Topic: Who has really been scammed by SC (->MC)? A self-report would be helpful... (Read 3500 times)

If you had read the previous threads on the earlier versions of SoiledCoin, you would know how wrong you are. This is how I know you have not done your research. The purpose of having an open source license is to preserve the ability to fork a currency chain rather than accept a change that "breaks" the protocol for you. Of course, that results in two currencies with two discrete groups using them. That is the textbook definition of a "competing currency". What Coinhunter is saying with that license is that only he may fork his block-chains. That is how he shut down the earlier versions. The exchanges cannot withstand the threat of lawsuit and the revocation of the license in order to preserve a SoiledCoin fork. So he killed SoiledCoin 1, all the exchanges dropped it, he promised to give people their coins in a new block chain. Then he made a block chain with an extra 13 million coins for himself (diluting everyone else). Now he is shutting down that block chain and promising to re-issue some of those SoiledCoins in Microcash. If (when) Microcash is demonstrated to be insecure, they might shutdown that one as well. Do you feel safe investing in such an institution?


Actually, we don't know how long Bitcoin was in beta, nor how many people reviewed and/or wrote the code. Certainly, they do not operate that way now. If you have evidence detailing Satoshi's identity(s), I would be interested.
Bitcoin did have a bizarre genesis no doubt. It also did not have thousands of people ready to pounce on it as soon as it was released. There was a chicken and egg scenario that protected it when it launched. Such a condition does not protect follow on currencies, which makes launching them very problematic.


All of the current developers of Bitcoin operate in the light of day. Critics of Bitcoin are not called trolls. If you have an issue with the code, or an idea of how things should work you can go into #bitcoin-dev and discuss it without fear of reprisal. I was banned from #Solidcoin before I was posting here about the currency. I asked two terrible questions: how many people were using it, and how did they know how many people were using it. When they claimed hundreds used it but could not provide a method by which they arrived at that number, I was banned for being a troll. I found that really bizarre and that piqued my interest in this subject. I guess there is an IRC Streisand effect. 

All a bunch of made up bullshit, once again. Either you've seen some license we haven't, or the best I can go by is the light client:

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software, including the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:"

And the only way your permission could be revoked is if you used the source code in a project other than microcash without permission. And I think it might just be a *tad* difficult for them to associate a person who uses their source in a different project with a MC account balance and make it so that "you cannot get at your currency." This is the absolute definition of made-up FUD.


"Bitcoin did it"


I can hardly disagree with you here. But sentence #2 is exactly what satoshi did and critics of bitcoin are called trolls just the same. But since only 10 people use SC and 3 of those are the developers who are rather immature, they get involved in the name-calling as well.

Given the title of this thread, rage would not be off-topic, but I think most all of the responses have been restrained and productive to the discussion at issue here.

The fact that most of those same responses do not serve the intent of the OP in trying to debunk the established shortcomings of the SC development crew and the code itself is perhaps an unintended outcome, but an honest outcome nonetheless.

It is not open source. That means it is closed source. The promise of one day seeing the source is not "open".
It has a proprietary license. That means it will not be open, even if they let people see the source. Why is this a problem? The holder of the rights to a proprietary license can revoke your permission to use the software. Then you cannot get at your currency. They can also force you to upgrade your client to include features you deem inappropriate.

You just admitted that the software is closed source. That is a problem.


Yes. It might be vaporware. Except they seem to have a functional block chain in beta and people already running the nodes and clients. Hmmm, seems like some software might exist. What software might that be? Could it be a keylogger? Could it be searching your harddrive for child porn? Could it be looking for pirated software? Or maybe looking for your bitcoin wallet? Could it be the next great cryptocurrency? We can't know.

Do you think it is a good idea to launch and release the code for inspection at the same time? That is a recipe for idiocy. The code is reviewed only after it is in production? Nonsensical.

This is standard operating procedure for the SoiledCoin crowd. They operate in secrecy and all critics are trolls. True security operates in the light of day, inviting all criticism.

And this is hardly rage. If you want to see rage, look at the Coinhunter sockpuppet posts.

We dont assume wether SC3 will be open source or not and we dont ask for code here.. but k9quaint is right about the following thing: Maths. Every code can be derived from math or put into simple formulas - and thats we would like to see (at least!). It easily proovable that, for example, a private key to a BTC address is impossible to be found with brute force on the current generation (kind?) of computer - and you dont really need any line of code. It is also simply showable that a 51% attack on bitcoin is possible, by simple maths and pseudocode. Yet what we have so far is nothing but some UI shots and claims.
We are often enough asked to show proof for our claims (and we do wherever possible.. and where not possible we use proxies or correlations.). We dont meddle with the data available like the blockexplorer that ahimoth hosts. We dont just ridicule every argument of the solidcoin followers - we try to bring up valid points.. yet some people seem to be quite ignorant in understanding the way we argue.

The thing is... you seem to be assuming that it won't be open source. Why? Just because SC2 was closed source for a period of time? Has RS or any of the developers confirmed anywhere that it will not be open source?

Why do you keep making all of these assumptions before the software is even released?


Do you think that it is necessary for a developer to release code in development? It is reasonable to whine about it not being released after a date was given, but it's not like this is the 1st or 10,000th time that's happened.

Jesus christ man, you are raging to the world about software that, as far as we know, doesn't even exist.

