Quote from: blade87 on July 13, 2014, 07:08:17 PM

Yes, today we learned that centralized services, centralized ownership (1/3 being hot in Mintpal alone says everything) and centralized authority (rollback to save $2m worth of VRC that were most likely owned by VRC whales) just doesn't work in crypto. Decentralized is what makes crypto secure and VRC has absolutely none of that in any way shape or form.

From what I have read there are huge trust issues with standard coin and the fact that a person can cancel the transaction and keep your money. Why is that a better option than having your stolen money returned to you?

Quote from: eatenbyagrue on July 13, 2014, 06:58:40 PM

Developers cannot unilaterally fork a thing unless over half the wallets agree. 30% of the wallets are going to be against the fork already, making the 51% target much harder to reach. Or am I wrong?

So it would be a better thing to play renegade and keep your imaginary coins? Or are you saying that you vote with an empty wallet? Roll Eyes

Quote from: youngmike on July 13, 2014, 07:31:37 PM

But VRC PoS vulnerabilities still remain.

Dude............every dang thing that exists has vulnerabilities, including your buttholio. The only difference is whether someone is interested enough and has enough persistence to find a way.

Quote from: stormia on July 13, 2014, 07:43:08 PM

This really isn't making sense... The thief stole so much of the coin that if he were to get away with it, the coin would be worthless... And the way he went about it made it impossible for him to dump any of it...

Conspiratorial inclined would think that a competing exchange worked together with a competing coin in an attempt to shift the perception of the public. Playing on the fears of "loss" that seem rampant in this community.

Quote from: BitcoinPorn on July 13, 2014, 07:49:29 PM

We will just be updating to the new wallet they release and pop in our old .dat file and all is well?

That's my plan. And I feel that all is well.
Also meant to thank you for your help before, but the PM kept telling me that I just posted when I hadn't, and gave up after 5 times LoL!

Quote from: mr_random on July 13, 2014, 08:28:47 PM

Decentralized exchanges ........ which are trustless by design, are safer by definition. They are the future.

Bitcoin is attractive to thieves because its transactions are irreversible.

Quote from: testbug on July 13, 2014, 09:05:48 PM

Sure, every exchange could be hacked, but it was Mintpal and not Poloniex/Bittrex/Cryptsy.

Think about it

What makes you think a competing exchange wasn't involved?

Quote from: tigerwood0432 on July 13, 2014, 09:23:16 PM

BTC was forked 100 times
LTC forked many times
DRK forked twice last month

.........................ETC ................

VRC FORKED NOW . SO WHAT ?

So the concept called "tunnel reality" is seen to be in effect, which is the brain functioning in full to filter out what one does not believe in. It inevitably leads to cognitive dissonance. Cheesy

Quote from: Dadams on July 13, 2014, 10:02:49 PM

The people at fault here is Mintpal and the hacker.

Technically everyone involved is "at fault", anyone that chose to use an exchange, and anyone that chose to get involved in crytpocurrency. Fault involves all who made choices that have linked eachother together. Though you could logically say that someone "wronged" others, in which case it is not VRC nor Mintpal.

Quote from: stormia on July 13, 2014, 10:10:37 PM

I just want to know why they targeted only VRC...

Because they are about to hit the mainstream and cause quite a splash. Certain other "anonymous" elements wish to keep that from happening.

Quote from: Dadams on July 13, 2014, 10:34:28 PM

All hail the protection of the middlemen.
God protect our bankers.
God protect our exchangers and money lenders.
God protect our daytraders and manipulators.

Without them you would have what exactly? A digital coin that only has your own personal value? Great idea! Grin

Quote from: buy4crypto on July 13, 2014, 10:36:26 PM

Ask yourself, if your other alts had this happen, what would the dev response have been?

I would guess that they would capitalize on their anonymity and disappear.

Quote from: YoyodyneSystems on July 13, 2014, 10:41:48 PM

Not ready for a trustless system.

If someone finds a better way... go invent it - be my guest.

Anonymity is not exactly an answer for a system that thieves find comfort in. This is the cause of the resistance, the thieves considering a possible loss of freedom.

Quote from: T-800 on July 13, 2014, 10:45:51 PM

Decentralized (peer-to-peer) exchanges are the way forward. Would be awesome if VRC devs could implement this.

I was under the impression that they were going to offer both options. I assume they will continue, after some delays of course.

Quote from: XbladeX on July 13, 2014, 10:53:08 PM

it soved in simply way one of POS problems

ONE problem..........as mentioned already, there will always exist vulnerabilities, it is impossible to be fully secure as long as thieves remain.