At least Busoni posted a sort of apology (last post on this page) https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7319548
And my response; https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7320998
I hope at the very least Polo can come out with an official statement on this, even if they do not wish to list the coin (to save face).
They have SORT of done this in way of Busoni's post above + the updated link on the Main Exchange@:
Further update on our decision about SuperCoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7319548
Posted by OldManKidd at 2014-06-15 22:00:33
In the meantime - Vote Super to MintPal instead - https://www.mintpal.com/voting#SUPER
Topic: Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin - page 15. (Read 43236 times)
I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.
This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.
so you're adding Cloak and Super to polo...
Love how every account that is agreeing with polo in the form of a single sentence (no argument for pro or con) is under 50 activities or is a newb account. That makes it fully legit.
My account has few posts because I simply do not always have the NEED to post a reply to something, however, check back through some of my posts and you can see I'm an active user with a legit account that I've had for some time here... I've not agreed with Polo not disagreed, I think Polo is a good exchange, and the people there are nice and friendly and usually very competent, I just think THIS particular incident was miss handled to a large degree.
Dont worry most of these kids think credibility is how many posts you have and if you are a new account or not on here. Secondly they have been 'ok" with noob annoymouse devs for god knows how long but soon as a dev mades anon code they want his entire life story in details.
Yet 99% of these jokers on here wont dare tel you anything about themselves and throw these kind of bs posts you quoted.
Soon no one is going to be 10 and act and say stupid shit like - "You joined yesterday therefore your argument is invalid"
Polo bullshit but no point going down with the ship as the herd dump, i'm out.
Love how every account that is agreeing with polo in the form of a single sentence (no argument for pro or con) is under 50 activities or is a newb account. That makes it fully legit.
My account has few posts because I simply do not always have the NEED to post a reply to something, however, check back through some of my posts and you can see I'm an active user with a legit account that I've had for some time here... I've not agreed with Polo not disagreed, I think Polo is a good exchange, and the people there are nice and friendly and usually very competent, I just think THIS particular incident was miss handled to a large degree.
Well caught. You could have just run with it and made some money but have taken the ethical stance which takes balls:)
I wouldn't worry about that, they do other things for revenue. Probably just as shady as this coin
Anyway Supercoin sounds like the dirty scumbag asia coin cloner - as they clearly arent coders/devs so they dont deserve that title.
The biggest cunt act of poloniex was unfreeze Asia coin market - when all other exchanges froze it - allowed some people to dump - then promptly closed/froze AC. Wouldnt surprise me it was some mods, I dont trust honeybadger one bit on there either. Someone got to sell for 2k+ after every other exchange dumped it down to 200 there abouts and then froze it. They allowed bullshit IPOS scams.
So dont worry they can afford to let one scam go by the wayside as after all they dont care they make money on every buy and sell.
I dont even trade on that exchange anymore, slow transfers, manipulation of the highest level even the mods are doing it.
busoni did not show up?
YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.
The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.
This is what i was going to say.
I suggest everyone to read the OP of supercoin before writing fud.
Anon transfer in supercoin is not even enabled by default.
It is a check box within coincontrol part of the wallet.
Also, it is only limited to 10000 coins at a time to reduce risk.
Heck, it's not even possible to use anon anyways. It's only enabled on testnet.
The are way too many here who has no idea what they are talking about.
hahhah busoni must be the giant head guy in back right!
I don't see why we shouldn't trust busoni's claim when it's true, explain why was it higher value than the other one then?
Because it has jack shit to do with the max coin supply, it is so irrelevant they didnt bother changing it.
hey smart guy.. what if i made OTHER changes to the code on the next update increasing the money supply ?
the function that is called that contain that max money static variable is used in a lots of places and what would happen first
is if someone tried to send money that is greater than that setting the transaction would fail to go through.
so it would be a NECESSITY to setup a scam !
most of you here prob have no experience coding in 'c' or even looked at the code but are spouting off.
the fact is this could have been a multi-part scam.. as in parts of malicious code are added in phases so not to set off an alarm.
this Altcoin scene is swiss cheese with scammers running wild 24/7.. hell look what god damn coin it was based on Honor coin of all coins LOLOLOL
I have witnessed coin cloners here update the wallets with scammer code.. i don't want to get into who and what coin etc but trust me i know for a FACT it happens.
You guys need to cut the crap.. most of you know nothing but are repeating 'crap' you *heard.
And the bottom line is do we have proof 100% that something malicious was going on ?
Maybe ? Maybe not.
But it does LOOK fishy.
And if something looks fishy in crypto.. it usually is.
Most of you are gullible and eat up what ever is fed to you and this is just shell account games for control of the lemmings.. the usual Bitcointalk routine.
got a brain ? use it.. or don't not my problem.
Spoetnik, I saw you posted often in JPC thread, that is a coin I like too, and I like some of your good posts there. But why fud here? Why not you just look at the facts?
I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315515
and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315840
From these facts, the MAX_MONEY etc are irrelevant to the coins the system will generate. What are your concerns? that the dev will sneak in later and increase the coin system generates? You know this will be a hardfork and requires at least 51% network to agree, right? Also if dev can sneak in some new things into the code, isn't it extremely easy for him to change whatever numbers he wants to change?
From what I see, the guy from Poloniex simply made a mistake, as he or someone he asked to review the code have no idea at all what the code means. That who reviewed the code is either never worked on coin code, or a copy-paster who created some scam coins (only simple copied from other coins) before. This is the fact, no deny of it. Very simple.
Code:
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;
There is a huge misconception out there that MAX_MONEY sets the total coin count for a coin. This is false. MAX_MONEY sets the maximum amount of coins that can be sent in a single transaction over a network. It is customary to typically set this to the maximum coins that will be created but it is not necessary.
We have played around and tested this to verify it on the DigiByte testnet before. We made sure this was the case.
The actual reward is determined here between lines 1033 & 1082: https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp
Code:
// miner's coin base reward
int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
if(nHeight == 1)
nSubsidy = INITIAL_OFFERING_PERCENTAGE * POW_MAX_MONEY;
if(nHeight > LAST_POW_BLOCK)
return 0;
int nPoWHeight = GetPowHeight(pindex) + 1;
printf(">> nHeight = %d, nPoWHeight = %d\n", nHeight, nPoWHeight);
int nReduceFactor = 0;
if(nPoWHeight < SWITCHOVER_POW_BLOCK)
{
nReduceFactor = nPoWHeight / 43200;
if(nReduceFactor > 9)
nSubsidy = nMinSubsidy;
else
nSubsidy >>= nReduceFactor;
}
else
{
if(nPoWHeight < 19200)
nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 28800)
nSubsidy = 256 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 38400)
nSubsidy = 128 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 48000)
nSubsidy = 64 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 57600)
nSubsidy = 32 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 67200)
nSubsidy = 16 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 76800)
nSubsidy = 8 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 86400)
nSubsidy = 4 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 96000)
nSubsidy = 2 * COIN;
else
nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
To find the exact coin coin count you would need to do the math and add everything up in there.
For a comparison this is where Bitcoins maximum coin supply is determined. Once again you have to calculate it out to prove it is 21 million.
Code:
int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval();
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings >= 64)
return nFees;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
EDIT: We are not defending Supercoin (had never heard of them until this post) nor have we done the exact math in their code. We simply wanted to point out a common misconception to avoid future issues for everyone.
Thanks for the information
It's indeed a very common misconception
I'm also new to Supercoin. It appears that it becomes famous now after this incident
Look like this time Poloniex has given away some free advertising to this coin
The facts are there, explained very clearly:
Quote
I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315515
and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315840
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315515
and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315840
This is called SLOPPY CODING you noobs.
This is how to do it, without hardcoding values
But then, too much greed to see the truth
Code:
if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)
Code:
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;
This is how to do it, without hardcoding values
Code:
if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > MAX_MONEY)
But then, too much greed to see the truth
That value (150 million) is left over from SUPER's initial specs, prior to the recent fork. That line of code is innocuous. Read the thread, Polo-shill.
+1
MAX_MONEY is non issue, this has been repeated multiple times in the thread.
At this point Busoni stuck his neck out and made a post on code he himself did not fully understand at all. Unfortunately for him his comments were incorrect and the code is clean, looks like he already knows this, based on his backpedaling posts once it was verified by other parties that it was incorrect.
Its just Amateur moves, all new entrepreneurs make stupid mistakes like this early in their career, it either makes them or breaks them.
The take away here is, if you discover a "securtiy hole' prior to disclosing it publicly, one may review all the code that is affected in their software ecosystem. The entire process of disclosing security holes must be take serious[1], especially when you are dealing with high volume of BTC. He could of just said, "we found out super coin has funky code, and upon further research we found out that 70% of the other coins listed on our exchange suffer from the same venerability, we will look into the matter". Off course if he the above statement massive panic would ensue, and it would be difficult for poloneix recover, but not impossible. Tough decisions.
If busoni was acting in good faith of the community as he has repeated many times in this thread, then he would just clean up his OP, apologize and say that his initial comments were way off with his findings, it was dumb to post with out it being verified by multiple sources, and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review. Or he can just ignore it, and pray that we all forget in a few days how unprofessional their exchange currently looks to the community.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/01/schneier_full_disclo.html
Again, the facts are listed here:
I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315515
and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7315840
Busoni made irresponsible claims on SUPER, he should apologize to the community. This was an event that degraded a lot Poloniex. Correct it now, otherwise it will just give people impression that Poloniex is very incompetent.
Yes the facts are posted in the 2 above links, why people continue to argue? Nothing to argue, everything is clear! If you understand the code, go read it, otherwise read the above two posts.
Code:
static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN;
There is a huge misconception out there that MAX_MONEY sets the total coin count for a coin. This is false. MAX_MONEY sets the maximum amount of coins that can be sent in a single transaction over a network. It is customary to typically set this to the maximum coins that will be created but it is not necessary.
We have played around and tested this to verify it on the DigiByte testnet before. We made sure this was the case.
