to think the mods would intervene.
Removing a specific topic seems to be against the general philosophy of bitcointalk. It wouldn't reflect well too. Let it be.
So if Paypal employees came here writing articles on how Paypal is a superior form of cryptocurrency, spreading misinformation, and duping users that would be ok too? What about eGold? Or other dubious centralized payment systems?
I just mean that it's a more general topic than SolidCoin. Bitcointalk is tolerating all kinds of views, even if they are deceptive. At one point, misinformation and FUD posts about Bitcoin were more abundant than actual Bitcoin talk, and they were not suppressed. I think Paypal can come here and try to dupe users as much as they like (up to the limit of being an obvious scam). Or else, Bitcointalk should become a more controlled environment. It's about consistency, otherwise (if you apply this specifically for SC) it would be perceived as if Bitcoin supporters were attacking alt chains, which is not the case.
Removing a specific topic seems to be against the general philosophy of bitcointalk. It wouldn't reflect well too. Let it be.
So if Paypal employees came here writing articles on how Paypal is a superior form of cryptocurrency, spreading misinformation, and duping users that would be ok too? What about eGold? Or other dubious centralized payment systems?
Paypal and e-Gold are/were dubious centralized payment systems? What will you call bitcoin? A dubious decentralized payment system?
Removing a specific topic seems to be against the general philosophy of bitcointalk. It wouldn't reflect well too. Let it be.
So if Paypal employees came here writing articles on how Paypal is a superior form of cryptocurrency, spreading misinformation, and duping users that would be ok too? What about eGold? Or other dubious centralized payment systems?
I am curious to see the ruling come out for how crypto currencies will be defined. Otherwise, as long as people know it is not decentralized and is closed source, buyer beware.
Removing a specific topic seems to be against the general philosophy of bitcointalk. It wouldn't reflect well too. Let it be.
Remove it. The concept of cryptocurrency is based on three pillars.
1) No need for a trusted third party
2) Peer to peer
3) Decentralized
From Satoshi original paper
ScamCoin requires implicit trust in a single semi-anonymous person, it isn't peer to peer and is completely centralized.
The code is closed source so the full capabilities of the person(s) in control of the network are unknown but so far we know a single person can:
* revoke previously generated coins (and corrupt wallets in the process)
* deny properly signed blocks
* change generation rate at will
* force any change to clients he wishes (and clients which don't update are blocked by trusted nodes)
* halt the network, kill it, reboot it
It is damaging for Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies based on Satoshi theory/paper to be associated with a centrally controlled scam.
What is next? Is Paypal going to be considered a crypto-currency? eGold? Flooz?
1) No need for a trusted third party
2) Peer to peer
3) Decentralized
From Satoshi original paper
Quote
Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending.
We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network.
The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of
hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing
the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of
events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As
long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to
attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The
network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort
basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest
proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.
ScamCoin requires implicit trust in a single semi-anonymous person, it isn't peer to peer and is completely centralized.
The code is closed source so the full capabilities of the person(s) in control of the network are unknown but so far we know a single person can:
* revoke previously generated coins (and corrupt wallets in the process)
* deny properly signed blocks
* change generation rate at will
* force any change to clients he wishes (and clients which don't update are blocked by trusted nodes)
* halt the network, kill it, reboot it
It is damaging for Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies based on Satoshi theory/paper to be associated with a centrally controlled scam.
What is next? Is Paypal going to be considered a crypto-currency? eGold? Flooz?
Id like solidcoin remove from the alt currency section its ruining the idea of innovation ideas and talk on real ideas.
close the shit. ban him.
The Case against Solidcoin:
Greetings Meta,
I come here to present various reasons Solidcoin representation should be removed and no longer tolerated on bitcointalk.org.
SC 1.0 was a cryptocurrency launched by CoinHunter on Aug 20th. It was primarily based on Bitcoin, with just a few variable tweaks: 3m blocks, 32 coins per block, and a 30k premine for bounties. Just a few weeks after launch, a flaw was discovered in SC 1.0 which caused CoinHunter to shut down the chain. There was no discussion about the idea, and only a ~5hr window of warning given to people. To those who didn't want to change, they were threatened with being taken off the SC 1.0 website, even though many of those people had supported SC from the beginning.
On October 10th, SC 2.0 launched. Here is how 2.0 is different from 1.0:
Centralized: It's not peer<->peer, it's peer -> supernode -> peer.
Premine: The premine was announced to be 1m inorder to compensate SC 1.0 coin holders. After launch it was later revealed to infact contain 13m+ premined coins. 12m+ were given to 10 anonymous people.
Tax: Each block is 'taxed', and the tax is sent to CoinHunter.
Closed Source: SC 2.0 is closed source -and- using the Oracle Berkeley DB, which means CoinHunter is promoting and distributing pirated software on bitcointalk.
Arbitrary enforcement: Yesterday CoinHunter announced he could and would arbitrarily change the block reward from 32 to 5.
Voided Coins: Since 2.0 is centralized, CoinHunter allegedly has the ability to void ones coins. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.593817). CH has taken it a step further to purposefully -void- legitimately mined coins because he didn't like the guy who mined them.
FUD: Find out about SC on bitcointalk? Here is a taste of what you'll find on their website: (http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php)
-----------------------------
Because 2.0 is closed source, the only way anyone knows how 2.0 works is from what CoinHutner says, and apparently it's subject to change at any time. I believe the above is enough to warrant a discussion on whether or not SC representation should further be tolerated on bitcointalk.org, and what steps CoinHunter would need to take for SC to continue being promoted on bitcointalk.org. Also, I believe there may be sufficient reason to open a scammer investigation on CoinHunter for allegedly 'stealing' electricity to support his *coin by nullifying legitimately mined coins.
From the looks of it, SC 2.0 isn't designed to be a 'cryptocurrency', it's designed for the sole purpose of making CoinHunter and his closest friends richer off the backs of the naive, and as such has no place here.
Thoughts?
Greetings Meta,
I come here to present various reasons Solidcoin representation should be removed and no longer tolerated on bitcointalk.org.
SC 1.0 was a cryptocurrency launched by CoinHunter on Aug 20th. It was primarily based on Bitcoin, with just a few variable tweaks: 3m blocks, 32 coins per block, and a 30k premine for bounties. Just a few weeks after launch, a flaw was discovered in SC 1.0 which caused CoinHunter to shut down the chain. There was no discussion about the idea, and only a ~5hr window of warning given to people. To those who didn't want to change, they were threatened with being taken off the SC 1.0 website, even though many of those people had supported SC from the beginning.
On October 10th, SC 2.0 launched. Here is how 2.0 is different from 1.0:
Centralized: It's not peer<->peer, it's peer -> supernode -> peer.
Premine: The premine was announced to be 1m inorder to compensate SC 1.0 coin holders. After launch it was later revealed to infact contain 13m+ premined coins. 12m+ were given to 10 anonymous people.
Tax: Each block is 'taxed', and the tax is sent to CoinHunter.
Closed Source: SC 2.0 is closed source -and- using the Oracle Berkeley DB, which means CoinHunter is promoting and distributing pirated software on bitcointalk.
Arbitrary enforcement: Yesterday CoinHunter announced he could and would arbitrarily change the block reward from 32 to 5.
Voided Coins: Since 2.0 is centralized, CoinHunter allegedly has the ability to void ones coins. (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.593817). CH has taken it a step further to purposefully -void- legitimately mined coins because he didn't like the guy who mined them.
FUD: Find out about SC on bitcointalk? Here is a taste of what you'll find on their website: (http://solidcoin.info/solidcoin-ready-for-bitcoin-collapse.php)
-----------------------------
Because 2.0 is closed source, the only way anyone knows how 2.0 works is from what CoinHutner says, and apparently it's subject to change at any time. I believe the above is enough to warrant a discussion on whether or not SC representation should further be tolerated on bitcointalk.org, and what steps CoinHunter would need to take for SC to continue being promoted on bitcointalk.org. Also, I believe there may be sufficient reason to open a scammer investigation on CoinHunter for allegedly 'stealing' electricity to support his *coin by nullifying legitimately mined coins.
From the looks of it, SC 2.0 isn't designed to be a 'cryptocurrency', it's designed for the sole purpose of making CoinHunter and his closest friends richer off the backs of the naive, and as such has no place here.
Thoughts?
Jump to: