Topic: [UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative - page 184. (Read 433405 times)

+888 
the thing is that John is aware of most limitations and problems that BTC and clones have, so VNL is change that crypto ecosystem needs.

Thank you John connor.  

I agree...holding and accumulating!

Regards

Goldmaxx

I'm quite happy with it. John is probably the best and most innovative developer in the alt scene and he will continue to support his own project without bonds.

So after all, this coin wasn't ordered by illuminatis/freemasons or some other obscure organization wanting the ultimate financial tool for their new world order 

Can't say i'm not disappointed a little bit 

The angel investors simply chose to reveal themselves is all. I see mystery as integral part of the project and a positive that will contnue for the foreseable future.

Thank you for your support.

 
 
Well, if all it takes is me asking a few questions then your price point wasn't very solid to begin with.  To be clear, I am not trying to FUD Vanillacoin, nor do I have a fixed opinion on it or Zerotime technology.  I am simply interested in it, and as part of being interested I have some very critical questions I feel need to be asked. 
 
I will continue researching it considering everything you have told me; thanks for the replies.

Wow. All this talk is making the price go lower, THANK YOU trolls.   Didn't think i would be buying under 30k today.

Thank you for this gift. 

Vanilla Coin looks absolutely fine to me, no problem going in deep. 

This. Every rule was clear and these resulted in the most fair distribution ever on a crypto. Someone posted a chart a few pages back which clearly shows this. Also the project is fully open source currently with people hosting their own pools and the sollutions to ZeroTime will be fully decentralized (unlike DASH's InstantX).

You forgot this part:

many vnl investor said 1szb  is a bad exchang for vnl, their boss feel bad
so will not add it
hu
a very small exchange
haha
it's not a technical issue, so it's ok for me

As it turned out it's only a low volume exchange also I'm not surprised they can't work out the wallet without help, Bittrex needed a bit of help also.

Neither bleutrade nor c-cex could integrate it properly into the exchange, first ditched it second got asked to delist it since they mismanaged the wallet. This isn't a toy for wannabe exchanges who could add 20 bitcoin clones prior.

Try harder.

The only reason I see for the whole roleplaying: maybe John was unsure if he wants to lead a project as big as this, he has a family and kids and is probably doing well (financially - he isn't here to get rich) without a full time crypto project. He got to like the community and the acceptance that Vanillacoin has gotten after a few months, we probably passed his "test". You can be pretty sure that he is famous programmer IRL with his way of doing things.

oh i can read the future i forgot to tell you guys there you go hahahah

unfortunately the chinese exchange has ditched the idea to add vanillacoin   

i see a dump incoming 

Coins weren't forfeited in solomining.  Network consensus forked wallets that tried to mine with more than one or two wallets per ip or something like that.  That stopped after the first pool was set up and the wallets were changed from only mining with 1 core to mining with the max the cpu could output.  Those wallets still had coins they made from before being forked.  They just had to get back on the right fork.

During cpu pool mining in which everyone was mining from John's pool, one or two people created private gpu miners, which were not allowed.  They had around half the hash so John sent their coins that had not been paid out yet to the faucet, and a little later, a public gpu miner was made available.

He was only trying to make the distribution fair while it was cpu mined.  As soon as gpu mining started, we tried to get public pools to add it, and suprnova added it somewhat quickly.

Edit: Oh yeah.  When C-cex messed up and lost people's coins, he didn't do anything.  So you're dead wrong about that.  He also stated he wouldn't mess with the blockchain.

This is the main unofficial community thread.

is this the correct thread ?

  i remember being quite shocked at the time, but as i thought about it - new coin, not a copy-clone, ingenious dev = new pathways, = new rules.

 and these had all been stated up front.

 
  
Ok, this is the concerning part.  
  
We agreed to have a fair and open watergun fight amongst ourselves in the school yard.  We are all using Wal-Mart squirter pistols and having a good time.  Then, a rich kid went and bought a Super Soaker 9 Billion XQT ReCharger and proceeded to light everyone up, and dominate the fight.  
  
The guy who invented all the cool rules of the watergun game said, "Hey, rich kid!  Go away!  You're making the game not fun for everyone else!" and the rich kid with his Super Soaker 9 Billion XQT said, "Fuck off, I'm playing by the same rules you are, I just have a better toy."  
  
So the kid who invented the game declared, "Ok guys, then from now on, we won't count any shots by Super Soakers.  Deal?" and everyone agreed because it made the game more fun.  
  
The kid took his Super Soaker and went home because no one wanted to play with him anymore.  
  

---

 
  
Do you see the problem with this?  Do you think that this game will pass a test for truly open and transparent going forward?  What happens when something else happens that someone doesn't like?  People will all just look to the leader kid and say, "Hey!  This is like that fucker with the Super Soaker!  John, do something!" and the 'leader' will be forced to declare new rules and regulations.... aka, centralization.  
  
John Connor was overwhelmingly a good guy, but (movie spoilers, spoiled in the movie trailer itself in the following image):  

http://i.imgur.com/CZxw2Lu.jpg
.
.
.
.
.
If algo or block manipulation has occurred in any way, this invalidates the entire currency and a new and impartial fork needs to restart from the genesis block.  The only time this is acceptable is if a user truly was irrevocably breaking the game forever afterwards (like creating fake blocks or fake coins), NOT if they were simply winning by using the best hardware.