Topic: Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin - page 27. (Read 43236 times)

wonderful, I got it, thanks maryvale.

BTW, SUPER is a great one, I tested anon in testnet, works fast. Unlike some coins promise and nothing done, this one is real...

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.

+1

A good question, because 524,492.8 is calculated based on 512 coins/block, the next term is 256 coins/block = 0.5 * 512 coins/block, and starting 256 coins/block it is 10 days halve period. That's why it is 10 * 0.5.

busoni should have first spoken to dev. he could have waited to add super coin or not once spoken to him many have lost money over this

Whoops, deleted my comment thinking it didn't express my point well, but good point.

maybe a dumb question ...
why there's a 0.5 there? I got all the rest.

hi iGotSpots

it's not a lie, Poloniex missed the Supercoin hard fork.

but it seems supercoin dev also make a mistake.

ps: Supercoin has released their Anon Wallet.

check it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annsupercoinfirst-p2p-decentralized-trustless-anonymous-wallet-coming-soon-618552

 

so pretty much all three of these coins are just the same with small differences and are all a scam

I would say remove Silkcoin cinni and super asap as these are basically pyramid schemes and very obvious ones at that with code manipulation...changing the wallet before a PnD so ppl lose their coins in transactions if they did not upgrade.  I bet they are wormholing the lost coins as well.

The key here is majority of the network (51%) needs to agree and adopt the changes. P2p coin follows simple majority rules.

I think it was left over from previous version, since it does not do anything (just transactions), I guess dev does not bother to change it. Nothing is wrong there, you set a limit does not mean you need to reach it.

Max money isn't really what you are saying it is but its good to not list it due to lies

no question. it's the truth.

good call cinni and sc are trash coins for sure along with most of these copy paste coins with no value

Questions? I can explain each and every number if needed

Well, hopefully Polo can learn from this at least. I'm all for exchanges vetting the code on coins they add, but if you're going to do it, please have someone who knows what they're looking at do it.

Generally speacking it seems pretty straight forward but when you throw the code text in the mix along with some other variables it tends to be rather intimidating shall I say.  Interesting how two different views of the "Max Coins" are so far apart and I'm anxious to get a final say on the total at this point.  Thanks for the breakdown of your calculation.

bittrex official statement will get things on track plus busoni needs to apologize