Exactly. That is a demonstration of what you are doing, and you rightly flag it as nonsense. Coinhunter supplied  a "proof" that his cryptocurrency is secure and awesome. We bring up flaws in his proof here. One of those flaws is the missing components of his proof. You declare that we must prove that these missing components do not exist.

How about you wake up and smell the coffee? Coinhunter must demonstrate that his currency is secure. Otherwise, by default we must assume he cannot. This is accomplished by him showing the code, and explaining the reasoning behind the functionality. All he has done is declared what the features are, not how or why they are implemented. Then he asks us to trust him, after he has failed twice already.


yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.
[/quote]

Sorry that you do not understand the practices of computer security. It must seem like black magic to you for us to want the math behind the marketing material and UI screenshots. Asking for the math and the code for security software is not an unreasonable request. Yet we are called trolls and poo-flingers for making it. The unwashed masses are ungrateful I guess.

So you dont even try to argue anymore?

Can i understand this refusal to discuss the points i brought up earlier in this thread that, at least, you accept these?

If that's what passes for wit in your world, stick with shit.

how is anyone even supposed to follow nonsense like this?


yeah the standard you're looking to satisfy is of the fecal flinging variety.

This is me demonstrating your logical fallacy:
1) We both agree there is bridge.
2) I want to sell a bridge and you want to buy one.
3) You ask for proof that I own the bridge, I say you must prove that I don't own it otherwise you must buy it.

As for your other statements. Go hug a tyrant node in SoiledCoin 2 if you think it is decentralized. Decentralized is not in the eye of the beholder if one person has complete control of the block chain, and the clients and servers are covered by a proprietary license.
Those are not claims, they have been verified endlessly and you can go look them up yourself (which you clearly have not).

As for secure or not secure, having one person owning the private keys to the entire block chain is a terrible idea. Anyone with those tyrant node keys can double spend every coin by halting the public chain until he has mined a block with his spend transactions undone. Then just have the tyrant nodes build off the double spend fork. The government could seize the servers his tyrant nodes run on (ala megaupload) and now the block chain is ruined. Someone could hack into one box and own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could own SoiledCoin. Coinhunter could trust the wrong fellow and lose control of the keys. Finally, this guy has failed twice already at creating cryptocurrencies. He has had his flaws pointed out before launch but had too much pride or not enough smarts to fix them.

These points and many others have been discussed already. I only rehash them for the umpteenth time to illustrate your ignorance. You are not the standard we must satisfy.

P.S. yes I could stand in front of a judge and tear up any "expert" witness who put forth the claim that SoiledCoin was secure.
P.P.S all Coinhunter would have to do is release the source and a paper that are digitally signed, then sign the claims with the same key. Then there would be more than just vapor to the SoiledClaims.

LOL @ an incremental fix release?

What, did this mess with your plans for cryptocurrency world domination through DOS and service denial? You sound more and more like a sockpuppet of RS/CH/Douchebag with every drolling comment issued forth from that lopsided simpleton's grin you call a pie-hole. He clearly has his hand waaay up your ass and is moving your lips.

... right over your head eh?

Newsflash! Cosbycoin lacks reading comprehension!

LOL

Sorry for the delay.  I wrote my post based on this comment:

RS Quote from solidcointalk.org:

"MicroCash is on a new codebase so the code isn't compatible with Bitcoin anymore. Also our license strictly prohibits using our code directly (but not the ideas in it) in other digital currencies. We have no problem with the Bitcoin developers getting ideas from our source but they can't use the source directly. "

Isn't that just awesome that he could steal the entire bitcoin source code and use it and not include the MIT license in it then say the quote above.

Wow ....lol....just...wow

Well.. those awful lot of claims.. I have seperated them into facts and rumors for a reason. Please.. The first 4 points were facts so far. Please proove me wrong there. The parts about the Botnet are just made by comparing data available at that time. I spend a while on Ahimoth's Block explorer, but it seems he just substitutes the miner IDs for all Solo Miners with just "Solo Miner" - therefore the dickminer IS no longer simply visible. If it was it would be simple to compile a chart where it is possible to spot the correlation between Appearance/Disapperance and DDOSs of Bitcoin Pools. The way it is now it is NOT possible to proof. But not due to the lack of evidence but by obfuscation of evidence.

Also SC2 has shown lack of security in the past. I have to admit, that i dont have a thread at hand right now, but afaik several key scurity mechanisms had been compromised in the past:
- Trusted Nodes were mined by "untrusted" miners
- People were able to inject falsified Block Timestamps in order to toy with the difficulty

Natchwind made an awful lot of claims in the post I quoted and you responded to, none of which are backed by any actual evidence. Are you going to stand in front of a judge or magistrate, accuse someone of wrongdoing, then say "now they must prove they did not do anything wrong"? I hope you like having books thrown at you.


I'd sure like to see some of the SC haters on this board show some provable lack of security in the design of a cryptocurrency. And "decentralized" and "currency" are definitions that are basically in the eye of the beholder, so I foresee any argument for those definitions will be "it's not like bitcoin."


Perhaps you should wait until it's actually live before making more assumptions then?

No. Fail. Wrong. Incorrect.
The onus of proof is on those who claim to have created a cryptocurrency.
We do not have to prove anything. We need only critique the "proof" SoiledCoin provides to demonstrate that it is either not secure, not decentralized, and/or not a currency.

In this case, our effort is minimal. They have supplied nothing but claims so far.
Unless they released the code for the nodes (not the thin client) that control the currency.
And a paper that discusses their methods and reasoning behind choosing those methods.