Topic: Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin - page 26. (Read 43236 times)

We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.

Donate some to me,please....

I bought 6 BTC, many thanks for your cheap coins.

I lost 0.7BTC

Busoni I've been a supporter of polo and your word has weight on me and many. I took your word for it and panic sold, I lost over 13 BTC over this crap.

06/14/2014 04:27:41 PM   Sell   0.00001799   224347.58707523   224347.58707523   0.00001916   4.28953655

Im really upset over the way your announcement was handled. I totally understood your concerned but to come out and post it and imply that something fishy was going on and now to see you backtrack is very devastating. We were #1 on polo voting so who in the world would ever think that something catastrophic would happen.

I hold u totally responsible for what happened to me and I hope you do the right thing. U totally destroyed me and my family this was over 6k USD in btc.

This here thread is funny, but sorta scary.  

It's obvious that neither busoni or Cryptsy, or any of their cheerleaders know shit about how cryptocoin code actually works.

Hey geniuses, leave the code for programmers--you'll get hurt in there.  

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

I don't agree with you, these parameters are simply irrelevent. We did not miss them, we simply think there's no need. We welcome anyone to review our code, and we are happy to discuss with anyone. But blunders like this are not agreed. Your ignorance simply caused a lot unnecessary confusion. Should you contact us, we would have explained all to you.

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

 
busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

Is this an amateur or a 10-years-old?

The max coin limits the maximum coin,
but does it mean the maximum coin will be generated?? Not at all.
The generated coin depends on the formula in 3functions:

- GetProofOfWorkReward()
- GetProofOfStakeReward()
and
- GetProofOfWorkBonusRewardFactor()

These functions define how many coins will be generated. Moreover, even the system generates more coins than the MAX_MONEY defined above, there will be no problem at all, go look at the code. If Poloniex tech staff is that dumb, I feel very sorry for them, it is a joke!

 

he should have let them push the next update out and not said a word so he could catch them looking even worse.
the mistake was catching him mid-scam lol

you don't go and do something like this by accident.. guy had a plan and he got caught, but caught too early.

next time give these guys a little more rope.. and more slack to hang themselves with it lol

enjoying the spin on this after the fact..
Crypto excuses when caught are always entertaining, these guys have money invested and they will say ANYTHING to sweep dirt under the rug.

Next time the dev (coin cloner) can verify his public statements and code BEFORE he publicly posts them.
If they are caught in a contradiction then this is not the person who found the problems fault its the person who posted the coin.

only thing i see here is a guy from an exchange found some fishy code etc etc
and since some fishy activity is more than enough to ban a coin then why not ?
they (exchanges) can add what ever coins they want.. it's their right !
at least he was trying to do the right thing unlike many of you making poor attempts at bad excuses.. for $$$

I think this is where lines must be drawn and standards set.

There has been much hype and excitement about the next best thing to hit crypto but, looking at the code, it's obvious that basics are being forgotten about.

Whether this is deliberate acts such as Lytecoin which was launched shortly after LiteCoin and its sole purpose was to search, copy and forward all "wallet.dat" files to a dead email drop to just getting bad code into the source by cloning code from another clone, which was also cloned from another clone, ad infinitum. Each time, the dev of that particular coin not removing coin specific code from what they are working with.

We've seen coins that includes code to generate and send coins to a "foundation" donation address but the developer of the next coin either ignores it, doesn't know it's there or hasn't got the required skills to attach importance to it.

We are also seeing more and more "developers" portraying themselves as the coders, when this is not true and they pay some freelancer to provide the code. Yet the dev stands behind the code 150% even though they don't even know the basics.

(So it's not tl;dr) we even have developers working on their own clone coin but don't even know how to generate their own genesis blocks (or can't be bothered to spend time doing so).

So, we have people shouting at exchanges to list code that is either just simply bugged out due to a mass of code which only applies to a previous coin, would severely put the exchange at risk of being investigated for money laundering due to them having to be the party to make transactions anonymous or to list code which contains trojans (DaFuq). I was watching the Poloniex trollbox when some users were saying that the malicious code didn't affect them because they don't run the daemon as root... so list it and "think of the profit".

For SuperCoin. The Devs state repeatedly that the coin can and will be exploited. The nodes can cheat. By stating this, they are saying they are aware of this threat and it is real, yet they use copy honorcoin and make some strange changes. At the very least they did not review their own code correctly, nor did they try to increase checking and security of the code. They even left in the code for IRC peer discovery for a coin they claim to be anonymous.

If I were running an exchange today, I would draw the line immediately.

Check code for a complete disregard of standards.
Check the devs for claims that are just illegal and fraudulent (such as claims to be a Charity but are not. Seriously? Once upon a time a lynch-mob would have been rounded up for that alone).
Make sure the development "TEAM" is a team and not just some "ideas man" paying 0.5BTC for some code. How can you expect fixes to happen soon when the dev has to track down the freelancer?).

Crypto may be lots of fun but it isn't a game. If this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue, there will be very serious consequences for those crypto service providers that do not fully comply with the law.
As much as the law is an ass, it can not be ignored and cast aside with comments like "Hey, man. It's virtual so it doesn't need to comply with the law."

That mind-set is just going to continue to slam doors in everyone's faces, it's been happening for some time now but not many realise it. I guess they thought all that banging was the balloons popping after the last major hype campaign.

So, supercoin. created by devs that repeatedly state they are working on a new system for crypto that can and will be exploited but don't take extra care over their code.

If it were me, there is no way I would list or even mine it.

A personal request to Poloniex: Please continue to raise the expected standards. Re-review all the coins listed on the exchange now and see which developers are willing to work with you to attain greater reliability and security. We must start to be seen to keep our own backyards in order. It's about time we did.