You guys are taking the from scratch thing way too literally. When you make mashed potatoes from scratch, do you grow the potatoes and churn the butter yourself, too?
John spent 9 months rewriting peercoin from scratch. He did not start with a fork. He started with an empty project. So he had peercoin code up on one side, and his own project's code on the other side and he went through and rewrote each section of peercoin in his own project. This is why some of the code looks like it's been run through a reformatter. This was him rewriting it, improving on the parts that needed improvement and keeping some parts structurally similar to maintain backwards compatibility and to give other cryptocurrencies the opportunity to integrate his updated code (see coinpp - https://github.com/john-connor/coinpp). Bitch about the copyright thing as much as you want - John feels that the bitcoin code itself is stolen and any any legal action is completely unenforceable due to SN's anonymity, so why bother? John's code free and available for anyone to use, so who cares about a meaningless legal shout out at the top? He has always freely admitted that VNL was a full rewrite of peercoin.
John has put in honest, full-time hard work over at least the past 18 months on VNL and the technology surpasses existing coins. Nobody has been able to poke holes in Zerotime or any of his work, so they cling to this nonsense. Not a huge Obama fan, but this is like the crypto-version of the situation with his birth certificate. Even when it be came clear that he was going to become president, political groups still just would not let go of their stupid notion that Obama wasn't a US citizen. Obama still became president.
Topic: Smooth VS VNL - page 3. (Read 7364 times)
Everything here was already over discussed in several threads already
OMG, it's the hand-waving 'old news is old' defense!
Are you Hillary Fucking Clinton's understudy or what?
The fact VanillaScam's main dev is a proven code thief is still extremely relevant. The importance of that revelation does not expire or diminish in some kind of media half-life equation.
What traumshiff said is all this is over discussed on more than few threads and not one shit what you, smooth and your alter ego accounts said hasn't been proven. Even gmaxwell was only fishing with his 'quiet words of warning' and that was after john-connor warned him and other BTC devs about problem and proposed solution... so, go prove that john-connor stole the code and don't take only 50 lines of code, check all the code on github. Check it and prove it. You know what percentage of code must be the same not similar that you can claim something is stolen. VNL code is different. If you think otherwise PROVE IT or GTFO together with your vicious XMR don't know how to code frends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity
Quote
In U.S. copyright law, substantial similarity is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if infringement was limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work.
...
Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:
1. Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
2. If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
3. The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
4. Fictitious entries placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent causes.
5. Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity.
...
Courts have relied on several factors to aid in a striking similarity analysis. Among these are:
1. Uniqueness, intricacy, or complexity of the similar sections.
2. If the plaintiff's work contains an unexpected or idiosyncratic element that is repeated in the alleged infringing work.
3. The appearance of the same errors or mistakes in both works.
4. Fictitious entries placed by the plaintiff that appear in the defendant's work. For example, fake names or places are often inserted in factual works like maps or directories to serve as proof of copying in a later infringement case since their appearance in a defendant's work cannot be explained away by innocent causes.
5. Obvious or crude attempts to give the appearance of dissimilarity.
I think the bolded entry is particularly relevant in this case, based on the copied errors pointed out by rnicoll earlier in the thread.
As for how much needs to be copied in order for it to amount to copyright infringement, that seems a bit more complex:
http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main/software_ip_legal_considerations.aspx
Quote
Substantial similarity between competing software works is the third element of the copyright infringement claim. In assessing whether a computer program has been infringed, the Fifth Circuit has adopted the “abstraction-filtration” method proposed by the Tenth Circuit in Gates Rubber Company v. Bando Chemical Industries.
...
The goal of the analysis should be to determine whether any copied elements constitute “matter that is significant in the plaintiff's program.” This is a qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis, the outcome of which will depend heavily on the unique facts of each case.
...
The goal of the analysis should be to determine whether any copied elements constitute “matter that is significant in the plaintiff's program.” This is a qualitative, rather than quantitative analysis, the outcome of which will depend heavily on the unique facts of each case.