The actual reward is determined here between lines 1033 & 1082: https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp
Code:
// miner's coin base reward
int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
if(nHeight == 1)
nSubsidy = INITIAL_OFFERING_PERCENTAGE * POW_MAX_MONEY;
if(nHeight > LAST_POW_BLOCK)
return 0;
int nPoWHeight = GetPowHeight(pindex) + 1;
printf(">> nHeight = %d, nPoWHeight = %d\n", nHeight, nPoWHeight);
int nReduceFactor = 0;
if(nPoWHeight < SWITCHOVER_POW_BLOCK)
{
nReduceFactor = nPoWHeight / 43200;
if(nReduceFactor > 9)
nSubsidy = nMinSubsidy;
else
nSubsidy >>= nReduceFactor;
}
else
{
if(nPoWHeight < 19200)
nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 28800)
nSubsidy = 256 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 38400)
nSubsidy = 128 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 48000)
nSubsidy = 64 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 57600)
nSubsidy = 32 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 67200)
nSubsidy = 16 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 76800)
nSubsidy = 8 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 86400)
nSubsidy = 4 * COIN;
else if(nPoWHeight < 96000)
nSubsidy = 2 * COIN;
else
nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
}
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
To find the exact coin coin count you would need to do the math and add everything up in there.
For a comparison this is where Bitcoins maximum coin supply is determined. Once again you have to calculate it out to prove it is 21 million.
Code:
int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
int64_t nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval();
// Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
if (halvings >= 64)
return nFees;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
nSubsidy >>= halvings;
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
EDIT: We are not defending Supercoin (had never heard of them until this post) nor have we done the exact math in their code. We simply wanted to point out a common misconception to avoid future issues for everyone.
Thanks for the information
It's indeed a very common misconception
I'm also new to Supercoin. It appears that it becomes famous now after this incident
Look like this time Poloniex has given away some free advertising to this coin
I never had Supercoin and probably will never have one, but the shit Spoetnik is talking hurts me physically. Finally ignored. Hope he has no children and never will.
Supercoin in mid 2ks, will be in teens within a couple days then to hundreds. Sorry bagholders, should have sold in the 7ks. Next time put a little thought into what the developer is offering - hell he even admitted his system doesn't stop cheats, can't get more clear than that.
Reply to my last comment made on you.
Sad stuff that you have your account with the only purpose of spreading fud on coins.
Your life is pathetic.
ignore the troll, i didn't know dumb people like spoetnik can type
Supercoin in mid 2ks, will be in teens within a couple days then to hundreds. Sorry bagholders, should have sold in the 7ks. Next time put a little thought into what the developer is offering - hell he even admitted his system doesn't stop cheats, can't get more clear than that.
Reply to my last comment made on you.
Sad stuff that you have your account with the only purpose of spreading fud on coins.
Your life is pathetic.
I don't see why we shouldn't trust busoni's claim when it's true, explain why was it higher value than the other one then?
Because it has jack shit to do with the max coin supply, it is so irrelevant they didnt bother changing it.
hey smart guy.. what if i made OTHER changes to the code on the next update increasing the money supply ?
the function that is called that contain that max money static variable is used in a lots of places and what would happen first
is if someone tried to send money that is greater than that setting the transaction would fail to go through.
so it would be a NECESSITY to setup a scam !
most of you here prob have no experience coding in 'c' or even looked at the code but are spouting off.
the fact is this could have been a multi-part scam.. as in parts of malicious code are added in phases so not to set off an alarm.
this Altcoin scene is swiss cheese with scammers running wild 24/7.. hell look what god damn coin it was based on Honor coin of all coins LOLOLOL
I have witnessed coin cloners here update the wallets with scammer code.. i don't want to get into who and what coin etc but trust me i know for a FACT it happens.
You guys need to cut the crap.. most of you know nothing but are repeating 'crap' you *heard.
And the bottom line is do we have proof 100% that something malicious was going on ?
Maybe ? Maybe not.
But it does LOOK fishy.
And if something looks fishy in crypto.. it usually is.
Most of you are gullible and eat up what ever is fed to you and this is just shell account games for control of the lemmings.. the usual Bitcointalk routine.
got a brain ? use it.. or don't not my problem.
I don't see why we shouldn't trust busoni's claim when it's true, explain why was it higher value than the other one then?
Because it has jack shit to do with the max coin supply, it is so irrelevant they didnt bother changing it.
wrong.. that is a lie !
they changed it specifically to that value and this has been pointed out on *almost every page in this topic.
you and the others that keep saying this are spreading lies period .
i know i checked the code AND so did busoni (or his buddy etc)
he proved it already.. proof of this is several pages back (maybe go read it)
seriously you lying scamming bag holder noobs need to stfu with the trolling and lying
you pathetic scammer bag holders are far worse than any coin cloner trying to scam !
you corrupt pathological lying scammers make me sick.
you invest in a scam-coin and the scam coin maker gets caught red handed and you go and lie and troll because your scared your bag will become worthless..
FACT.
end of story.
Define troll..
Jump to: