Topic: If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press? - page 2. (Read 5518 times)

Then it'll be our fault!   

User - "Why didn't you warn us so called experts?"
Expert - "*provides endless list of historical threads where we did*"
User - "Oh...I see"

Thank the gods for that. I hope it remains unregulated. I am sure you agree that another name for "unregulated" is a "free market".

As Fuserleer wrote upthread, we will grow weary and fanboys can pump something that doesn't have solid proofs and we will eventually be too busy on other things.

Not really, in a marketing sense (especially an unregulated one), you can claim whatever the hell you want. People don't have to believe you though. That's where providing solid support for your claims comes in. If you want to rise above the noise of 1000 coins, many of them making various claims, you have to back it up with more than a vague non-proofs if you want to be taken seriously. Any piece of shit can always get some fan base though. I'm not even saying VNL is a piece of shit, just making an observation about human nature.

I don't think anyone has taken a stance against those being potential improvements, although I haven't analyzed them so they may or may not be significant in the holistic sense of effects that matter.

From my perspective, the entire network design will change, so all that will become irrelevant any way. (there might still be something important there that might even apply to my design for example, noting I am not a networking expert and he apparently is)

I think people haven't focused on those because they are probably not significant enough to make the case for adoption and investing. But that is up to each person to decide. I don't have a well formed opinion on that and frankly don't care because I don't have the time and because I think it will all be soon irrelevant. I took a brief look at it and I wasn't convinced it was Sybil and DoS resistant (but that doesn't mean it isn't). I didn't have time to really study it well.

I think it is dangerous when experts from the Bittorrent realm (my best guess of where "john conner" comes from) think they can apply the principles the same way to crypto-currency. There are fundamental differences in the Byzantine fault tolerance.


I can't see this at all. What feature does it add?

No zero confirmation ability has been proven yet.


Apologizing to the community could go a long way towards repairing his reputation. Apparently he is a loner who doesn't know how to work with others. Can't even participate in a forum where he doesn't have complete control.

Brilliant control freaks don't win. Gregory Maxwell is going to get a lesson on that too soon. Embracing the community with open arms is very important.

Maybe he is just busy coding. No problem. We didn't force the issue here, nextgencoin did.  He has been trying to push this coin before it is ready to be pushed. John hasn't even completed the zerotime white paper. He was forced to rush a more complete paper which is lacking proofs and sufficient justifications.

Maybe John is caught between over anxious supporters and the realities of what one man can accomplish by himself in finite time. Maybe he simply doesn't have time to deal with the community in this forum at this time.

Again I believe this is not true. Never say never. The devil is in the details.

Edit: Nothing is absolutely secure beyond any probability. But when probabilities shrink to that of winning the Lotto, I consider that to be "100%" unlikely to occur in most people's lives.

The Bitcoin fork was due to miner's not verifying the block version. Nothing to do with a weakness in Bitcoin itself.

You have to first prove it secure. This isn't a court of law where you are "innoncent until proven guilty." The burden of proof is on the creator of the software.

Double spending is an algorithmic /mathematic problem : the burden of the proof is on the one claiming having a solution!
The white paper already sent by John doesn't provide proofs (maybe there is another version more complete ?)

On the other hand, there are many aspect of vanillacoin I appreciate : the rewrite of the network part, the O(1) routing, the android wallet staking ...
These features are enough to qualify vnl above a lots of altcoins.
The instant transaction system seems a good + too: even with some eventual limits.

But  I believe John made somewhat excessive claims in regards of the facts : "complete rewrite of the code" and "solving the double spending problem".

That's not how it works, you are here attacking a solution. It is open source, live and already being used. No one who attacked reviewed the code and pointed out flaws in it so far.

Point out the line of code where it was solved, and I'll point out the line where it wasn't solved.

Nice to see that the team is complete with the same people as in every other thread. Still not a single line of code pointed out in ZeroTime's source which could be a vulnerability.

I'm enjoying the theorycrafting so far 

All peer to peer currency carries risks, now and forever, so you might as well get used to the idea.... as does banking / business.

It's solved until/if someone 51% attacks Bitcoin or SHA256 is cracked. I guess my definition of the word solved is different. If I run a business and put the security of my company in a piece of software, I'd like to know if there is ANY potential risk, and let's be honest, Bitcoin DOES have risks even if the chances of said risks are extraordinarily low. Don't think I am taking away from what Satoshi did, he is clearly a genius but I don't believe it is the end-all for fintech and believe newer and better technologies will surpass it.

You said the double spending problem wasn't solved, I just provided you with the paper which proves that it is solved.

Now, if you had asked if the 0 confirmation double spend problem was solved, I would answer: no.

edit: your idea of a 100% secure solution is infeasible in a trustless, peer to peer environment. The best you can hope for is that the chance of an attack succeeding is statistically insignificant.

Good point. The road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions. One of the unintended consequences for Bitcoin and blockchains may be that instead of liberating us from the shackles of human exploitation by big government is it may one day usher in an even more Orwellian and oppressive future where every transaction is digitally tracked and not anonymous and no way to "opt out" of the system. Such a high price to pay just for the comfort of stopping a little more financial fraud every year. I am still on the fence about digital currencies whether they are truly good or not, but that is another debate  

Not necessarily. Now we are mixing urine with the water table - a completely unnecessary process which is leading to widespread ecological damage, especially in the States. Research why biodiversity is plunging across the states in all creek based ecosystems. Its all the pharmaceuticals, hormones etc which are being flushed down the toilet instead of peed onto the earth.

So basically you read nothing I said.

A "secure solution" isn't a real solution if it is theoretically possible to break and can be attacked in some form.

The invention of indoor plumbing "solved" human society's waste disposal issue but it can still be undone by jamming something large down the hole that clogs up the drain. If the waste is too big then it can't be disposed of! So in essence waste disposal is only solved up to a point. It is by far an improvement over an outhouse though.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

If it's solved, then why has double spending occurred before with Bitcoin? If it's solved why is a 51% attack a real very real risk? Aren't quantum computers a real risk in the near future to the security of its algorithm? Why can it occur with accepting 0 confirmation transactions? This is like saying you found a cure for cancer BUT it comes with an *asterisk (cancer may only be cured as long as you eat a well-balanced diet afterwards!)  

Everyone will snidely declare, "well everything is fine if you wait 10 minutes for a few confirmations", well going by that logic I can just as much say Visa could "solve" double spending problems too if everyone just waited a few days or weeks for transactions to sort themselves out with no chargeback issues before they release their merchandise, of course naturally this is not economically or socially practical hence companies accept the risk and eat the loss from the 1% of scammers out there. But if they did do it they could say they "solved" the DS issue too. The main strength of Bitcoin is handles finding transanctional consensus faster and more efficiently hence why it is a technical progress but it's not the monumental achievement people really think it is. I mean at the end of the day it's just a glorified decentralized excel spreadsheet for christ's sake, it's not like the invention of the computer or the internal combustion engine.

This is why I don't like claims of absolutes, whether it comes from the Bitcoin community or Vanillacoin community. But I do care which coin is the superior tech advancement and can significantly enhance the realm of commerce or get us off the back of the stinking federal reserve (even though in the end none of this may not matter as 1st mover advantage of a slower and inferior tech often wins out in the end).

The thing bitcoin and satoshi are most famous for, is for solving the double spending problem. The solution was this thing called a 'blockchain'. You might want to look it up.