Pages:
Author

Topic: If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press? - page 5. (Read 5518 times)

legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
You clearly have an agenda, this is like the 5th thread in which you are posting the exact same things without a proper explanation. You are starting to seem like a troll. Forget the paper and review the code, see my previous response to some of the posters here.

When I stop seeing new threads stating the same thing about VNL, I will not feel the need to set the record straight by posting in them.

I wouldnt bother, getting your opinion across on this forum most of the time is like having an opinion on religion.

If you don't believe in the same god, you're an infidel, end of story.

Most of your entries in threads like this started with you advertising your project. I guess I don't need to repost those since you probably know what I am talking about.

My issue with you is the same with everyone else here, you attack the project from a theoretical vector while the code is 100% open source. Why aren't you pointing out a single line of code?
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016
You clearly have an agenda, this is like the 5th thread in which you are posting the exact same things without a proper explanation. You are starting to seem like a troll. Forget the paper and review the code, see my previous response to some of the posters here.

When I stop seeing new threads stating the same thing about VNL, I will not feel the need to set the record straight by posting in them.

I wouldnt bother, getting your opinion across on this forum most of the time is like having an opinion on religion.

If you don't believe in the same god, you're an infidel, end of story.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
You clearly have an agenda, this is like the 5th thread in which you are posting the exact same things without a proper explanation. You are starting to seem like a troll. Forget the paper and review the code, see my previous response to some of the posters here.

When I stop seeing new threads stating the same thing about VNL, I will not feel the need to set the record straight by posting in them.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
The paper reads like it was written in 5 minutes, contains nothing novel at all and hasn't 'solved double spend' because:

A) the presented technique is susceptible to sybil attack
B) double spend was already (and actually) solved by satoshi
C) double spend was also not solved by instant-x which this is an almost carbon copy of (slightly worse without the collateral), making it a truly zero cost attack

John already adressed sybil attacks on IRC, here are some quotes: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/193/john-connor-irc-quotes (post was deleted, but I have already posted this several times and I'm pretty sure you have read them aswell)

This is not a carbon copy of instant-x. Please review the full ZT code on github and point out the exact lines that are susceptible to the mentioned attacks.

You clearly have an agenda, this is like the 5th thread in which you are posting the exact same things without a proper explanation. You are starting to seem like a troll. Forget the paper and review the code, see my previous response to some of the posters here.
legendary
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1007
The paper reads like it was written in 5 minutes, contains nothing novel at all and hasn't 'solved double spend' because:

A) the presented technique is susceptible to sybil attack
B) double spend was already (and actually) solved by satoshi
C) double spend was also not solved by instant-x which this is an almost carbon copy of (slightly worse without the collateral), making it a truly zero cost attack
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
Yet another thread with the same people. Only need smooth and TPTB.

@Fuserleer again advertising his own currency in a different thread and @rnicoll again just casually commenting on the 56th VNL BTT/Reddit thread. How about you guys review the ZT/Vanilla code finally, your casual commenting is getting boring since you are running around in circles stating the same things again and again without pointing at specific lines of code.

Don't tell me you don't have enough time on your hands, because that is obviously not the case. Currently as it stands, I have never seen anyone pointing out a single line of code while talking about ZeroTime vulnerabilities sadly meaning that no one here on on any other thread has any clue on what they are talking about (regarding the specific solution).
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016
"...timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high..."

*puts on smug hat*

exactly what I have been saying as we have the same thing in our ledger tech



Yeeeeeeah I'd probably keep that hat off for now....

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-alert-emunie-caution-advised-411366

*yawn*  Ive been nothing but reasonable, curteous and attempted to inject some humour.   Yet you have to resort to dragging up past affairs of which there was not any proof of some nut jobs claim, never has been, and never will be.

Ignored.
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
The title of this thread is simply false.  Its' not 100% solved, nor will it ever be.

To say something is simply so difficult, it might as well be "solved" is just a pseudo assumption.

Press usually likes to report on facts, that is why imo.. there is no press release saying its solved.

This thread is pointless and OP talks in circles.  Undecided

legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000
"...timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high..."

*puts on smug hat*

exactly what I have been saying as we have the same thing in our ledger tech



Yeeeeeeah I'd probably keep that hat off for now....

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scam-alert-emunie-caution-advised-411366
hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
"...timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high..."

*puts on smug hat*

exactly what I have been saying

Don't disregard my comment on the effects of 420 on my memory just yet though Smiley

legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016
"...timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high..."

*puts on smug hat*

exactly what I have been saying as we have the same thing in our ledger tech
hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
Well I was the one in the irc chan, remembering John never claimed that.. I will ask him again when he's in the chan; to my remembrance he said something like: " timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high".. iam a 420 er and my memory sometimes fails me Smiley, i'll ask again when he's in the chan..

legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000

As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?

Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that?
I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that.



Well I mean we could get into semantics of what it means by solving a problem but the whole point of the bounty was a challenge anyone to double spend I assume whoch was done having full confidence it couldn't be done. ie the risk was negated.

So no I might not be able to find him actually saying its solved 100% but the basics idea is that the problem isn't an issue anymore right? plus there has been reddit threads that stated its solved with no real correction form vanilla coin community. I'm sorry if I misunderstood things, but like I said I don't need to be insane to assume it was for in all sense and purposes 'solved'


Plus I would still like to hear from JC or his work quoted cause I still have a nagging idea I read him say the system wouldn't allow a double spend somewhere.

Id suggest you find out for sure before claiming it again, as you aren't doing the guy any favors otherwise.


Here John says he has resolved the problem. Yes that's not solved but a past problem is taken away so in my book it's 'solved' BS to the theoretical posturing, John says he has stopped a problem then I say he's solved it.

And I also should of given more detail but it was a given that the risk of a double spend had been solved with zero confirmations....but I assumed that was a given....my question was actually more about the lack of media interest in the issue at the very least being negated. Having a theoretical on what means for something to be 'solved' isn't my bag.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12118317
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016

As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?

Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that?
I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that.



Well I mean we could get into semantics of what it means by solving a problem but the whole point of the bounty was a challenge anyone to double spend I assume whoch was done having full confidence it couldn't be done. ie the risk was negated.

So no I might not be able to find him actually saying its solved 100% but the basics idea is that the problem isn't an issue anymore right? plus there has been reddit threads that stated its solved with no real correction form vanilla coin community. I'm sorry if I misunderstood things, but like I said I don't need to be insane to assume it was for in all sense and purposes 'solved'


Plus I would still like to hear from JC or his work quoted cause I still have a nagging idea I read him say the system wouldn't allow a double spend somewhere.

Id suggest you find out for sure before claiming it again, as you aren't doing the guy any favors otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000

As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?

Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that?
I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that.



Well I mean we could get into semantics of what it means by solving a problem but the whole point of the bounty was a challenge anyone to double spend I assume whoch was done having full confidence it couldn't be done. ie the risk was negated.

So no I might not be able to find him actually saying its solved 100% but the basics idea is that the problem isn't an issue anymore right? plus there has been reddit threads that stated its solved with no real correction form vanilla coin community. I'm sorry if I misunderstood things, but like I said I don't need to be insane to assume it was for in all sense and purposes 'solved'


Plus I would still like to hear from JC or his work quoted cause I still have a nagging idea I read him say the system wouldn't allow a double spend somewhere.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016

As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?

Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that?
I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that.

Really??? This guy has been going around for weeks saying that he has!
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000

As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?

Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that?
I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that.
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000
lol double spending isnt an issue, if it was you would be getting "the press"  Cheesy


WOW Thats great it isn't an issue. Can you please tell all the exchanges, no more confirmations needed!!!!
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000

Its an issue because by claiming these things shows a lack of understanding of information theory at its most basic, or highlights some potential dishonesty.


Ah this whole thing is a fud attempt. 

I found out that he didn't claim to have solved it!

Uggh trolls.




As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000

Its an issue because by claiming these things shows a lack of understanding of information theory at its most basic, or highlights some potential dishonesty.


Ah this whole thing is a fud attempt. 

I found out that he didn't claim to have solved it!

Uggh trolls.

Pages:
Jump to: