Topic: Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin - page 21. (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.

Lol, that's why he misses out on all that volume and trading fees,not adding coins like cloak and super is like financial sadism.
 He has some ethics in a arena that has lower than low standards.
 whether you love it or hate it, the gauntlet is down. cloners will actually have a look at what the fuck they are peddling.
 I personally have been raped on several P&D coins, It takes balls to stand up and speak out, Good on you!
 

poloniex lost their last bit of credibility, losing btc volume everyday, being 2nd with adding coins because bittrex adds em quiker, they are getting pissed i think.

poloniex is going down i think, just like their server being down lots of times lately, this cant last long for poloniex, exchange gangsters

Introduction

With a market capitalization ranking of 61[1], the coin "42"[2] is advertised as the "Highest Priced Crypto Coin Ever"[3]. This high price is attributed to the coin's rarity, which is advertised to be limited to 42 total coins. Unfortunately, it looks like 42 coin and descendents thereof (like 8 coin) do not cap the money supply at the advertised number of coin. In fact, unlike most cryptocoins, the money supply of 42 appears to be unlimited.

Money Generation

In bitcoin and most descendents the money supply is capped algorithmically in the function that calculates the mining subsidy. This function is called GetBlockValue() in the source file "main.cpp". In the bitcoin code base, the source for this function is:


Here, the subsidy is halved for each "halving interval", measured in blocks (although the calculation is obfuscated somewhat for the sake of computational efficiency). It can be proven[4] that if all halving intervals are the same length (210,000), then the maximum amount of bitcoin ever produced will be

    21,000,000 = 2 * 50 * 210,000

42 (and probably several descendants, such as uses a GetBlockValue() function like the following, taken from the 42 code base:


Except in a few cases (blocks 1-420, 4242, 42424, ...) all blocks will have the same reward of 0.000042 coin (ignoring fees). Notice that the 42 version of GetBlockValue() has no halving interval and makes no attempt to curtail coin generation at the advertised maximum of 42 coin. Without a geometrically decreasing reward value, the money supply will grow indefinitely.

For 42, the advertised coin maximum of 42 coin will be produced before block 1,000,000 (42 / 0.000042), or in about 1.33 years. But the existing 42 code makes no provision to stop coin production at that time.

MAX_MONEY

One part of the code for most cryptocoins that may be confusing to developers is the MAX_MONEY constant in the source file called "main.h". MAX_MONEY has two uses in the 42 code: (1) as a sentinel return value (which won't be discussed) and (2) to check some transaction values to ensure that they make sense. For the latter purpose, MAX_MONEY is used in the inline function called MoneyRange() in the "main.h" file:


This function simply checks to ensure that a value is not negative and does not exceed MAX_MONEY. Nowhere in the 42 codebase is MAX_MONEY checked against a sum of the balances of all accounts, which would require the computationally expensive task of either (1) calculating every account balance in the block chain and then adding them up, or (2) summing the coinbase (money generating) transactions over all blocks. The running total of money supply is not explicitly kept in the block chain.

The MoneyRange() function is used a few times in the 42 code. An arbitrary example is checking the the sanity of a transaction, as in the CTransaction::CheckTransaction() function within "main.cpp":


Nowhere in the code for 42 does is MoneyRange() used to validate the total money supply of 42.

---

Notes:

[1] http://coinmarketcap.com/
[2] My screen name, tx42, is unrelated to 42 coin.
[3] http://www.42coin.org/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:


Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...


I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

Poloniex has just jumped to the top of my favorite exchange list.  Dont let the lack of bells and whistles on the user interface dissuade you.  Poloniex is on top of the industry.

disturbing

code review

evidence of an existing hidden premine

extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped.

other concerns

the proposed method of anonymity

shenanigans with the maximum supply

sufficient

Not sure if this is the correct verdict, but I am actually impressed busoni and his team check so much in deep coins to bother with. Respect for Poloniex.

Hey at least busoni admitted he was wrong. This guy is just straight up retarded.

here we go again your assuming are you busoni with a different account trying to find another reason to bash super coin

hahaha

Supercoin was cloned from Honorcoin ?

well..

People registered for 'Free money'(!) on the Honorcoin website and were asked for their Bitcointalk forum username, a password and an email address, only to find that, where they had used the same password, the accounts had been compromised and, for exchange accounts, the scammers had avoided triggering withdrawal notifications by using whatever funds were on the account to buy their crapcoin high and sell back low, rinsing and repeating until zero..

So why did they clone Honorcoin ? Could be same scammer caught red handed on his very next scam coin i think..

I am truly sorry for the article yesterday based on information that had been removed seconds after publishing the article. To make up for it, I posted a rectification article :

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/rectification-there-are-no-hidden-coins-in-supercoins-source-code


Once again, my humble apologies.

The ONLY thing to take away from this whole fiasco is that perhaps you should have been less-zaelous when posting the REASONS why - A simple "We are not listing SUPER as we are unhappy with some of the code and need to speak with the DEVS" would have sufficed, would have save a lot of people time / money and most of all would have looked far better for POLO overall.