It can certainly be far less than 50% to qualify as copyright infringement.
http://www.alankorn.com/article-copyright-infringe.html
Quote
One of the more famous U.S music infringement cases involved ex-Beatle George Harrison, who was found by a jury to have “unconsciously” copied the Shirelle’s composition “He’s So Fine” in his 1971 hit “My Sweet Lord.” Although George Harrison’s hit was found to be strikingly similar to the Shirelle’s song, it is even possible to infringe another song if only just a few notes are “borrowed.” Because the most memorable part of a song may be quite brief, infringement of a musical composition may be found even where only a small portion of a song was copied.
Everything here was already over discussed in several threads already
OMG, it's the hand-waving 'old news is old' defense!
Are you Hillary Fucking Clinton's understudy or what?
The fact VanillaScam's main dev is a proven code thief is still extremely relevant. The importance of that revelation does not expire or diminish in some kind of media half-life equation.
What traumshiff said is all this is over discussed on more than few threads and not one shit what you, smooth and your alter ego accounts said hasn't been proven. Even gmaxwell was only fishing with his 'quiet words of warning' and that was after john-connor warned him and other BTC devs about problem and proposed solution... so, go prove that john-connor stole the code and don't take only 50 lines of code, check all the code on github. Check it and prove it. You know what percentage of code must be the same not similar that you can claim something is stolen. VNL code is different. If you think otherwise PROVE IT or GTFO together with your vicious XMR don't know how to code frends.
Ahhh, come on guysss....smooth is the best developer ever!!!!
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
Newb account stalking all things Monero. That's a first.
Can anyone guess which socktard this one is?
You don't have to, came from nowhere...an ordinary observer
It is really hurt to admit the truth....sometimes.
Cheers.
Ahhh, come on guysss....smooth is the best developer ever!!!!
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
Newb account stalking all things Monero. That's a first.
Can anyone guess which socktard this one is?
Ahhh, come on guysss....smooth is the best developer ever!!!!
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
He developed many stupid comments/ speculations at many threads, that's what made him a great one.....doing nothing but talks.
Everything here was already over discussed in several threads already
OMG, it's the hand-waving 'old news is old' defense!
Are you Hillary Fucking Clinton's understudy or what?
The fact VanillaScam's main dev is a proven code thief is still extremely relevant. The importance of that revelation does not expire or diminish in some kind of media half-life equation.
You only failed to answer this, probably because you know this is true:
I'm all for free speech, I started an unmoderated discussion thread, but this is getting heavy from your side. Look back at your very own projects history or almost any top 10 coins.
Quote
Problem is, people here love to pull back legit projects. As we all know every coin had its early flaws and statements, XMR with the early miner issue, Dash with the instamine, BTS has it's past also. Difference is, you don't see me ranting about those in the respective threads while people like you and half of the XMR community actually enjoy this behavior.
I'm all for free speech, I started an unmoderated discussion thread, but this is getting heavy from your side. Look back at your very own projects history or almost any top 10 coins.
I agree with you that this environment is a mess (and that was the context of the comments in my previous message). I also think that in a competitive somewhat anarchistic environment it inevitable that people will scrutinize the behavior of others and challenge it when they think there is something wrong with it (or even just purely competitive reasons on the basis of little or no merit). That applies to XMR being scrutinized and criticized as much as anything else. (I'll agree you don't seem to be one of the people who go out of their way to criticize XMR, but I do remember a bunch of trolling against me on AEON thread -- not sure if that included you.)
However, I really don't know that there is a better way. You can certainly take your coin and discussion and go communicate in nicely "controlled" walled garden forum as many coins try to do (XMR has one of these too so I'm not pointing fingers). That seems not to be how the wider community wants to communicate.
If anything this forum is somewhat tame compared to some of the trollbox discussion.
You only failed to answer this, probably because you know this is true:
I'm all for free speech, I started an unmoderated discussion thread, but this is getting heavy from your side. Look back at your very own projects history or almost any top 10 coins.
Quote
Problem is, people here love to pull back legit projects. As we all know every coin had its early flaws and statements, XMR with the early miner issue, Dash with the instamine, BTS has it's past also. Difference is, you don't see me ranting about those in the respective threads while people like you and half of the XMR community actually enjoy this behavior.
I'm all for free speech, I started an unmoderated discussion thread, but this is getting heavy from your side. Look back at your very own projects history or almost any top 10 coins.
Where was it stated in stone that John Connor said Vanilla coin was 100% coded without a single byte or line of code ever used in the history of crypto?
Right here (emphasis added)
No, this is not a fork. It was built from scratch in it's entirety.
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Are you going to keep asking stupid questions to try to obscure reality with a bunch of confusion and doubt over the (well documented) accusations against him, or are you going to quit digging a deeper hole?
Let's be honest here, he put a lot more effort, work, code and innovation in Vanillacoin than you put into XMR and Aeon together.
That's not relevant in the slightest to whether Bitcoin code has been misappropriated without attribution, and misrepresented as "from scratch in it's entirety", which it has.
You're basically conceding the question when you can only respond to it by changing the subject, spamming, thread bombing, etc.
If your argument is, "Yes, we're lying thieving scumbags. Too bad, our coin is so damn good it's going to take over the world anyway" then I guess you're entitled to take that approach. 100% for sure there are people who will buy in on such a coin.
Quote
Sit down for a minute and give this a thought. Starting to agree with some people that bitcointalk is pure cancer for the alt community, read back on the OPs posting history and you actually jumped on his thread, the 33rd thread to explain the very same thing you already did in the past ones.
Oh I agree with you there. Free speech really is an ugly vile thing in a lot of ways (though I still support it)
IMO the usefulness of this thread ended with post #2.
Where was it stated in stone that John Connor said Vanilla coin was 100% coded without a single byte or line of code ever used in the history of crypto?
Right here (emphasis added)
No, this is not a fork. It was built from scratch in it's entirety.
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Are you going to keep asking stupid questions to try to obscure reality with a bunch of confusion and doubt over the (well documented) accusations against him, or are you going to quit digging a deeper hole?
Let's be honest here, he put a lot more effort, work, code and innovation in Vanillacoin than you put into XMR and Aeon together. Problem is, people here love to pull back legit projects. As we all know every coin had its early flaws and statements, XMR with the early miner issue, Dash with the instamine, BTS has it's past also. Difference is, you don't see me ranting about those in the respective threads while people like you and half of the XMR community actually enjoy this behavior.
Sit down for a minute and give this a thought. Starting to agree with some people that bitcointalk is pure cancer for the alt community, read back on the OPs posting history and you actually jumped on his thread, the 33rd thread to explain the very same thing you already did in the past ones.
Where was it stated in stone that John Connor said Vanilla coin was 100% coded without a single byte or line of code ever used in the history of crypto?
Right here (emphasis added)
No, this is not a fork. It was built from scratch in it's entirety.
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37
Are you going to keep asking stupid questions to try to obscure reality with a bunch of confusion and doubt over the (well documented) accusations against him, or are you going to quit digging a deeper hole?
Everything here was already over discussed in several threads already, what you guys fail to notice is that the OP is actually enjoying that people from the XMR, VNL and other communities taunt each other here. Proof for this is that the guy is randomly throwing in irrelevant troll comments in the VNL community thread, check his history.
ROFL @thread...
MIT License is extremly easy to follow...
if you copy code just put that damn line telling from whom you copied...
here it is https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT (it is EXTREMLY short...so please read it)
i am a developer myself. in our company we made closedsource apps. but we used GPL and MIT libs so we had to bundle that license (and sourcecoude for some libs) and deliver it to our customers.
the only way around it is by contacting the original devs and ask them for a different lic. no excuses.
isnt it simple?
MIT License is extremly easy to follow...
if you copy code just put that damn line telling from whom you copied...
here it is https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT (it is EXTREMLY short...so please read it)
i am a developer myself. in our company we made closedsource apps. but we used GPL and MIT libs so we had to bundle that license (and sourcecoude for some libs) and deliver it to our customers.
the only way around it is by contacting the original devs and ask them for a different lic. no excuses.
isnt it simple?
