[...] and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review.
To be fair, he did use his hired expert to review the code, but again, you have to dig 12 pages to discover this explanation and apology. 
Topic: Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin - page 17. (Read 43236 times)
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.
I rest my case.
last time i checked VRC coin is building de-centralized system true so that must make them in busoni hit list, look where are they lol. FUD being spread again
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;
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
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.
Emphasis added.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.
Why do we have to dig 12 pages into this thread to find admittance of this misstep? The least Busoni could do right now is update the topic and OP accordingly.
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.
I rest my case.
OMFG! LOL! You are fucking dense. That's the dev's acknowledgement of the limitations inherent in the phase 1 implementation (which is currently confined to testnet). Your lame FUD attempt doesn't show the outline below where the super dev aims to develop a trust-less system that cannot be cheated. FAIL!
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.
I rest my case.
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;
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.
I wonder if this is the reason Silkcoin has made quite a significant fall today wiping nearly 50% of its face value ?
It staggering what one piece of information can do to a coin, even if this wasn't a malicious statement it has still caused quite a bit of damage.
Cheers
Mark
It staggering what one piece of information can do to a coin, even if this wasn't a malicious statement it has still caused quite a bit of damage.
Cheers
Mark
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.
The Supercoin bagholders seem to have no clue about Polo...
They are right in the thick of the mid-range exchanges with MintPal, Polo, Cryptsy, Bittrex...
All doing in the 1,000 BTC/day range more or less.
With listing fees and proprietary trading Polo probably makes >> $500K/year...
And they were smart adding the CNote coins now a big percent of their business and growing...
Polo >> Cryptsy and will very likely be here when Cryptsy is "hacked" and disappears.
So they need a dodgy coin?
Polo could have just said no... but they stuck their neck out to warn people.
Just go list somewhere else and pump away, please.
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/markets/info
"With listing fees and proprietary trading Polo probably makes >> $500K/year..."
only this part make me laugh
500k/year. do you have any idea how much a newbie in crypto world can make in one year. almost same amount.
but only smart guy.
the revenue is nothing to boast of.
busoni have to face the fact that he made false accusation against SUPER.
Wow! It is great to see an exchange actually do some homework and screen the coins it lists and not just list every pump and dump coin for the transaction fees. Poloniex has a lot of coins listed but this type of review gives me hope that they have some legitimacy.
Nice work, thanks, and good luck!
Nice work, thanks, and good luck!
The Supercoin bagholders seem to have no clue about Polo...
They are right in the thick of the mid-range exchanges with MintPal, Polo, Cryptsy, Bittrex...
All doing in the 1,000 BTC/day range more or less.
With listing fees and proprietary trading Polo probably makes >> $500K/year...
And they were smart adding the CNote coins now a big percent of their business and growing...
Polo >> Cryptsy and will very likely be here when Cryptsy is "hacked" and disappears.
So they need a dodgy coin?
Polo could have just said no... but they stuck their neck out to warn people.
Just go list somewhere else and pump away, please.
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/markets/info
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;
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
truth is also lying in CINNI and SC codes.
and POLO will review them. they will face a big problem if get caught?
right???
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.
bingo. this is what i want "YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found."
BUSONI, do as supporters suggest!
busoni, my friend, how is the code review by yourself going? We need some clarification from you. Thanks.
?
Wow! It is great to see an exchange actually do some homework and screen the coins it lists and not just list every pump and dump coin for the transaction fees. Poloniex has a lot of coins listed but this type of review gives me hope that they have some legitimacy.
Nice work, thanks, and good luck!
Nice work, thanks, and good luck!
Indeed! Still good work from Poloniex, investigating the code of another scam coin before adding it to their exchange. Finally some checks and balances.
This supercoin was, is and will always be a major SCAM coin!
Keep up the good work Poloniex
i admit that i invested a lot in different alt coins. that means i am greedy.
but what a hell logic, that you stupid morons are not greedy to search for potential alt coins?
i am buying XC at 8000 satoshi, VRC at 1000 satoshi, SUPER at 1000 sats.
Pump and Dump means nothing to me.
but the truth is BUSONI make a big mistake and cause those weakhands lose money.
all he is doing is unprofessional!
if you discuss merits of alt coins, you will draw yourself into never ending circle. don't tell me you want all exchanges to trade only BTC.
and fucking idiots like chesthing is only waste of space.
but what a hell logic, that you stupid morons are not greedy to search for potential alt coins?
i am buying XC at 8000 satoshi, VRC at 1000 satoshi, SUPER at 1000 sats.
Pump and Dump means nothing to me.
but the truth is BUSONI make a big mistake and cause those weakhands lose money.
all he is doing is unprofessional!
if you discuss merits of alt coins, you will draw yourself into never ending circle. don't tell me you want all exchanges to trade only BTC.
and fucking idiots like chesthing is only waste of space.
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;
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
truth is also lying in CINNI and SC codes.
and POLO will review them. they will face a big problem if get caught?
right???
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.
busoni, i respect you, but it seems you do make a mistake.
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;
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
truth is also lying in CINNI and SC codes.
and POLO will review them. they will face a big problem if get caught?
right???
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;
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
Poloniex is a great exchange.
It's their exchange, it's their call.
too many scams these days in the cryptocommunity.
If they've been burned before with "max supply" exceeding specs
why couldn't they decide not to trade this coin.
May this start a new precedent of altcoin code being examined
& potentially being rejected from exchanges if all isn't perfectly up to par & upfront.
If supercoin has nothing to hide then calmly post what happened & continue building your coin.
If this hits a nerve there was probably some bad intentions to begin with.
Well done, Busoni.
It's their exchange, it's their call.
too many scams these days in the cryptocommunity.
If they've been burned before with "max supply" exceeding specs
why couldn't they decide not to trade this coin.
May this start a new precedent of altcoin code being examined
& potentially being rejected from exchanges if all isn't perfectly up to par & upfront.
If supercoin has nothing to hide then calmly post what happened & continue building your coin.
If this hits a nerve there was probably some bad intentions to begin with.
Well done, Busoni.
go to ask Busoni,
he even already admitted his mistake in a innuendo way.
Busoni can not read code!
Jump to: