Topic: How about Vanilla coin - page 10. (Read 10190 times)

John doesn't need to hide it, it's all open source.
BTW I have wasted a day of my time going through the codes side by side, as I was considering investing more, obviously you haven't. It's east to see a fish in the sea if someone is pointing at it.

And OK I'll withdraw my bitcoin statement, because without its successes we wouldn't have a benchmark to measure against.  But putting bytecoin in the same league as bitcoin..  come on, laughable.  Monero forked off a buggy/scammy alpha piece of brilliant code.

Also you are colluding with my argument by using the monero model as your retort.
It developed way to slow, even with its many eyes.  
With its hard to mine beginning through its hard to use lifetime, it has been plagued by being entirely to prerelease since it's beginning.  And now as it points the finger at other crypto notes saying they are all flawed and it has the answer, it is to late.

If zcash (the reason we all started looking for anon  altcoins) comes out in six months and completes what zsnarks/crypto note could not, monero is done.

Here is a thought.  Could that be why all the fan boys are out promoting/fuding?
You guys want one last pump before you flood to zcash?

Sorry about the editing I'm doing all this typing on my phone.
Oh and sorry I went way off topic there.

The bolded statement is egregiously incorrect.

I already refuted the other sentence in my prior post.

You basically just made my point..

You are an obfuscation machine same as your leader. Not all alt-coins have code run through an obfuscation reformatter. Many instead use the bitcoin code exclusively with only very slight modications and don't try to hide it. Thus the code can be more or less relied upon.

Monero for example doesn't try to hide that it is using the Bytecoin code, and they have also undertaken a long-term plan of reviewing every line of code. Afaik, a lot of code of has been rewritten. Meaning they understand all the code and have the resources to study every single line of code. As well, Monero is based on Cryptonote which has a very complete specification on the one-time ring signatures (well not for the PoW hash, but Monero put a lot of effort into the hash function as well).

Monero has numerous developers contributing. Many eyeballs. John Conner is off by himself trying to do it all. In some ways, you could compare my efforts to Johns in that respect. But the distinction is I didn't try to hype coins into the market before my shit was ready.

Fuck you just described every Altcoin in existence. BTC included

I'm just here to add another side to the Fud.   Don't call me a shill for supporting a dev that I like.  
I'm also not here to talk against you specifically,  but more the XMR slander campaign that is running all over this forum using incomplete arguments and saying it's proof of one thing or another.

Fully on topic for one sec.  
How about vanillacoin?

Sure how about it.  While some here like to use every tactic to slander projects in development, I will give you my point of view on this project.
John-connor is a legit coder, he works tirelessly to roll out tech that can make a coin that works fast and efficiently, he fights hard to make sure that distribution is fair.  The team of vanillacoin support is always around to help people get things running.  He has delivered on his promises.
VNL is not some crappie clone coin, but a forward thinking practical project that has possibly solved many of bitcoin problems.
Come to vanillacoin.net or to its IRC channel to learn more
(That includes you haters as well)

Shameless plug for calling me a shill..

No one said he can't write some code.

Smooth's point is that if he is cutting corners and even trying to obscure that fact that he did, by running the plagiarized code through a reformatter, and on top of that is my point that he hasn't released detailed specifications, then it at the minimum exemplifies that he doesn't have enough resources and is attempting to hide that reality. In the worse case, it is evidence of unethical foundation.

Thus when you all shrill and hype that which is not ready for prime time, and the fact that VNL is trading now even though it is not ready for prime time, then we have every right to point that out.

If John had first completed all the necessary work before providing coins to trade on the market, then we'd perhaps be less inclined to doubt his ethics and scammerness.

Off to bed.  As always good to hear from you all, I like to argue, and you guys are always thoughtful.. well everyone except icebreaker....  don't know why I ever take him off ignore.  Oh yah, his banter with spoetnik  keeps me entertained...

Please refrain from using scam every second sentence, it will help me take you more seriously.

Smooth please go read through some of the thousands of other lines of code John has wrote, you will see why your last post is full crap.

There is another issue with plagiarism besides credibility and hype, which is that when you write code yourself you likely have some idea what the code actually does. When you run it through an automatic reformatting/refactoring tool in order to disguise the copying you very likely have no idea how the code actually works.

