You think they should ban senior members like me, because some stupid clown like you comes along and says so?
In a word ... yes.
You do nothing but lie, obfuscate, and damage the reputation of crypto-currency community.
Funny those are all the same exact traits I see in you sir. All you do is spew FUD and lies about SC on a daily basis and never own up to any of them.
Name one.
The 12M can be transfered to King RealScam wallet? Which you said was impossible and code proves is possible.
That the person who has control of 51% of control money controls the network? Which you said was false and not only does code say otherwise you King has said otherwise.
From what I hear there was a line in question in the last version which allowed trusted nodes to send sc to the CPF (PUBLIC WALLET FUND FOR SC) ("if( x < y)" where it should have been a "if(x != y)"). This only allowed trusted nodes to send money to the CPF, but the CPF account is public and if any foul play was detected everyone would know instantly. Since then the trusted nodes have been patched with the latest version, and they are preparing it for public release soon. That is one of the advantages of having everything open source (which I always advocated for), problems like this become detected and get solved.
To "take over the network" you need both a trusted node with more money than any of the other trusted nodes on the network and 51% of the network hash power. I don't know where you are getting at with 51% of control money gets you the network? You need money + hashpower to even think of a successful attack on SC. The devs have told me that in the future they are planning to change that so that so that it would effectively need two trusted nodes, eventually leading to a system where you need a majority of trusted nodes (voting system). Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row. This would require an attacker to have two trusted nodes whose total balance between the two was higher than the good trusted nodes who signed the blocks.
Except in the past you called me a liar, and spreading FUD, and full of shit for stating what you now admit is true. You have no way to verify what the control nodes are running. BTW ScamCoin isn't OpenSource. You might want to read up on the definition of OpenSource.
You don't need 51% hashing power to control the network.
Did King RealScam had 51% hashing power when he "forked" the blockchain and changed rewards from 32 SC to 5 SC? No.
The control nodes enforce control of the network. If someone didn't upgrade then their blocks were rejected by the control nodes. 51% control of control money = 100% control over the network.
Just so we are clear, in the "Every other" scheme, a trusted node cannot sign two trust blocks in a row
Who cares. If I had 51% of the control node money and single miner. Eventually that single miner will sign an even block and then my control nodes can sign the odd block. I can also veto any attempt for the 49% of control nodes (by balance) to sign any other block. Thus you either need to upgrade to my changes OR your blocks never become part of the block chain.
Someday that will happen ... ER WAIT ... IT ALREADY HAPPENED. King RealScam issued a royal edict that block reward was cut to 5 SC and you either were blocked out of the network or you upgraded. Miner's had no power at all. No way to block that change, no way to enforce their collective will. The network wasn't designed to let them. 51% of control money = 100% control over the network.