Topic: If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press? (Read 5518 times)

Could some one show me a unconfirmed transaction for long time ago ?

Oh yes - and that shines a different light on the regulatory State! When I was younger and stupider , one of the mysteries I wrestled with was: why did the financial industry become so complaisant with being regulated to the extent to which it has? Chalk my confusion up to naïveté: it's pretty obvious that, ceteris paribus, any industry would prefer less regulation (aimed at them) to more. Those stories about clever industry-employed securities lawyers engaging in a kind of arms race with the regulators by finding loopholes in the still-very-voluminous regs, of course, fed my naïveté.

The answer didn't click in until well after I read up on the history of the American stock market. In the 1960s, there was a big push to call listed stocks "The People's Capitalism." Long after I read that, the answer clicked.

A well-regulated industry is much easier to market as trustworthy. It's a powerful inducement for otherwise-skeptical people to drop their skepticism. "You see something fishy? Just call the regulators! If they see a crook, they'll crack down. Now as for us..."

Evidently I was "overtheoried"; I needed an intervention from Captain Obvious. As John Ralson Saul put it a long time ago, most-to-all businesspeople want one thing from the government: a stable market for their goods.

If accepting regulation means more stabilization through disarming healthy skepticism, they'll accept it. The ceteris really ain't paribus.

Thank you for clarification, I'll take back what I wrote

At least one : Kristov Atlas
https://twitter.com/kristovatlas/status/489075106388246528
and probably this too : https://cryptonote.org/news/2014/7/15/cryptonote-whitepaper-review-by-monero

Even if they forked the bytecoin code, this the monero team which have paid for review, beside publishing an academic review on the subject.

Make that three. Always a shame when the absence of anything valuable, or intelligent to say in defence of a thing leads to childish name calling.

I'm eager to hear who XMR paid for their review. Oh they didn't have to... they just forked BCN/CN and called it a day.

Edit: They did pay for a review as pointed out on the next page.

Analysing the code to find the weakness in the 0 confirmation transactions implementation or the resolution of double spending is a time consuming work.

For others coins, the communauty/dev team have paid for expert review.
Even trying to do a double spending take a lot of ressources.
At least, to motivate experts to review the code, vnl team should provide substantial elements to back-up the claims.

Studying the whole set of code take a huge amount of time for people not so familiar with crypto.

But the copying of bitcoin code is easy to verify once pointed by smooth and others. (by the way, thank you smooth and TPTB for your contributions).

Reading this, it looks like that the zerotime/0-confirmation has been
discussed alreadyin  some other thread. Could someone please give
me a link, because it's hard to search for anything here.

Couple of months ago I looked into this and thought it
was very promising idea, if I understood correctly PoS timestamps
were used to filter transactions that were not eligible for block
inclusion.

I'm very interested to know what you expert devs found to
criticize about john-connor's code (apart from the copyright issue,
which is not the point here)

the funniest thing is that all the guys defending vanillacoin seem to be completely code illiterate 

which pretty much explains their behaviour.

JC is making something great and you two idle dicks who seem to think you know more than him are forum dickheads.....have a nice day.

Ask Vanilla Ice about rewrites that aren't that rewritten. At least he completely changed most of the lyrics. Your boy switched a few words around, stole the beat and said he changed the game--all we need is Satoshi to sue this poser (better yet, hang him from a balcony as the legend goes) and he'll do the same favor for cryptocurrency that Suge did for rap.

Is your script going to have the same grammatical errors and typos (i.e. bugs, in the case of software) as the original Batman script?

Are you going to include entire pages of the original Batman script word-for-word and then reformat them and change a few words like NULL to 0?

Because VNL's alleged "completely new rewrite" does both of those things.

But hey, you have a job do to, so continue your likely paid shilling. I know you will anyway. When does traumschiff's shift start?

another semantic theoretical based FUD. I don't know exactly how much of the code if it resembles some of Bitcoins ideas then how is he a liar saying its a completely new 'rewrite'. You know if I rewrite the script to Batman.....Batman still gonna be in it right?


The fact is.....which is THE WHOLE point is JC work does something other coins can't......history won't care about your intellectual hissy fits.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rewrite





So far all I see JC said was this in the official ANN.


"What is VanillaCoin?

Vanillacoin is not a clone of Bitcoin or Peercoin, it was engineered from the ground up and is designed to be innovative and forward-thinking. It prevents eavesdropping and censorship and has security in mind."




And this comment which basically makes clear he isn't reinventing the concept of Crypto when accused of copying some fundamental ideas of Bitcoin.


"Is a Honda car a clone of a Ford car? Cool

Thank you for your support."

I'm skeptical why you need to discuss "other ALT" on this thread.

And yes, some small portions of the plagiarized code have been highlighted, as specifics, but by no means all of it.


It's already proven, multiple times by multiple people, as I quoted (some of) earlier on this very thread.


That's exactly the point. He's a liar, certainly on that point, and well documented. What else is he lying about?


Copying Bitcoin's code and claiming it to be a completely new rewrite are not tiny details.

Dude explain how VNL is any different to any other ALT in the last two years but they get press with their innovations. Its open source for fucks sake, most coins don't even go open source for months...Open source means if you have a problem you got to highlight it, specifics.....you are no better than a sock puppet one post account saying this coin is shit.


Yeah you are going to have to prove copy paste that JC copied any major elements of Bitcoin.....thats FUD, plus JC has said its a completely new rewrite......he never said he reinvented how crypto worked. You are really have an agenda to find tiny details and making them look like lies. it makes you the twat if you don't back up statements like that....makes you a lier and worthy of losing your precious trust rating.  .......ill give you by the end of the day to do so.

Because it answers the question "Where is the press?" You know the actual subject of this thread.

Mathematical proof of security or GTFO. There is none in his white paper.

1. No proof of security

+

2. Proven lying scumbag plagiarist as lead developer making these unproven claims of security.

=

3. Legitimate press is going to ignore (though I bet you could pay for some, and probably will).

Investors grab your wallet and run the other way. <= good advice

I'm skeptical why you need to discuss that general issue all over this thread. As you and your buddies have shown nothing more than general vague criticism this is the definition of FUD.


You can't double spend VNL even though it has zero confirmations. ie awesome.

Just making an observation, not a value judgement. A consequence of that free market is that people are naturally going to be (and should be) more skeptical.

There will never be a market without greater fools (not an allusion to VNL, just a general statement). Accept the universe as it is.

Make your statements so the wise investors can do their research. And then let it be.