You also can't do any automatic or easy merges. It was already pointed out on one of the other threads that VNL had carried forward a bug (implausible if it were actually new code) that had subsequently been fixed in Bitcoin, yet ignored in VNL.

This played out recently in the case of SDC, who copied the cryptography from Cryptonote (but not the code, which they reimplemented). They did not understand how it worked and ended up reimplementing it incorrectly, leading to total deanonymization of their entire chain.

The large portions of the VNL code that were ripped off from BTC are almost certainly not fully understood by the developer, likely contain multiple unfixed bugs, and will be harder (likely to the point if impracticality for a small one-man project) to maintain due to the unnecessary reformatting/refactoring.

And I am sure we will analyze it if he does. Until then, all you have is hype.

Same to you...  I know you want assume that VNL doesn't do what it says, so don't buy any then.   It does what I need it to.

I'm sure John will roll out the full details before full beta testing is done.

And that wasn't your original point.  Your original point was to say that you proved it was flawed and a scam...   I am just answerring your FUD.

Keep your comments clear and don't just throw out shit like sybil attack followed by scam accusations.  
Or would you rather I just let your blatant FUD SPAM go unacknowledged.

Edit.  BTW sorry I missed your last post before smooth.  And no I don't have an answer to that, neither does core or anyone that I know of for that matter.  

Thank you for returning to intelligent conversation.

You didn't address our point. Which is that he refuses to provide detailed specifications. Please STFU until complete and detailed specifications have been released.

It matters exactly to that, because first of all it is used to hype ("All new code!") and based on that observation you should seriously doubt whether the product is being sold on the basis of code that works or hype. In this case clearly the latter.

Second of all it tells you a lot about the credibility and integrity of the developer. Unless you are going to undertake a comprehensive top-to-bottom review of the design and code which done right could cost millions of dollars, you are unavoidably relying on his claims about what the code is supposed to do and what it actually does. In theory the code speaks for it self but in practice when there is zero chance of a competent and complete review ever being done, the credibility of the developer matters a lot.

As TPTB just said, at this point he hasn't even released a complete white paper for any of the features. So it can't be reviewed that way even if we were willing to take his word that the code does what the whitepaper says. It's all bunch of skin-deep hype for a pump.

When VNL releases a detailed specification in a complete white paper, then we can cover all the ways it breaks. There is no way we are going to play cat & mouse game with John Conner where he refuses to provide all the details. It is all nonsense and timing and propagation is never proof in the Byzantine Generals Problem because distributed systems don't have synchrony. The best property he could possibly attain would be Stellar SCP's property that it is always safe but can be permanently preempted (delayed) by Sybil attack forever. Don't argue with a PhD professor from Stanford.

The sybil attack must happen within 3 milliseconds before a lock is put in place.  Even then only one of the transactions can be voted as true, and the person who has been ripped off will know it has happened.  I think there may actually be a mechanism in VNL that cancels out both transactions in that case, but I would need to reread up on it to make sure.  Also incentives ed full nodes protect against this further.

That being said all sidechain transactions are open to a sybil attack, but unless vnl becomes the next bitcoin, it just is not worth trying because it would be noticed to quickly.  Also even if it does become the next bitcoin it would only be on exchanges where this would be a problem, and since none of us care whether we need to wait a few minutes for a confirmation when it comes to buying and selling in an exchange your blatant FUD is proven misdirection.

When exchanges lose their money then it won't acceptable that it can be Sybil attacked. The incentive has to be great enough for the attack to worthwhile.

When it comes to real world use Zerotime seems 1000xs  safer than a zero confirm btc transfer.  That is what matters, not whether it is 100% foolproof.

Now we just need generalize this to complete the circlejerk.

The cryptocurrency equivalent of a Gender Studies Degree.

.. must have got lost in the mail, please point out how it is flawed and even better road map out a point of attack.
Don't be so ambiguous.  All crypto is flawed when it comes to perfection whether in transfer time or anonymity.   We all know it is, but can you show me how it can be done.

monsterer, Fuserleer, and I analyzed the Zerotime whitepaper in thread some months ago and pointed out it is flawed.

This is another scam coin. And the new anonymity feature is also flawed.

Any speculator who buys this is contributing to the cesspool of scams in altcoins and is poisoning the well from which we all drink.