Where was it stated in stone that John Connor said Vanilla coin was 100% coded without a single byte or line of code ever used in the history of crypto? Obviously he has to use ones and zeros, but bitcoin used ones and zeros, oh my! The fact is if you look at ANY alt coin ever created, VNL uses less of the same code than any of the 5000 alt coins ever made. Do I know the exact % of code that is similiar to bitcoin, no, but it is a very tiny %, and it is a helluva lot smaller than Monero or Bytecoin, that is for sure. So stop bothering John because he didn't footnote or acknowledge a tiny part of his coin has similiar code to bitcoin. Fact is he did build it from scratch, it has less similar code than any other alt, and it improves on every crypto coin technically. Once again I will give an analogy, DICE is making a game called Star Wars Battlefront and Microsoft Studios is making a game called Halo 5. They both will be over 50GB, millions of lines of code, and they will both be written from scratch, yet will use Directx. They are not going to rewrite directx, they will also use many of the same graphics routines, sound coding, a.i. logic routines, etc. And NEITHER of those games are going to acknowledge a license from Space Invaders or Pong. WELL WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN, EVERY VIDEO GAME MADE SINCE PONG SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE PONG WAS FIRST AND THAT EVERY SUBSEQUENT VIDEO GAME USES GRAPHICS AND USER INPUT!
You guys really need to relax and not argue over stupid technicalities in language. You alt devs and fanbois argue more than bitcoin core devs, LOLZ
You guys really need to relax and not argue over stupid technicalities in language. You alt devs and fanbois argue more than bitcoin core devs, LOLZ
Lol I was taking you seriously before this post. Shame on me.
Where was it stated in stone that John Connor said Vanilla coin was 100% coded without a single byte or line of code ever used in the history of crypto? Obviously he has to use ones and zeros, but bitcoin used ones and zeros, oh my! The fact is if you look at ANY alt coin ever created, VNL uses less of the same code than any of the 5000 alt coins ever made. Do I know the exact % of code that is similiar to bitcoin, no, but it is a very tiny %, and it is a helluva lot smaller than Monero or Bytecoin, that is for sure. So stop bothering John because he didn't footnote or acknowledge a tiny part of his coin has similiar code to bitcoin. Fact is he did build it from scratch, it has less similar code than any other alt, and it improves on every crypto coin technically. Once again I will give an analogy, DICE is making a game called Star Wars Battlefront and Microsoft Studios is making a game called Halo 5. They both will be over 50GB, millions of lines of code, and they will both be written from scratch, yet will use Directx. They are not going to rewrite directx, they will also use many of the same graphics routines, sound coding, a.i. logic routines, etc. And NEITHER of those games are going to acknowledge a license from Space Invaders or Pong. WELL WAIT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN, EVERY VIDEO GAME MADE SINCE PONG SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE PONG WAS FIRST AND THAT EVERY SUBSEQUENT VIDEO GAME USES GRAPHICS AND USER INPUT!
You guys really need to relax and not argue over stupid technicalities in language. You alt devs and fanbois argue more than bitcoin core devs, LOLZ
You guys really need to relax and not argue over stupid technicalities in language. You alt devs and fanbois argue more than bitcoin core devs, LOLZ
If the Bytecoin guys wanted to sue Monero for infringement, they'd have full legal authority and would more than likely win in court if they can prove they are the original content creators.
The difference with Bitcoin is it is granted under the MIT license ...
The difference with Bitcoin is it is granted under the MIT license ...
Uh, no. The cryptonote code also grants permission under the exact same MIT license. So no difference.
The difference is that Monero retained the original attribution, as required by the license, and as do most of the 1000+ coins that use or adapt code from Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc. (I posted proof of this above.) Vanillacoin did not.
Hey wheatcove, what you have to say about the morality of you and other gangsters from shadowtrash devteam being scouring the bctalk hunting new ideas and when you find make believe to contribute to the creators for access to studies and one day before the release be done by the feature creators, you guys release a crap SDC version and say that you were the first and then start a fud campaign against the currency which you guys stole the feature?
In the shadowtrash whitepaper, you put some credit to Hondo for having been "inspired" in his ideas and even copied and pasted entire sentences of stealthsend white paper brief?
"The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins." - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-full-truth-behind-shadowcashcoin-trolls-and-their-attacks-on-other-coins-818939
You and your gangsters are a bunch of hypocrites trolls made of shit.
I really dont care if someone took a line of an open source and not written where it came from or if another took a whole code and instead of putting it was copied and pasted from a scam called bytecoin, put "cryptonote creators" to make people think that the creators are themselves as monero devs did.
What really matters to me is that vanilla coin will soon be a perfect currency, much better technically than btc, xmr (timebomb) and dash.
I just hope vnl changes its name
In the shadowtrash whitepaper, you put some credit to Hondo for having been "inspired" in his ideas and even copied and pasted entire sentences of stealthsend white paper brief?
"The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins." - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-full-truth-behind-shadowcashcoin-trolls-and-their-attacks-on-other-coins-818939
You and your gangsters are a bunch of hypocrites trolls made of shit.
I really dont care if someone took a line of an open source and not written where it came from or if another took a whole code and instead of putting it was copied and pasted from a scam called bytecoin, put "cryptonote creators" to make people think that the creators are themselves as monero devs did.
What really matters to me is that vanilla coin will soon be a perfect currency, much better technically than btc, xmr (timebomb) and dash.
I just hope vnl changes its name
Me and my gangsters? Contrary to your delusions, I have never colluded with anyone to cause any harm to any serious development in the crypto community. I am my own entity and I do not belong to a specific, malicious group of people as you claim. I have only expressed my opinions of potential scams based on any red flags that stand out due to the behaviors of developers. I am active in multiple communities, learning from everyone and everything I can. I've made zero money from anything to do with Shadowcash and I am not a developer - rather a student. There are members of the Shadowcash dev teams that are kind enough to share knowledge from time to time and help me learn.
Longandshort (not a member of the SDC dev team) raised legitimate questions about StealthSend's concept, causing the entire non-technical StealthCoin community (you included) to retaliate.
The claims you made in regards to the ShadowSend and StealthSend whitepapers are previously unknown to me - if you could present me with more evidence I would take your claims seriously.
That troll thread is the biggest joke on these forums, and I took the time to explain that entire situation on page 2, with links and a timeline of events. I don't think anyone takes you seriously, as you've only been involved with a majority of Bobsurplus's pump and dumps.
Here you are, detracting from the original subject matter of this thread. Like you do with all of your threads. Your logical fallacies are out of control.
Hey wheatcove, what you have to say about the morality of you and other gangsters from shadowtrash devteam being scouring the bctalk hunting new ideas and when you find make believe to contribute to the creators for access to studies and one day before the release be done by the feature creators, you guys release a crap SDC version and say that you were the first and then start a fud campaign against the currency which you guys stole the feature?
In the shadowtrash whitepaper, you put some credit to Hondo for having been "inspired" in his ideas and even copied and pasted entire sentences of stealthsend white paper brief?
"The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins." - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-full-truth-behind-shadowcashcoin-trolls-and-their-attacks-on-other-coins-818939
You and your gangsters are a bunch of hypocrites trolls made of shit.
I really dont care if someone took a line of an open source and not written where it came from or if another took a whole code and instead of putting it was copied and pasted from a scam called bytecoin, put "cryptonote creators" to make people think that the creators are themselves as monero devs did.
What really matters to me is that vanilla coin will soon be a perfect currency, much better technically than btc, xmr (timebomb) and dash.
I just hope vnl changes its name
In the shadowtrash whitepaper, you put some credit to Hondo for having been "inspired" in his ideas and even copied and pasted entire sentences of stealthsend white paper brief?
"The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins." - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-full-truth-behind-shadowcashcoin-trolls-and-their-attacks-on-other-coins-818939
You and your gangsters are a bunch of hypocrites trolls made of shit.
I really dont care if someone took a line of an open source and not written where it came from or if another took a whole code and instead of putting it was copied and pasted from a scam called bytecoin, put "cryptonote creators" to make people think that the creators are themselves as monero devs did.
What really matters to me is that vanilla coin will soon be a perfect currency, much better technically than btc, xmr (timebomb) and dash.
I just hope vnl changes its name
It is a POW/POS hybrid crypto-currency, obviously it is based on already existing ideas/solutions, but it has been redesigned in C++ and has been complemented with several unique features. Vanillacoin is way more advanced than bitcoin or it's forks in the way it handles the network and transactions.
Yeah, you will find similarities and you will also find that it uses blockchain files and a wallet.dat, but please review the source code for yourself and tell me that it's anything like Bitcoin afterwards.
Yeah, you will find similarities and you will also find that it uses blockchain files and a wallet.dat, but please review the source code for yourself and tell me that it's anything like Bitcoin afterwards.
"Redesigned in C++"
Bitcoin is written in C++.
So, by your words, Bitcoin code was restructured and complimented with several unique features.
This still requires the copyright attribution to Bitcoin.
Jump to: