Topic: How about Vanilla coin - page 3. (Read 10190 times)

Blah blah blah. No one whose opportunity costs is $200,000 - $500,000 yearly wastes their time on your nonsense tiny bounty in a coin that doesn't have sufficient liquidity to short and in which the mining (i.e. Zerotime network) is controlled by the flock of delusion shills. (additionally the bounty is in VNL and I had explained before what is the point of finding a flaw then the bounty value will decline as well)

We focus on the technical analysis and how it will perform in the wild.

Your rebuttal is entirely nonsense (as it was in the past), but of course you retarded shills will continue on with your delusion.

Readers are smart enough to see who is the fool in this debate. Delude yourself as you wish. Piss into the wind and troll your shadow in your tiny circle-jerk with your cohort bag holding shills.

Nice links bro

I already explained upthread that ZeroTime (even when it is not Sybil attacked) can't scale.

And I already explained that ChainBlender is another Dash-like nonsense anonymity design.

The 'John' is not at our level. Period.

Now you know why the community is ignoring you. And I will now ignore you as well. Enjoy your circle-jerk.

The community behind Vanilla coin is pretty small and it is not even known by 50% of altcoiners till now.
They need to uplift their community as well as try to advertise their asset.

Also they have a few exchanges (so far only at Bittrex and Poloniex).
They need to diversify their exchanges in order to get larger trade volumes + interest.

The interest rate to secure the network is also very low (only 0.7%) which is why most members are not interested to invest in it. In other words the interest rate not worth nowadays.

The community behind Vanilla coin is pretty small and it is not even known by 50% of altcoiners till now.
They need to uplift their community as well as try to advertise their asset.

They need to diversify their exchanges in order to get larger trade volumes + interest.

The interest rate to secure the network is also very low (only 0.7%) which is why most members are not interested to invest in it. In other words the interest rate not worth nowadays.

What is ridiculous?
Well, it's like you ask Opel car salesman whether Audi is better car and he says, look I never drove the Audi but I think not.
Regarding G maxwell, he speaks about john-connor as 'general coder', but hey that general coder made ZeroTime while G maxwell even with raised $55 Mil can't explain how should Lightning Network work. So, if he can't explain how the hell he will make it.
If you have VNL and not only have them on exchange you should already know what is all about.
Initial distribution, about that you can hear stories and as far as I know and I mine VNL from almost beginning is that john-connor was always in fight with those who were looking for ways to instamine or rape the coin through mining, but than again after a year on exchanges that question becomes irrelevant.
Questions are welcome.
Everyone is in position to read the code, can one evaluate it is other thing but commenting code while claiming you read none is just BS.    

So did GMaxwell copyright some code he added to the original Bitcoin code?

I am glancing at John's (VNL's) code now. I notice he likes to put the opening brace on the next line, which wastes vertical space (expert programmers like to maximize the LOC they can view without scrolling). And he places a redundant 'break;' after 'default;' but this is form of protecting against future human error code edits. This sort of unnecessary structuralization of code is meaningful to junior programmers who think it works some kind of magic.

He is not at all using functional programming and instead creating procedures (i.e. have side-effects) which is known to produce spaghetti code (brittle code).

He sure loves to waste vertical space and make it appear his code has more LOC than it does! 3 line comments for 3 words. Makes me think he gets confused quickly if code is dense.

Throwing exceptions puts the program in a state of indeterminism!

What's ridiculous about it? G maxwell said in his comments (for exact words look up the thread ...) he sees the work of a general coder not someone with specific talents in the field of decentralized crypto currency? I was merely asking a reasonable person who is know to work in that field for a 2nd opinion.

I have a few VNL i was wondering if I should get a bit more or just put the rest into a different project. I was also asking about initial distribution because I don't like coins where there was a huge instamine or premine.

Question are not allowed?

Are you in a position personally to make in depth evaluation of his design and coding skills? if so you are probably in the minority.

Catching an exception puts the program in a random state, because it is bypasses deterministic static typing of invariants. By definition of determinism, in every case where the is a determinstic state to bubble an exceptional condition to, i.e. to deterministically recover from an exceptional condition, this bubbling can be accomplished statically at compile-time. It is another way of saying that halting the program when it is in an non-deterministic state, is "given more eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".

The type of bugs that deterministically bubble coherently at compile-time, are those that are not semantic logic errors in the programmer's type design. Semantic logic errors means the program is by design in an incoherent, random state (that thus must be halted). Thus semantic logic errors that randomly trip on an exception, should be handled the same as bugs which deterministically bubble at compile-time and trip on an exception. Halting the program may be restarting the program from (i.e. rewinding to) a historic copy of coherent state, and/or reporting into a debugger.

There was a long fruitful discussion that illuminated the above concepts. Consider the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at compile-time, i.e. the function's invariants are statically typed and the throw (i.e. halt) is provably bubbled outside of the function at compile-time.

class NonZeroDiff
{
   a, b // also these might be declared to be read only outside the new() constructor
   new( a : Int, b : Int )
   {
      if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
      this.a = a
      this.b = b
   }
}

function f( ab : NonZeroDiff )
{
   return (ab.a * ab.b) / (ab.a – ab.b)
}

result = f( new NonZeroDiff( 2, 1 ) )

Compare the above, to the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at run-time, i.e. the function's invariant type is dynamically typed. The inputs to the function (f) are statically typed Int, but the invariants a - b != 0 is not asserted by Int inputs, and instead the throw (i.e. halt) is inside the function at compile-time and can only bubble at run-time.

function f( a : Int, b : Int )
{
   // could instead be thrown by the / operator
   if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
   return (a * b) / (a – b)
}

result = f( 2, 1 )

The fundamental conclusion is that in dynamic typing, the throw check is inside the function (f) being reused, and in static typing the check is outside the function, in the type of the invariants specified by the function’s type. Thus in the dynamic-typing case, the function inherently bind's its internal check in a futures contract to the universe of possible external code (because the external code is not forced by the compiler, to do a throw check itself), i.e. tries to in vain to define the limit of the external universe. Whereas, in the static-typing case, the external code is forced to check for itself, in order to comply with the compile-time checked invariants of the function.

Finally, this coin is starting to rise after being below 15k for a few months. Is this the start of a new rally or is this just used to dump onto people who buy?
I don't see any good news for this coin at the moment.

He really asked smooth if John is a good coder. This is ridiculous. 


LOL 

Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard.

You are so fucking stupid, you can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh!

Vanilla uses code stolen from Bitcoin, and the scam dev refused to do the right thing when gmaxwell, etc asked him to fix the lack of proper attribution, as required per the software license.

suuuuuuure! Which exactly were the stolen parts?  

You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation.