Pages:
Author

Topic: IOTA - Unmoderated thread - page 51. (Read 70768 times)

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 15, 2016, 09:00:51 AM
Dude, nobody believes that, and nobody believes that you believe that. Saying it 100 or a 1000 or a million times will not make it true. It just makes you look like more and more desperate to sell that ridiculous spin.

Precisely that's what happening: he is just desperate to sell his story. But he is not even consistent, and when he wants to convince noobs and naive users to buy into the scam then he admits that IOTA is an investment ponzi:

I am seeing 10-15x ROI after 2 months, even without a beta! That outperforms any other investment you can even imagine.

Here we go, IOTA magically transformed from software into an "investment"  ... that according to the organizer of the IOTA scam "outperforms any other investment you can even imagine".
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
March 15, 2016, 08:57:16 AM

"As with many frauds, Ponzi scheme organizers often use the latest innovation, technology, product or growth industry to entice investors and give their scheme the promise of high returns. "

"these schemes often promise high returns for getting in on the ground floor of a growing Internet phenomenon"

Sound familiar?
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 15, 2016, 08:51:34 AM
SEC sent out a warning in January 2016. Hope the pumpers are preparing for their jail time:

There is a reason why the SEC issued a warning about Crypto coins calling them scams.. 90% are !
I was doing research early this year when i stumbled onto their press release by accident (same day it was posted)
I then posted it in the Bitcoin section where everyone said it was good news AHAHHAHAHHA
It even mentioned an unnamed forum which was totally obvious they meant Bitcointalk.
Read it yourselves.. https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf (Issued Jan 4th 2016)

And of course this apply to IOTA, LISK and all other ICO/IPO scams.  
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
March 15, 2016, 08:50:44 AM
Thank you for satisfying my request

Terms and Risk paper that outlined that it is in no way, shape or form an investment.



Alright, first of all: there are no investors in IOTA.

Dude, nobody believes that, and nobody believes that you believe that. Saying it 100 or a 1000 or a million times will not make it true. It just makes you look like more and more desperate to sell that ridiculous spin.


hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 15, 2016, 08:42:41 AM
@netzer

That's what you have got for $500K: a poorly written "reference implementation" software (see my above posts about that), which - despite of the promises of the IOTA scammers - has nothing to do with Internet of Things.
Of course there is no IoT device handling nor device discovery functions, not even IoT authentication or access control. There is nothing - not even a basic one. David boy the scammer will blame the IOTA community, he will say - in fact he has already started to say - that he sold a software and the community should create the IoT ecosystem. In fact he sold a coin and an illegal investment security product by facilitating a P&D.

Send me your personal details and I forward it to law enforcements. More victims of the scam report financial loss, the jail sentence will be bigger for these fucking scammers.
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
March 11, 2016, 03:13:37 PM
Please listen me. We gave you money. You have released very little and what you gave us is not even usable and secure. Only root user can run the software, which is useless. It is not secure design. You have fun and troll all day TPTB_need_war and altcoinuk while the investors have been waiting the launch of IOTA for 4 months. Please sort out the software.


Alright, first of all: there are no investors in IOTA. There are software purchasers, software which has been available for testing since January. Secondly the sale ended at Christmas, it has barely been over 2 months and you claim this is 4 months. Seems the strategy of all trolls is to be as loose with facts as possible.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
March 11, 2016, 02:58:08 PM
Is it interesting claim that you mustn't hard code configuration related settings in the source code? I read this rule in my first year programming text book in the community college.

I think colleges don't teach nuances of programming, they cover only basics. I can't explain you differences between reference and production code, this will take too much time. Use Google and you'll see why you were wrong in your assumption that PORT should be set via configurations. That declaration is the only right way in our case, unless you want to add spaghetti or (even worse) Indian style into the code to make it look bigger.


Please listen me. We gave you money. You have released very little and what you gave us is not even usable and secure. Only root user can run the software, which is useless. It is not secure design. You have fun and troll all day TPTB_need_war and altcoinuk while the investors have been waiting the launch of IOTA for 4 months. Please sort out the software.

Please, check main Iota thread that explains why we need root users to run the software. Don't worry, right before the production configurability will be extended. I won't comment on "4 months", it shows that you bought iotas for quick buck, such buyers are not welcome in our community. There might be special conditions (necessity to pay for college, etc.) that made you make such step, well, if it's a question of life and death you can always sell your iotas to someone else. The buyer may even cover 100% of your expenses.
member
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
March 11, 2016, 02:43:20 PM
I completed only one year in a community college information technology course. I have never worked as a programmer, but this is embarrassing in your code:

static final int PORT = 999;
(Node.java, line 15)

Programmers should never hard code the port number. It should be in configuration file. You could just say, sorry guys, I made a mistake, I will fix it. The trolling won't get you a good software.

It's an interesting claim. Do you know how to write a reference implementation?

Is it interesting claim that you mustn't hard code configuration related settings in the source code? I read this rule in my first year programming text book in the community college.

Please listen me. We gave you money. You have released very little and what you gave us is not even usable and secure. Only root user can run the software, which is useless. It is not secure design. You have fun and troll all day TPTB_need_war and altcoinuk while the investors have been waiting the launch of IOTA for 4 months. Please sort out the software.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
March 11, 2016, 02:10:57 PM
I completed only one year in a community college information technology course. I have never worked as a programmer, but this is embarrassing in your code:

static final int PORT = 999;
(Node.java, line 15)

Programmers should never hard code the port number. It should be in configuration file. You could just say, sorry guys, I made a mistake, I will fix it. The trolling won't get you a good software.

It's an interesting claim. Do you know how to write a reference implementation?
member
Activity: 81
Merit: 10
March 11, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
What a wanker and what a BS. No wonder NXT is used by nobody in real world, no wonder they delivered nothing with JINN.

And then a "reference implementation" is released to end users - obviously without any QA test - with a hard coded port numbers and by violating basic security requirements to run the system with root privilege, because there are "unexpected problems" and "the testing a nightmare". Will the idiots understand that they got a bogus and disturbingly poorly written "reference implementation" after 5 months and for $500k? Probably not.

I guess "IMHO" is the only argument you have.

I completed only one year in a community college information technology course. I have never worked as a programmer, but this is embarrassing in your code:

static final int PORT = 999;
(Node.java, line 15)

Programmers should never hard code the port number. It should be in configuration file. You could just say, sorry guys, I made a mistake, I will fix it. The trolling won't get you a good software.


legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
March 11, 2016, 12:48:59 PM
What a wanker and what a BS. No wonder NXT is used by nobody in real world, no wonder they delivered nothing with JINN.

And then a "reference implementation" is released to end users - obviously without any QA test - with a hard coded port numbers and by violating basic security requirements to run the system with root privilege, because there are "unexpected problems" and "the testing a nightmare". Will the idiots understand that they got a bogus and disturbingly poorly written "reference implementation" after 5 months and for $500k? Probably not.

I guess "IMHO" is the only argument you have.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:59:09 AM
I don't understand why would you choose the default port to be value below 1024 which means you cannot run this on unix system without super user privileges.

Even when I change the port in the config file, it still tries to bind to 999 so the server crashes.

Java Security Manager is PITA, if you run Java app with reduced privileges be ready to face a lot of unexpected problems caused by JSM. Being a reference implementation, IRI has as much error handling stripped out as possible. Together with JSM in paranoic mode this would make the testing a nightmare.

Port in the config file is for API only.

What a wanker and what a BS. No wonder NXT is used by nobody in real world, no wonder they delivered nothing with JINN.

And then a "reference implementation" is released to end users - obviously without any QA test - with a hard coded port numbers and by violating basic security requirements to run the system with root privilege, because there are "unexpected problems" and "the testing a nightmare". Will the idiots understand that they got a bogus and disturbingly poorly written "reference implementation" after 5 months and for $500k? Probably not.


legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
March 11, 2016, 11:54:46 AM
Fix you flawed design wanker and come back when you understand software engineering. Software engineering is more than writing 12 java files for these idiots.

As I said, you are hiding in the shithole of communist Belarus, because - apart from the scammer David boy who hired you remotely - no software company would hire you in the western world.

I accept this as backpedaling.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:46:01 AM
Because this CfB software developer (who is BTW hiding in a the shithole of communist Belarus) has never worked for any notable software company, he has never worked on any commercial, never mind enterprise software project, and therefore he could never learn basic software engineering principles by being the member of a normal software development team. His only software engineering credential is NXT, JINN and IOTA which were good enough to scam the idiots, but as you can see don't even pass a basic QA check-list, never mind a code review. That's why you find disturbing issues in his code as well as in his design (probably Sergey has no clue what is the difference between design and coding in software development).

How much are you willing to bet on that? Should be easy money for one of us.

Fix you flawed design wanker and come back when you understand software engineering. Software engineering is more than writing 12 java files for these idiots.

As I said, you are hiding in the shithole of communist Belarus, because - apart from the scammer David boy who hired you remotely - no software company would hire you in the western world.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:39:09 AM
I don't understand why would you choose the default port to be value below 1024 which means you cannot run this on unix system without super user privileges.

Even when I change the port in the config file, it still tries to bind to 999 so the server crashes.

You probably changed the api port.

API runs over 999 TCP per default, unless you change in your config file, nodes exchange data ( transactions, messages ) over 999 udp.
Thats why it tries to bind to 999.

Yes, and that is a design issue, which indicates very poor software engineering skills and lack of experience. Who are these people? Ah yes, they will challenge Intel with their revolutionary microprocessor and create an IoT software ... they just haven't reached the level of a junior programmer ... but they will get there.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
March 11, 2016, 11:37:02 AM
Because this CfB software developer (who is BTW hiding in a the shithole of communist Belarus) has never worked for any notable software company, he has never worked on any commercial, never mind enterprise software project, and therefore he could never learn basic software engineering principles by being the member of a normal software development team. His only software engineering credential is NXT, JINN and IOTA which were good enough to scam the idiots, but as you can see don't even pass a basic QA check-list, never mind a code review. That's why you find disturbing issues in his code as well as in his design (probably Sergey has no clue what is the difference between design and coding in software development).

How much are you willing to bet on that? Should be easy money for one of us.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:28:21 AM
Suppose you're exchanging data with a computer on a port <1024, and you know that computer is running some variant of unix. Then you know that the service running on that port is approved by the system administrator: it's running as root, or at least had to be started as root.

And exactly why on earth would you require that?

(as that makes it far more likely that the OS could be comprised by the software - making such software a serious concern for malicious attack)


Precisely. Please note these children have learnt programming in this forum and never worked in a serious commercial nor open source software project. Therefore, they have never experienced with addressing system requirements and design issues which are part of any serious open source and commercial projects. As I stated in this thread several times, their code would never bypass a code review - it is a material for the idiots who "invest" in IOTA. It apparently lack of basic understanding of software engineering as well.
 
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:24:11 AM
I don't understand why would you choose the default port to be value below 1024 which means you cannot run this on unix system without super user privileges.

Even when I change the port in the config file, it still tries to bind to 999 so the server crashes.

Because this CfB software developer (who is BTW hiding in a the shithole of communist Belarus) has never worked for any notable software company, he has never worked on any commercial, never mind enterprise software project, and therefore he could never learn basic software engineering principles by being the member of a normal software development team. His only software engineering credential is NXT, JINN and IOTA which were good enough to scam the idiots, but as you can see don't even pass a basic QA check-list, never mind a code review. That's why you find disturbing issues in his code as well as in his design (probably has has no clue what is the difference between design and coding in software development).


Too tired to answer this in my own words:

Suppose you're exchanging data with a computer on a port <1024, and you know that computer is running some variant of unix. Then you know that the service running on that port is approved by the system administrator: it's running as root, or at least had to be started as root.

So are you telling me from design and implementation standpoints it is acceptable to hard code the port which requires root privilege (or in fact hard code any port) as well as it is fine the system doesn't pull the configuration data from the config file? Are you telling me it is a good practice that an alpha stage software (which presumably vulnerable to security issues) requires root privilege?

I understand you are one of the shills, but if you are a developer as well, then don't BS and don't defend a poor design and implementation.
 
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
March 11, 2016, 11:17:32 AM
Suppose you're exchanging data with a computer on a port <1024, and you know that computer is running some variant of unix. Then you know that the service running on that port is approved by the system administrator: it's running as root, or at least had to be started as root.

And exactly why on earth would you require that?

(as that makes it far more likely that the OS could be comprised by the software - making such software a serious concern for malicious attack)
legendary
Activity: 1225
Merit: 1000
March 11, 2016, 11:14:39 AM
I don't understand why would you choose the default port to be value below 1024 which means you cannot run this on unix system without super user privileges.

Even when I change the port in the config file, it still tries to bind to 999 so the server crashes.

Because this CfB software developer (who is BTW hiding in a the shithole of communist Belarus) has never worked for any notable software company, he has never worked on any commercial, never mind enterprise software project, and therefore he could never learn basic software engineering principles by being the member of a normal software development team. His only software engineering credential is NXT, JINN and IOTA which were good enough to scam the idiots, but as you can see don't even pass a basic QA check-list, never mind a code review. That's why you find disturbing issues in his code as well as in his design (probably has has no clue what is the difference between design and coding in software development).


Too tired to answer this in my own words:

Suppose you're exchanging data with a computer on a port <1024, and you know that computer is running some variant of unix. Then you know that the service running on that port is approved by the system administrator: it's running as root, or at least had to be started as root.
Pages:
Jump to: