Topic: What effect will changing the block size from 32 to 5 have on SC? (Read 8703 times)

They invented the square wheel mate. It is not a real cryptocurrency. It is just the new ScamFiat !

I went and looked at your post history - not interesting, possibly a little odd - not sure why you showed up here.

What were you actually trying to say? 

This thread provides some entertainment to those watching the politics of an alt chain evolution.  It's a nice microcosm of something that doesn't actually matter - unlike a similar maelstrom around the looming history in the making on the euro/drachma story.

To be fair,  GG and TBX fans don't go around promoting those two in the same fashion SC users do.  There was never really any need to for GG - the source was available from the start and since it's decentralized, that's all you needed.

As far as I know, no one has proclaimed anything false about SC except for RS himself.  If anyone has, there is only to blame the lack of documentation and constant flip-flopping.

However I do agree with you about the noise.  But good luck getting anything else out of the mods.

If you compare the SC and LTC graphs for the same time frame, there is zero relation between the drop in the SC network speed to any increase in LTC's network speed.  So your statement that people are leaving SC for LTC is clearly bullshit based on the data.

I mine several different coins, including BTC, LTC, and SC.  All of them are flawed, all of them are attackable, that is the truth.  But if any of them ever have a chance to become anything but a purely speculative form of exchange, then the community as a whole has to start discarding people that are blatant liars and do nothing but spread bullshit so deep you can't see the top from the bottom. 

In your one statement, you lied about why there was a drop in the SC network, you hurt LTC and Coblee's reputation by involving them, and you hurt BTC in general by posting your noise in these forums.

And last of all, you made yourself look like an idiot by posting a claim that anyone can verify as totally false.

You don't like SC, we get it, we (99% of *coin users) also don't give a fuck.
I personally don't like GG and TBX, do you see me posting ever 30 seconds about how they will kill and eat your babies?  (To be fair, as far as I know, they have not killed and/or eaten any babies to date, although, the fact that it may happen in the future, no matter how small the probability, seems to be enough for some people here to start a holy war about a baby killing chain)

These forums are rampant with people bending the truth to fit their views, and flat out lying.  Nothing that any of these chains have accomplished, whether you like them or not, will survive unless the community and/or the mods put a stop to this.

No it shows miners are fleeing ScamCoin over the clearly superior open and decentralized LightCoin.  ScamCoin is a small and shrinking minority despite GPU mining, and the diehard fans using EC2 clusters to generate coins at a loss its support is still contracting and is now roughly 1/3 of LightCoin and falling fast.

All this proves is how well the solidcoin difficulty algorithm works...

Not really much being said about what I first posted about.  Maybe it's already spoken for itself.

Sadly I think Bitcoin will be lumped in. I hope your right.

A few will invest. One can always find a few people to sign on the dotted line.
Be glad that those few will not be using Bitcoin when they get scammed.
For once the news will read "Beware of things that are *not* Bitcoin"

solution to the 51% attack: single point of failure.

No, because decentralization was not the main goal. The most important thing for RS was to get 51% protection, and then to reduce the negative side effects as much as possible with keeping 51% protection intact.

I'd say it's achieved the opposite of this goal.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. The thing about exchanging 51% security with less decentralization has already been mentioned hundreds of times, it doesn't get more correct by repeating it. SC supporters live with it, haters criticize it.  The goal for SC is to reduce that centralization problem as much as possible. It would bring the community forward if you also could provide some constructive feedback, we all know that you and some others hate SC, but that really doesn't solve any problem, it only gets you white hair.

Why should a switch to v3 change anything? Piss off all the SC supporters with coins just to allow others to get early adopters? The trusted node thing would be the same in v3, so no advantage regarding this.

 Thank you for addressing my post with factual, intelligent counters.

 See my previous point on Stockholm Syndrome.

 The fact remains that SolidCoin does in-fact substitute one problem (potential 51% attack on BTC) with one of complete central control under the domain of one person. Him saying "I plan on eventually relinquishing control to other people" is questionable at best. Given the choice of supporting Bitcoin vs SolidCoin, I think the choice is clear.

 Yes, Bitcoin does have it's problems, but it's a better alternative to SolidCoin in it's current state.

 If Coinhunter/Realsolid is serious about SolidCoin, he would do well to scrap v2 entirely, reboot with v3 with source available ahead of launch,  look to Litecoin as to how to handle a currency launch in a fair way, stop posting on the internet, and get someone skilled with PR.

 In my opinion.

 And I'll concede the point that SC is not fiat, but with the recent 32 to 5 change for the purposes of affecting a change on the markets, it's arguable.

it is not a fiat currency. fiat means by law. it is not a cryptocurrency, or at least not a network controlled peer to peer currency.

it could qualify as a centrally controled cryptocurrency. just like egold.
the thing that we want to avoid, wih he bitcoin project, is central control. therefor it is useless.


go away solidcoin!

Corrected it for you.

 In YOUR opinion.

 A real cryptocurrency wouldn't need draconian central control or a glorious leader. We really should not even be discussing SolidCoin here as it doesn't even qualify as a cryptocurrency any more.

 It's cryptofiat.

Again, the 'troll' arguement is getting old when every question and concern the 'trolls' have had, have been validated.  Calling fact 'fud' is just silly.  What have I 'made up'?  Cite please?

Your wordplay does yourself a disservice, ten98.  You should show more concern for informing SC users, rather than trying to sweep fatal flaws under the rug.

JohnJ, you are one of the biggest trolls on this board, I'm not surprised you chimed in here. Anyone that wants to take a masterclass in attention seeking, spreading FUD and generally making shit up could do a lot worse than just reading all of your posts.

I thought about doing a little point-by-point rebuttal of all of your statements, as you did for me, but I think your stupidity speaks perfectly well for itself without me adding to it. This is one of your "classic" troll posts and should go into the hall of fame. You really do just seem to let the bullshit flow, nice work.

12 million is correct. Each trustfund address contained 1.2 million Solidcoins, and there are ten such accounts. Although each account becomes totally unusable once it drops below 1 million solidcoins, this check is on the input to the transaction. Since there's currently no upper limit on the amount of solidcoins that a trustfund transaction can send to RealSolid's CPF, he could just drain the entire remaining balance of each of them in turn to the CPF for a total of 12 million unencumbered, premined solidcoins.

Pretty much, yeah. You're overestimating how much protection the trusted nodes actually provide, probably because you foolishly believed RealSolid. (Haven't you noticed that he tends to exaggerate rather a lot?) There's not even any way for more than one trusted node to signs a block as far as I can tell; if multiple trusted nodes produce even blocks building on the same odd block, the client just picks one.

The block is accepted, unless it's invalid for some other reason. The rest of the network doesn't even have any way to detect that the block has been rejected by some trusted nodes.

I'm going to say that's BS. You may need more money than the largest individual trusted node for at least some attacks, but that's not the same as needing 51% of the total trust money.