Topic: Give me a logical reason why Vanilla coin is not a top ten coin? (Read 4356 times)

What difference does it make if he is biased if he is correct? If I tell you your house is on fire, are you going to check or ponder about my motives for telling you (especially if you see smoke pluming from the street you live on)?

It is correct and accurate as far as I know at this point.

If you have contradictory information on the matter of the ripped-off Bitcoin code, please provide it.

As you have seen I'm willing to revise anything that is unclear or inaccurate.

So now that you have seen the huge bias that you have versus the project, read the whole trust rating again and delete it.

I modified the negative trust rating to clarify that significant portions of the code are ripped off from Bitcoin, and not the whole thing. It still points to the reference page where additional supporting details and evidence are posted.

Thank you for pointing how the manner in which it was previously (though unintentionally) unclear.

"at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code"

This was your comment with the negative trust rating. Read it again. Stop fabricating explanations on your trolling when someone points it out.

There is a link to a reference there. The reference cites specific sections of code, which are, at best, lightly edited (but mostly just reformatted).

I never claimed, nor do I claim that the entirety of VNL is copied from Bitcoin or Peercoin or anywhere else, but portions of it certainly are, and are both missing the required (and ethical) attributions and also is misrepresented as "built from scratch in it's entirety" (emphasis added here).

If after reading this you believe my trust is inaccurate in some specific factual way let me know and I will consider modifying it. Indeed I will modify it if you make valid points and I find them credible.

It is not trolling, it is factual, and it is relevant.

You gave John a negative trust rating on BCT, and I quote: "at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code"

You know that Bitcoin had no POS code in it to begin with? You know that it's not a lightly edited code to begin with? You can call it whatever you want, but this negative trust rating is complete trolling.

Or, perhaps, you were trolling and I am not.

Look at the code.

Just look at the code, and stop focusing on the personalities.

If you've done that you will see that what I wrote is correct.

If you don't, then your comments are pointless.

If I wanted to, I could create sock puppets and post the same thing. Since I don't, the cost of that is trolls like you turning every substantive point I make (such as above) into an opportunity for a personal attack.

Your efforts are starting to look depressing, I stopped commenting in your shitcoins thread after 24 hours because trolling is just not for me, but it seems you can cope with being a troll.

The only thing ppl waking up to is your trolling.. look at the numbers on the poll

A "logical reason" would be people wanting to stay the hell away from an anonymous developer who's few public actions include ripping off Bitcoin's source code, bugs and all, stripping off the attributions, reformatting it, and passing it off as "built entirely from scratch".

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12128046

Wake up people. It's way too easy for scumbags to operate and to scam in this environment, where people throw money at anything that claims to solve the world with no due diligence. Be more discriminating.

OK, now please convert me to Monero because I have problems believing in it also. PMs welcome.

I replied to the new zerotime white paper:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12134345

Because Chocolate coin will come and make Vanilla coin look like an obsolete plain old Vanilla shit coin

The dev has told too many double-truths, first about angel investors that don't actually exist and then he released false source code to github... plus most of the Vanillacoin topic is just empty shill comments.
I've done blockchain analysis on my own and found some disturbing irregularities in the blocks that were created in January when the dev was turning PoW on and off again and a select few were doing the mining.  On some days a ridiculous number of blocks were generated which went right into a select few people's pockets: 
 
  

  
Oh, and if you publicly criticize VanillaCoin you can expect some threatening messages in your inbox from the Vanilla Teamsters.  
  
I was actually considering investing in VNL at a certain point but did my due dilligence and decided something definitely smells wrong about it.  
  
I even asked /r/math what they thought and everyone seemed very wary of zerotime claims, basically saying that it creates an unsustaininable promise and that the released white papers are full of empty hype and promises.  
  
https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/3fv115/theres_a_new_cryptocurrency_that_claims_to_be/  
  
New cryptocurrencies need to be transparent, honest, and be able to stand up to the most intense scrutiny.... sadly I have to say that VNL does not.  And, for those of you wondering, neither does Ethereum so stay away from that too.

Damn Jezus, bunch of kids....break the code and proof that the dev talks crap, but in the mean time he showed us that it works. He gives everyone the opportunity to show otherwise, but instead of that i only see words and no action.

He fix the flaws many crypto are facing and all others are doing right now is crying for what he has done. Stop typing and get the bounty. Not for the money, but to shut Johns "big mouth". But strangely enough nobody succeeds in this for now. How come? 

He showed us his show, what do you guys have to offer? Bunch of words?

One of main question is - how the crypto coin is implemented in various sites, for example in gambling sites etc.   Then you can understand the whole altcoin market  

The key indication is that zerotime uses an algorithm which is known to be unsafe in the face of the byzantine generals problem.

The analogy would be that in the case of the safe made of paper, the substance 'paper' is unknown to the community at large; on the one hand you have the maker of the safe claiming that 'paper' is unbreakable, and on the other hand you have a few members of the community who know the failure modes of this new substance and would like evidence from the manufacturer that he has overcome these limitations.

What indication is there that VNL is made out of paper though? One can see with your own eyes that coins send and confirm almost instantly on the blockchain. It fulfills its main purpose for existing from the outset. It's like me going out and picking out a safe, closing it, locking it, and checking to see if the door opens when I pull it. If it doesn't open when I pull with all my strength or pop open immediately when I take a hammer to it, that is good enough proof it "works" as advertised.

Now whether there is a security hole in the software for the digital safe lock that is a wholly different issue. What product owner is going to say, "oh i'm sorry, my creation is not secure, you better not buy it". That is silly, for one thing they are inherently biased and will be protective of their own creation or they may just totally have no clue there is a problem and may believe after their own testing it is secure. Not every car maker that gets recalled rolls out automobiles knowing there are problems for instance. Hence that is why it is up to a neutral 3rd party to prove their claims otherwise and we have things like consumer reports or the FDA to regulate or warn about unscrupulous or mistaken claims.

Btw Bitcoin has exploits and bugs too, don't kid yourself, it doesn't mean the whole software is a fraud or insecure. Things can be fixed and risks mitigated. This is why there is a term in retail called breakage, shit happens and you have to take that into account as a cost expense of doing business. Unfortunately there are alot of Walter Whites around here expecting 99.999% perfection, it just doesn't exist anywhere.