ontopicplease,
 That depends if you sell them right away like cleverminig or not. The coins will be more evenly distributed with a cloud-mining solution, than you selling coins for a huge profit to dutch people. All i am trying to say is that we should be careful not to lose to many coins to foreign investors which can play with the price when the block size becomes smaller. The same has happened with Bitcoin, only a small group of people have allot of the coins. Clevermining is giving these sharks the opportunity to stack in for selling them when the price increases, with clevermining out of the pictures this is less the case. A guaranteed question of the media will be, from who do you buy the coins?, the answer, from some guy who bought them early. will not make people very happy.

In my opinion you can only justify an ip ban if clevermining is abusing (do they?) the Guldencoin network.

They are not only abusing, but also raping the network

Not on purpose, they just want to satisfy the miners by getting as much profit as they can, even if it means dragging other coins down. The problem is that they are evil because they consciously know that it is wrong, but put their interest above those of the coins they mine. An IP ban is an ethical question, Geert knows what is best for NLG, so let him decide what's best.

Guldencoin is apparently 'willing to be abused' by not protecting themselves. Difficult situation..

The protecting is the problem, you can't just 'fix' something like this, it takes time, 1 mistake can be fatal in this business. With technological innovation comes more risks and more things can go wrong, that's why airplanes use outdated technology instead of state of the art tech.

Or IP banning provokes them to harm us even more...

Well then it's just war lol

Seriously though, that's a possibility.  But I honestly don't think Terk would risk the reputation of his profitable pool to go that extra step.  It would put him in a bad light with the whole crypto community, not just Gulden's.  Besides, he would need to take focus off of the profitability of his pool to do so.  He would most likely need to mine in to the difficulties that would be totally unprofitable.  I don't think his more conscientious miners would approve of that.


Whitelisting, IMO, is the abuse of power.  That is centralizing the coin, and it's something I just can't get behind.

To be effective, you don't ban the IP... you ban the IP block.  In terms of pools and hosted server solutions, it would restrict him to using a VPN or stratum proxy off premise.  Either would probably introduce enough latency into the mix to make it not worth the effort.  Again though, would he seriously go through the effort to do this when he could just pick another coin to rape?

I know algorithm changes will fix this later, but I'm just tired of seeing 50% of the blocks pass by the legitimate pools, and get insta-sold.  It's the only reason I brought up this whole discussion again.

-Fuse

Quickfix could be adding a check for low blocktime and increase the banscore with 10. That way clients would disconnect from clever after 10 fast blocks for 1 day because the default ban limit is 100. Easy to implement, dynamic and not centralized.

Simple, but elegant. I like that. Is a forced upgrade really needed for this? Clever would continue through older wallets, but as they would get more rare, they would be knocked from the network at some point.

I'm wondering if the Guldencoin devs ever thought about this solution, I can't imagine they didn't. I'm happy to hear there are quick fixes 

I would suggest PM'ing Guldencoin andGeertJohan to see which month they think the algorithm will be updated and take things based on that feedback. Make them realize that it's because of the community the blockchain times are doing ok but what happens when the price goes up more, block times will go to 8 hours again because you need more hashing power to even it out.