Topic: [BOUNTY] VNL - Vanillacoin - ZeroTime double-spend reward - page 3. (Read 6038 times)

ah yes like the Shadowcash crew did, paid Isidor Zeuner a few grand for an audit whom we haven't heard high nor tail from for 6 months?

This is the problem with high level projects like VNL, anyone who is qualified to investigate its strengths or weaknesses usually has motives not to do so. This isn't exactly the University & Education sector around here, everyone has an agenda, even those on the Bitcoin mailing list.

Also for those whining the bounty is tiny, take a look at the going rate for Bitcoin bounties and tell me it's not fair.

https://bitcoinsecurityproject.org/BugBounties/

Okay, then let's not repost the exact same post multiple times to try to bury critical comments.

I'll grant that the unmoderated BCT thread is an open forum.

The rest are controlled by people with an interest in the coin itself, making them not open forums, even if they don't happen to be actively censored at the moment.

I actually think AnonyMint's point about the lack of any sound basis for this claimed consensus algorithm is more important, and relevant to whether anyone should bother trying to break it, although as I said a tiny $2100 bounty will likely attract interest from zero qualified people. Looks more like a promotional stunt.

The moderated BCT thread is a pure announcement thread, for official announcements and not a chat topic.

The private forum is currently community moderated (nothing gets deleted)/owned.

IRC is also community owned.

BCT discussion thread community owned.

So as you can see the main discussion hubs are not censored in any form. Who cares what gmaxwell stated half a year ago honestly?

The statement of gmaxwell has no weight currently.


I'm out of this discussion, you simply argue to get your first point through which is based on something you necrod back from half a year ago. Good job.

Okay that's a reasonable place to look for uncensored discussion, but not the official ANN thread.


No, he made a new ANN which is moderated, and not locked (and has recent posts): https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1064326

The original ANN thread, which was unmoderated, was indeed locked.

In other words, just as gmaxwell said, the original unmoderated ANN thread was locked, and replaced with a private forum and a moderated ANN thread, where discussion can be censored and controlled.

That is a huge red flag


His points about transparency and red flags are valid on their face. It is a common (but fallacious) refrain in the altcoin area that criticism can be dismissed if someone has a "bias" or "agenda", while ignoring the substance of the statement (which as I demonstrated above, turns out to be correct). More precisely this is the logical fallacy of Ad hominem circumstantial and is a weak argument that reflects poorly on those who attempt it.


Discussion and critical comments is not censoring, nor is it off topic, but what you did by posting the exact same message again to bump it below other comments is a lot closer.

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.

Why do you even comment without doing your research? You are no better than the 0 activity trolls in most threads.

The project is open source, google: vanillacoin + github

Was it hard?


The popular discussion thread is unmoderated, take a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977245.2780

Also john doesn't moderate the official forums at all (a few community members are also mods there, like myself - it's unmoderated), which you can find here: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/

The ANN was locked, because he made an official forum like many other projects.


As for gmaxwell, he started fuding, because John had an argument with them on the Bitcoin github, which you would have seen if you read the thread you just quoted. Gmaxwell isn't the hero of the altcoin section, he doesn't just go an investigate projects, he had an agenda because he was butthurt.


In theory you couldn't answer this post, because you literally made no research and now you should feel like a true ass jumping on the hate train, but this isn't how the world works so you will probably come up with a shitty excuse to fud.

Not with a single sentence.

The discussion was relevant to offer of a reward and the possibility of collecting it.

People considering trying to get the reward and also those observing the process of whether it is collected or not are entitled to relevant independent opinions, including expert opinions. Turning it into a shilling exercise devoid of scrutiny is just scamming. That's inappropriate regardless of the thread topic or forum location.

Your first post would nicely fit in

 https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-vnl-vanillacoin-041-instant-incentivized-innovative-977245

This thread is about ZeroTime double-spend reward

Well, this would be a right question for this thread when it wouldn't start with "I wouldn't trust..."
In this form from newbie account means nothing but just another FUD post.

 

I wouldn't trust in the possibility of a bounty unless it was held by a third party escrow.

No.


No.


I'm no more interested in even working on something for $2300 worth of would-be-worthless coins then AnonyMint is, and perhaps less.

In any case, the question was asked what he thought about it, and I posted a relevant, on-topic answer. Perhaps you should retreat to self-moderated threads where you can delete inconvenient on-topic posts that don't suit your agenda.


I'm not even sure what you are confused about.

I don't think that was called for...

I don't agree with an assessment based on a January post but I don't think he is confused.

Dear smooth I'm sure you wanted to post this on some other thread, right?
Or you are so confused so you don't know where you need to post and what you want to say so you must quote other guys?
Anyway, do you know how or are you capable to take our bounty money cause this thread is all about that.
No?
Then move on, go back to your thread and help your community with fork problems.
 

He had "something" to say about it


Another cryptocurrency expert, who certainly doesn't agree with Anonymint about everything (anything?) has this to say


(I believe it is no longer the case that the source is not available,  but I'm not positive.)

I note for the emphasis with regard to bolded quoted comment above, the new ANN thread is self-moderated, which means you can't trust it to contain an open unbiased debate about the merits of the coin.

There are a lot of red flags here. Be careful.

How about the more eccentric, poor man's Nakamoto, Anonymint.

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.

Thank you for your support.

from the article:


You are absolutly right it was related to PoS. Bravo sir.

!tip r0ach 1 beer

Damn, out of popcorn