Topic: If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press? - page 4. (Read 5518 times)

Here's the thing, of people really cared for the answer they would go to IRC, spend all of 3 seconds to log in, doesnt even ask for a password and ask the damn question directly to JC. Until then you just look like you are full of shit.

If you genuinely think you aren't then go ask and look like the smarter guy, it's not like you dont spend hours and hours on here so don't pull the I'm too busy line, as soon as I post you pop up, you must be on here around the clock.

So anything you make will be tarnished by the fact you seem full of shit from the gecko. For your benefit AND if you are correct you better go question what is by your endeavour your major competitor you are happy to FUd but not actually question.

Actually it can be made provably and 100% secure. Again I don't want to advertise.

Why do you think I am not interested in expending too much effort attacking a dubious claim when it can be solved with a stronger claim.

As Fuserleer said, we just want to warn readers that VNL's claims are challenged by peers who have been working on solving these issues for the past 2 years.

Who ever has the correct solution is going to end up generating a $billion+ market cap. All the developers will migrate to it. So we surely wouldn't trash that which is the perfected solution. None of us are that irrational.

Feel free to point me to a link of all his justifications against our claims of attacks. I will review if you do. I am not a dishonest person. If he teaches me something, I will admit it.

I will not go searching for it, if you do not provide it. This forum is very convenient for me.

May I suggest irccloud.com, it keeps 3rd party logs quite nicely.  

As the link to the deleted post upthread apparently reveals, IRC is not a permanent record. We communicate here in the public view where (normally) information doesn't disappear and is also available for all Bitcoin interested folks to view now and as an archive.

Except he didn't really as Bitcoin has had histories of double spends. How can it be solved if it's happened before? Yeah you can give me jargon about how its solved if you don't rely on 0 confirmations or it's expensive to do or many other excuses and IFs, yadayada but in the real business world where we're used to IT guys bulllshitting us about how secure their network or software package is, in my book if can be done then it can be done, end of story.

NOTHING IS SECURE. I repeat, NOTHING is secure. I wish people would get it thru their thick heads that anything with 0s and 1s is always vulnerable in some form or another, even if it is theoretical attacks that require millions of dollars or the greatest geniuses in the worlds to crack, I believe anything can be broken. The best you can hope for is to patch it up quick before more damage is done.

Instead of all these pseudo-academic discussions on whether something is 100% whatever bullshit I wish people would more debate what is the fastest and most secure software AS IT STANDS and debate whether it increases economic efficiency or can improve commerce? That is the one thing people overlook in this whole crypto sphere, is this actually stuff society wants or needs to use? Novelties and science projects wear off quick.




He is in the IRC seemingly everyday, how is he hiding?

That was an excellent post by Fuserleer. And your reply was very revealing. Now I understand that you are not intentionally pumping a scamcoindubiouscoin. Instead you've been fooled byfollowing "john conner" (nobody knows who he is, rather everyone knows my real name is Shelby Moore, have seen photos of me, knows my former software businesses, etc).

I will try to summarize to you why we think VNL's zerotime algorithm doesn't work.

1. We don't strongly think it will enable double spend attacks that don't already exist. It may eliminate the Finney attack, because the attacker would need to force the zerotime algorithm to become inconclusive (per the methods of attack we outlined in the other prior thread of discussion) thus waiting for 1-confirmation. Note a 1-confirmation double-spend attack would still be applicable but not a Finney attack.

2. The problem is the algorithm will essentially always be forced to 1-confirmation when ever it is successfully attacked. That is good, but that is not a 0-confirmation (a.k.a. zerotime) attack-free algorithm.

3. You may ask why would anyone bother to attack the algorithm and force it to 1-confirmation, if they can't gain a double spend? The reason is to disrupt its 0-confirmation claim. This also explains why we can't steal coins, yet the algorithm remains unsuitable for a reliable 0-confirmation proposal.

4. As for refuting the claims we made in a prior thread about the attack vectors that can force the algorithm to become inconclusive, "john conner" has not given us his justifications. The link to his justifications upthread links to a deleted post. I have never seen his reasons. He is the one hiding, not us.


I apologize for not making clear sooner why we can't steal coins, but that doesn't matter. Our complaint remains valid.

Now if you are asking me why we don't want to prove we can attack the testnet and force 1-confirmations, in my case it is because I have much more robust and perfected solution and I am too busy developing it to mess around with VNL (as well 6 days into a water only fasting to try to cure my Multiple Sclerosis). Sorry to advertise, but you asked.

Also I will add that "john conner" may not be intentionally fooling you (but the lie about the source code is quite worrisome), and he may sincerely believe he has a solution in hand. If so, he should not fear peer review. Why is he hiding?

I do not think we have been unreasonable. Hopefully "john conner" can be more social.

I never pumped a coin in my life. I like to ask questions, discuss potentials of coins and yes am positive about ones I find to be special or have some merit. What else would you do on a forum about altcoins?

Dude that's so insulting to 95% of Bitcoin followers who love the abilities of Bitcoin but don't have the first clue how to code a coin like clearly you spend your entire time doing. Some of us do other specialised jobs which involve various skills many of which are not tech based. Half the world uses phones and computers but a tiny amount actually understand deeply the technology.

We depend therefore on people to tell us what tech works great and what doesn't.....sadly the crypto community is so riddled with scammers or due to self interests (many have said like yourself) you can't get a straight opinion on anything. That's a problem and so as a user in the 95% group I want to ask questions and so far JC seems the credible one not his detractors. This thread is another good example.....what you should of said if neutral would be oh great the risk with zero confirmations is not an issue now, so solved instead you wanted to strain on a gnat for your own self interests. That's what I see as one of the poor people you hope to help...

If we steal coins via double spending, then coins will be worthless because we will have proven the vulnerability and the last remaining bag holding fools will even be induced to sell.

I am sorry you got caught holding the bag after "john conner" lied to you (also lied to everyone about his code being written from scratch when in fact he reused Bitcoin code and tried to obscure that he was doing so), but that is not our problem.

Your incessant pumping of a shitcoin is not helping your reputation.

You should start stealing coins then cause it's so easy, wow wow.

The name has given accumulators and those who actually look into stuff rather than listen to FUD to have an early advantage. I say good, the amount of time VNL is mentioned it's dissmissed for complete junk like JC can't be trusted, the code is fake etc. Seems that combined with the name has really given VNL a delay reaction. Instead of moaning I suggest taking advantage of it......once the coins abilities are known the name will start sounding great to people.  

Correct. And note that none of the solutions I've seen published are tolerant to partitioning (a.k.a. network fragmentation). That means Bitcoin is toast if the network fragments, because there can be a spend of every output on every network partition.

Nevertheless, there is a way to absolutely solve the issue and make it provable. But it does require an adjustment to the security model assumptions, but I think the change in those assumptions is superior to the assumptions we make now with existing "subjectivity" for consensus models.

The security model of Bitcoin is that everybody will leave the coin if it is 51% attacked and misbehaves. Is everyone leaving the dollar? Duh! The masses don't switch. They use Coinbase, Blockchain.com, Paypal.com, etc..

Any way, I don't want to blabber on, because of course I haven't published anything yet. I just want to note that VanillaCoin has not solved anything w.r.t. to 0-confirmation double-spend attacks and we peers have already explained to them why in other threads. If they believe otherwise and want to rise above the peer review they've already received, then let them publish to a place where academics will take notice and peer review their white paper.

Like I said I'm sorry for using the term 100% solved if it's more 99.999999999999999999999999% 'solved' as in not a credible risk.....which obviously isn't the case for Bitcoin with no confirmations. This is clearly what VNL has done where no other coin has. Which is why it's news worthy particularly to the Bitcoin community and media IMO.


I'll let the pedantic argue over the term 'solved'.

let the people stay on btc forked alts, when they realize the vnl tech will be too late

I suppose most people file VNL under "just another shitcoin" like I did. Bored one day, I checked out the ANN thread and I was pleasantly surprised how unnoticed VNL was.

For anyone out there, Vanillacoin may surprise you too. Check it out.  

I wouldn't call people informed who can't back their claims with the adherent line of code. I only see people attack it from a theoretical side (as already mentioned in my last comment) without reviewing the code. Sad that I had to state the same thing again, seems you didn't even bother on reading the comment you responded to.

The above mentioned issue wouldn't be a problem (people who discuss attack theories, since those help building bulletproof solutions), the problem is when they keep thread hopping with the same comments as if that makes their claims legit.

I don't need to, because I knew it wasn't possible, and now other 3rd parties have stepped in and pretty much confirmed that there was miscommunication between what John said and what is being reported here.

My intention was not to advertise, but to provide an example that mirrors what I know is possible.  I made plenty of other statements without referencing mine or any other projects.

The majority of people on this forum think they know more than they do, thats not a criticism of them personally, nor is it generally their fault, and its due to 3rd hand knowledge being presented and taken as fact even when the real facts are presented.

If you would rather informed people such as myself and others not step in, and allow people that are duped into believe false statements, to dig themselves an early grave then..well... I guess eventually we'll get frustrated enough and all leave you to it.  For some reason though, despite all the shit I receive, I still have a hard time turning my back on these poor people when most would have long ago!

Since you are so familiar with the code, why don't you point out the place in the code where he solved the double spend issue?