Topic: [BOUNTY] VNL - Vanillacoin - ZeroTime double-spend reward (Read 6036 times)
Bounty no longer available, ZeroTime final code is up on github and will soon be deployed in a public release. Locking the thread.
I know nothing about coding
Perhaps then you should leave it to people who do?
Quote
but "reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out" don't sound like a copyright issue to me, just as musicians don't own the chords their playing, they just reform chords in a different manner.
No, but then I'm not an expert musician so I wouldn't comment on such an instance.
Quote
But then again, I can't understand codes so I cannot make a decent judge about it.
Exactly.
Quote
Can you actually prove he stole the code?
Beyond any reasonable doubt, certainly yes.
There are instances where small portions of code can be reused or independently recreated without that rising to the level of rip off, as with small parts of songs (e.g., and if I'm making an error here please forgive my lack of expertise in music, small phrase of lyrics, small sequence of notes or chords, etc.). But that doesn't apply here. It is more like including one full minute from another song in a 4 minute song, played through a voice changer. Get it?
The thing is, there is nothing wrong with copying Bitcoin's code. The license permits it. The problem is claiming that he didn't so he can market his own coin as all brand new code. That's misrepresentation.
Please keep it civil and on topic and stop trying to censor my posts by trying to bury them. 
Here is my last post before the off-topic-fud/trolling:
Based on their responses they have ZeroClue on how to even perform a basic double-spend, instead they talk about unrelated things such as PoS and Sybil Attacks and [insert BS here].
Anyone can double-spend Bitcoin at will as we've recently witnessed and I was the person that informed the developers that it would occur due to their faulty signature validation code. The Bitcoin devs demonized me but in the end they realize my findings were accurate and the network split losing people hundreds of thousands of USD and forced zero confirmation transactions to be disabled on a wide scale. When I told them a hard-fork was required to fix this bug safely they said "we have more than hard forks at our disposal". This is the typical crypto-currency ego and if it continues the double-spend attacks will increase due to easier but more sophisticated attack vectors.
It is impossible to have safe zero confirmation transactions on any crypto-currency without it being part of the core protocol. This is what I have done and it resolves the problem for all crypto-currencies using a backwards compatible approach without the need to hard-fork.
I asked Nick Szabo aka Satoshi Nakamoto what he thought of my invention but he has failed to respond after many attempts.
I will not waste my time responding to nonsense. You have be given an opportunity, take it or leave it. Cool
Thank you for your support.
Here is my last post before the off-topic-fud/trolling:
Based on their responses they have ZeroClue on how to even perform a basic double-spend, instead they talk about unrelated things such as PoS and Sybil Attacks and [insert BS here].
Anyone can double-spend Bitcoin at will as we've recently witnessed and I was the person that informed the developers that it would occur due to their faulty signature validation code. The Bitcoin devs demonized me but in the end they realize my findings were accurate and the network split losing people hundreds of thousands of USD and forced zero confirmation transactions to be disabled on a wide scale. When I told them a hard-fork was required to fix this bug safely they said "we have more than hard forks at our disposal". This is the typical crypto-currency ego and if it continues the double-spend attacks will increase due to easier but more sophisticated attack vectors.
It is impossible to have safe zero confirmation transactions on any crypto-currency without it being part of the core protocol. This is what I have done and it resolves the problem for all crypto-currencies using a backwards compatible approach without the need to hard-fork.
I asked Nick Szabo aka Satoshi Nakamoto what he thought of my invention but he has failed to respond after many attempts.
I will not waste my time responding to nonsense. You have be given an opportunity, take it or leave it. Cool
Thank you for your support.
Interesting and well done if this is true!
Nobody sent me here, and I hadn't seen that tweet. I don't follow cryptoclub on twitter (though I will probably add after seeing that tweet) and I have no idea who that is.
I would agree a lot of work has gone into VNL by the way.
But that doesn't change the fact that some of the code (how much I don't know) is ripped-off, reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out.
I would agree a lot of work has gone into VNL by the way.
But that doesn't change the fact that some of the code (how much I don't know) is ripped-off, reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out.
I know nothing about coding, but "reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out" don't sound like a copyright issue to me, just as musicians don't own the chords their playing, they just reform chords in a different manner.
But then again, I can't understand codes so I cannot make a decent judge about it. Can you actually prove he stole the code?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxqreCG0htQ sweet child o mine by guns n roses?
"
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
Ok newbie, instead of blabbering use your wisdom to create a double spend, then come back? ktnx
"
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
In order for an attacker to rig the voting system they must control at least
50% of the K closest votes to the current block height of the recipient of a
transaction. We can calculate this as (((1 in N where N = Total Network
Nodes) / K) / 32767.5). Therefore the probability of an attacker owning 50%
of the transaction recipients K-closest votes is approximately (((1 in 350) /
64) / 32767.5) / (score > -1) ? inf : 1 = 1.36e-09 (1.36%)
"
This formula makes no sense.
Firstly, probabilities are numbers between 0 and 1, with 1 being 100%. How on earth does 0.00000000136 equate to 1.36%?
Secondly, the formula should have a variable for the number of nodes the attacker controls. This is central to how a consensus system works. From his formula one might deduce that the attacker has 1 node (1 / 350). So if we assume the attacker has all the nodes, 350, then the formula is 350/350/64/32767.5 = 4.76e-7. Is this 476% in this strange probability scale being used? One would expect the answer to approach 100%.
From the paper:
"
2. Lock Race Attack
In a lock race attack the sender forms two transactions and two locks and
submits one to the merchant and the other to the rest of the network. In this
case the locks will cancel each other out and the transaction MUST wait for
block inclusion before being considered confirmed.
"
So in the face of a simple double spend attempt, ZeroTime is no better than any other coin, it still needs to comfirm the transaction at least once with a Pow/Pos block.
This says if someone attempts a double spend they will have to wait for a confirm , zerotime still works to those using it for its purpose, only those trying to purposely double spend transactions are excluded until it is confirmed. so nothing really wrong there, you try to cheat the system you get temporary restrictions to the network. I.E not being able to use ZT for those transactions
From the paper:
"
2. Lock Race Attack
In a lock race attack the sender forms two transactions and two locks and
submits one to the merchant and the other to the rest of the network. In this
case the locks will cancel each other out and the transaction MUST wait for
block inclusion before being considered confirmed.
"
So in the face of a simple double spend attempt, ZeroTime is no better than any other coin, it still needs to comfirm the transaction at least once with a Pow/Pos block.
Poloniex did and they didn't confirm.
I do not believe that Poloniex had a qualified reviewer determine that the code was not improperly copied.
This part of the story is not over, because VNL is clearly guilty of misconduct when it comes to stealing code, violating copyrights, and misrepresenting it.
So you are implying that Poloniex, a trusted and high volume alt exchange, lowered Vanillacoin's needed deposit confirmation to 1 (only coin besides Bitcoin to have that) without doing a security audit and review?
Are you seriously this delusional? Peercoin needs 6 confirmations, Bitcoin needs 1. How much does XMR need? Not talking about your Bytecoin clone AEON here, because that will never get there.
Poloniex is highly respected. TF2 and Busoni are HIGHLY respected.
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
Nobody sent me here, and I hadn't seen that tweet. I don't follow cryptoclub on twitter (though I will probably add after seeing that tweet) and I have no idea who that is.
I would agree a lot of work has gone into VNL by the way.
But that doesn't change the fact that some of the code (how much I don't know) is ripped-off, reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out.
Dude, you showed you have enough spare time, so why don't you try to take our bounty money, it should be easy for mastermind like you.
Poloniex is highly respected. TF2 and Busoni are HIGHLY respected.
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
Nobody sent me here, and I hadn't seen that tweet. I don't follow cryptoclub on twitter (though I will probably add after seeing that tweet) and I have no idea who that is.
I would agree a lot of work has gone into VNL by the way.
But that doesn't change the fact that some of the code (how much I don't know) is ripped-off, reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out.
having 5 FUD posts and then saying this is kinda the same as bitchslapping someone and saying sorry... doesn't really make up for it. Or saying "no offence" then saying something offencive.
It's just misleading. As someone who skims posts I would conclude that you're trolling the coin. Then I happen to see that you have postive things to say as well which is surprising.
Poloniex is highly respected. TF2 and Busoni are HIGHLY respected.
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
Nobody sent me here, and I hadn't seen that tweet. I don't follow cryptoclub on twitter (though I will probably add after seeing that tweet) and I have no idea who that is.
I would agree a lot of work has gone into VNL by the way.
But that doesn't change the fact that some of the code (how much I don't know) is ripped-off, reformatted Bitcoin code with the attributions taken out.
Poloniex is highly respected. TF2 and Busoni are HIGHLY respected.
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
See these posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12125983
and
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12126177 <- This has the post in which cryptoclub said the following regarding a Bitcoin Dev he asked to review the VNL code: 'but what I know so far is it definitely isn't a scam based on sheer amount of work, and he agrees it "shines" compared to most alts.'
I believe Cryptoclub sent smooth here.
See this tweet: https://twitter.com/CryptoCc/status/629639009468203012
See these posts:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12125983
and
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12126177 <- This has the post in which cryptoclub said the following regarding a Bitcoin Dev he asked to review the VNL code: 'but what I know so far is it definitely isn't a scam based on sheer amount of work, and he agrees it "shines" compared to most alts.'
Necroing something thats half a year old as his main argument for trolling...
blablablabla
It seems that you as dev don't have better things to do than going into endless discussions, basicaly saying nothing.
I'm saying that VNL is using ripped off code from Bitcoin that was reformatted and had its attributions removed and that your developer is lying about it.
That's what I'm saying.
If you think that means nothing, then ignore it and carry on. Other people might find that significant.
Coming from someone who's biggest innovation is a bytecoin clone, not sure if you are trustworthy in terms of coding.
You would have to distrust both me and gmaxwell (and I think some other bitcoin devs who have said the same thing), and the more people who look at and reach the same conclusion, it the more the list will grow.
Or you could trust none of us and hire an independent expert.
Or you could bury your head in the sand and deny it.
Necroing something thats half a year old as his main argument for trolling...
blablablabla
It seems that you as dev don't have better things to do than going into endless discussions, basicaly saying nothing.
I'm saying that VNL is using ripped off code from Bitcoin that was reformatted and had its attributions removed and that your developer is lying about it.
That's what I'm saying.
If you think that means nothing, then ignore it and carry on. Other people might find that significant.
Coming from someone who's biggest innovation is a bytecoin clone, not sure if you are trustworthy in terms of coding.
Poloniex did and they didn't confirm.
I do not believe that Poloniex had a qualified reviewer determine that the code was not improperly copied.
This part of the story is not over, because VNL is clearly guilty of misconduct when it comes to stealing code, violating copyrights, and misrepresenting it.
Smooth,you have very bad reputation,how much you paid for this +40 in trust ?
I have never paid for trust, nor have I ever used any other account, sock puppet, bought account, new account, etc. (other than the aeon account that was given to me by the previous developer and I use to update the OP).
Every single trust on my account was voluntarily placed there by people I have dealt with in some manner (including the negative ones).
Consider that when evaluating the credibility of people who claim I have a "bad reputation".
Necroing something thats half a year old as his main argument for trolling...
blablablabla
It seems that you as dev don't have better things to do than going into endless discussions, basicaly saying nothing.
I'm saying that VNL is using ripped off code from Bitcoin that was reformatted and had its attributions removed and that your developer is lying about it.
That's what I'm saying.
If you think that means nothing, then ignore it and carry on. Other people might find that significant.
Necroing something thats half a year old as his main argument for trolling...
blablablabla
It seems that you as dev don't have better things to do than going into endless discussions, basicaly saying nothing.
So, with so much spare time why don't you try to take our bounty money, it should be easy for mastermind like you.
And please don’t crap about bounty amount while your last development achievement presented in your thread is 'New feature -- donation mining'
I'm not calling coin/project you are working on as scam nor do I quote someone who said that but man, take a look at your work first than think for few seconds and then talk about other people's projects.
Hey blobafett2, did you actually look at VNL's copied code where they took Bitcoin's code, removed the attribution and copyright notices, slightly reformatted it, and claimed it was their own work?
Or is everything in altcoin land all about your personal vendetta against me, and you couldn't care less what scumbag behavior goes on, including blatantly ripping off Bitcoin?
It's a C++11 reinventing of crypto (if you want to point an existing crypto out, atleast point to Peercoin).
That's a marketing slogan that factually is a load of shit.
The code is copied, from Bitcoin. Reformatted, with attributions removed in violation of the copyright and as misrepresentation. Just exactly as gmaxwell said six months ago, except looking at current code today it is the same thing.
Anyone with any programming knowledge can look at the above links and confirm.
Poloniex did and they didn't confirm.
Oh.... Thought your AEON is on Poloniex.... sorry. #rekt
rekt
Smooth,you have very bad known reputation in crypto world,how much you paid for this +40 in trust ?
Jump to: