The problem is that you have made a statement that is unsubstantiated and that directly damages other coins and harms other people.
It would have been one thing to say that you dont like it and want to do something else, but its quite another to say that its flawed without clearly outlining your reasoning, as technical as it may be.
To do otherwise, to make an unsubstantiated claim that harms others, is tantamount to slander and libel. You tarnish something without reason. Its defamation.
By the very fact that you have made the claim, you have obligated yourself to detailing the specifics behind that claim. To do otherwise would cast severe doubt on what youve said and threaten your reputation.
You simply cant make this kind of damning declaration without backing it up with hard data.
Now that youve made the claim, please detail your findings for what you base your claim on without condescending technical exclusions (meaning all the technical details you are capable of explaining), or be known as someone who we might refer to as a back-stabber (to be nice about it).
Of course, you could always apologize for doing harm to others when you should have just said that personally you didnt like it . . . that is if you are not able to present a rational explanation for your claim.
Again, you said in that same post (nothing taken out of context here, please dont try to distract): After looking into it extensively and much internal debate we have decided that multi-algo as it currently stands is flawed from a security perspective. (emphasis mine)
Please, adequately explain, or do us the favor of retracting that statement in its entirety.
Sorry, but you are mistaken, pay closer attention to the original post.
Pay attention to language used in various places throughout my post:
"we are not
satisfied"
"or at least I am
not confident"
"
it is good to know your limits"
"
theoretical problems and flaws" with all of them.
"
not necessarily going to help"
"
This is not to say that multi-algo is 'completely broken'"
"the above are of course
theoretical"
"I would not begin a complete panic about other coins."
"
Perhaps time will show differently that the worries are unfounded."
"I would not personally use such an important coin as NLG on which to
test theories"
"I can not in good concious recommend anything that is not 100%
theoretically air tight."
"It is
my belief that..."
"don't want to implement something we are not
100% happy with"
"based also on the
possibility that there
may be further flaws we are missing"
"It is
my feeling that they are not more secure but then that
depends on various things."
I went out of my way to show that it is only an opinion (an informed one but one nonetheless), and to as such not say anything overly decisive, if you or other people want to misinterpret what I have said and quote only little tidbits then that is not my problem, I certainly won't revoke my opinion and stand 100% by it, I'm certainly under no obligation to now spend the rest of my life writing detailed reports on other peoples code for them.
A theoretical flaw is enough for me personally to not put any more time into it, if I were to spend weeks of my life detailing formal proofs of every algorithm I discard I would never get any work done, it is neither my job or responsibility to worry about what other coins do so unless you are offering to pay me for my time providing formal proofs of insecurity would not be worth my time.
Your post is quite frankly very aggressive and demanding, and is now off topic for this the Guldencoin forum, I have replied one last time only to defend myself against your aggression I will not reply to you again. I strongly suggest that you drop this now, if you want to talk about Digibyte go to the Digibyte forum.
Hi MaNI. First, I want to thank you for your thoughtful replies and engagement with recent posts related to your comments about multi-algo. This is my first post in a forum outside of the DGB forum. It will likely be my last post outside of that forum.
Earlier in the week, I wrote a post welcoming some new members to our DGB discussion. Several of those new members are strong supporters of Guldencoin. In that post I stated that I believe that Guldencoin is a great coin, with strong development, a fantastic identity, and that I believe that our two communities can easily work side by side. I believe all of that ... without a doubt.
The issue that HR pointed out is a bit complex, and I hope I can shed light on his level of frustration.
Recently, some members of your community asked you to discuss multi-algo. You replied. Your reply was thoughtful and informed. However, your response related to the role of multi-algo from the perspective of applying it to Guldencoin. The problem is that you were slightly misled by the question that you answered. The people who asked it were not particularly interested in application of multi-algo to Guldencoin, they were interested in criticizing multi-algo for DGB. For the past 4 days, they have been using your comments as a foundation to undermine and condemn the DGB development team.
In all fairness, last year when DGB adopted multi-algo the level of security that it provided from a 51% attack was different in practice than it had been projected in theory (resulting from unequal distributions of the different algorithms). Because SHA mining dominated so much of the hash power, the theoretical additional protections of multiple algorithms were reduced. DGB is not less secure - in fact it is just as secure, if not slightly more secure - with the multi-algo process. But in theory it would be possible to use a 51% attack. The DGB development team began work on a new implementation (Digishield) and it is being tested and further developed - it will more than adequately address the security concerns related to the distribution of algorithms. There is not a certain date for the release (probably late this year or early next year) but it is under active development. I mention this simply to be entirely fair to the supporters of Guldencoin, and to you. The concerns about multi-algo security are legitimate; they are part of DGB development and future plans. That being said, I do not think that using your response to a question about Guldencoin is an appropriate way to attack or undermine the integrity of other coins or developers for personal gain or profit.
I want, in the end, to reinforce that I appreciate all the valuable contributions that Guldencoin supporters make to DigiByte. And, I believe you guys have a great coin with good opportunities. I hope that people who support Guldencoin succeed. I hope that Guldencoin continues to succeed. I know you have a great community here. And, I'm proud to say that we also have a great community with DGB. Cheers to all of you here at Guldencoin.
Eric
