You left out the world's most famous plagiarist of all:
It's pretty much accepted that the book your reference is anti-semitic propaganda cooked up by German Nazis. No further "research" has advanced the claims in that book.
Topic: why you should really consider VNL. (Read 3077 times)
It's pretty much accepted that the book your reference is anti-semitic propaganda cooked up by German Nazis. No further "research" has advanced the claims in that book.
The negative trust ratings on John Connor's bitcointalk account appear petty and are evidence of a bankrupt trust system where insiders are granted license to damage the reputation of others in order to further their own agenda.
Even if those who have penalized John Connor's trust rating have nobel intentions, they completely miss the mark. The "misattribution" attack is an old, tired play, that indicates a vacuum of ideas or technical knowledge that could nourish better critique.
To summarize how this topic has devolved, the attacks here are based on John Connor's claim that VNL is "written from scratch in its entirety". This quote comes from a single post on the launch thread. It is not a central aspect of the coin's marketing. The closest the marketing gets is to say "it is not a clone of any other project". Technically, the marketing is correct, as clones are understood to be 100% identical.
Now, it can be argued that "written from scratch in its entirety" is not perfectly accurate. However, the question is whether this statement should be grounds to reduce John Connor's trust rating. Was this statement used to solicit funds? No. Was it used to dump premine? No.
In fact, that these answers are "no" is evidence that those who have damaged John Connor's trust rating should themselves lose trust as it is clear these individuals have damaged his rating for their own selfish financial reasons. There can be no other explanation.
Even if those who have penalized John Connor's trust rating have nobel intentions, they completely miss the mark. The "misattribution" attack is an old, tired play, that indicates a vacuum of ideas or technical knowledge that could nourish better critique.
To summarize how this topic has devolved, the attacks here are based on John Connor's claim that VNL is "written from scratch in its entirety". This quote comes from a single post on the launch thread. It is not a central aspect of the coin's marketing. The closest the marketing gets is to say "it is not a clone of any other project". Technically, the marketing is correct, as clones are understood to be 100% identical.
Now, it can be argued that "written from scratch in its entirety" is not perfectly accurate. However, the question is whether this statement should be grounds to reduce John Connor's trust rating. Was this statement used to solicit funds? No. Was it used to dump premine? No.
In fact, that these answers are "no" is evidence that those who have damaged John Connor's trust rating should themselves lose trust as it is clear these individuals have damaged his rating for their own selfish financial reasons. There can be no other explanation.
There are many, many examples in history of capable (sometimes extraordinarily capable) people who nevertheless engaged in plagiarism. In fact they have to capable for their claims of authorship to be credible in the first place. That doesn't make those claims true, nor their work legitimate.
You left out the world's most famous plagiarist of all:
http://www.amazon.com/Albert-Einstein-The-Incorrigible-Plagiarist/dp/0971962987
"The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert? A scholarly documentation of Albert Einstein's plagiarism of the theory of relativity, "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist" discloses Einstein's method for manipulating credit for the work of his contemporaries, reprints the prior works he parroted, and demonstrates through formal logical argument that Albert Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he drew without prior knowledge of the works he copied, but failed to reference."
Maybe John doesn't have to give bitcoin code acknowledgement because he is Satoshi. Or if not, then Satoshi can ask John and he would comply.
At least one of the cited examples of plagiarism was not written by (someone believed by anyone to be) satoshi. In fact the various examples were almost certainly written by different people.
Okay you can make various increasingly contrived stories about how satoshi, the various authors of the various pieces of code, and john are all actually the same person but at some point Occam's Razor comes into play and you just have to conclude that john is more likely a liar and a plagiarist who wanted to pump his coin (and maybe his ego) on the basis of bogus claims of having written all the code himself.
I don't know why people find this so hard to believe, other than perhaps Upton Sinclair's famous explanation. There are many, many examples in history of capable (sometimes extraordinarily capable) people who nevertheless engaged in plagiarism. In fact they have to capable for their claims of authorship to be credible in the first place. That doesn't make those claims true, nor their work legitimate.
I still dont get it. Why are you so angry about Vanillacoin?
I'm not.
There are many places where Vanillacoin copied Bitcoin code. I have pointed out a good example previously, it won't be hard to find dozens more.
There's nothing wrong with copying and modifying the Bitcoin code, the MIT license allows you to do with it what you like, it just ask you not to be a scumbag and remove attribution and pretend you wrote the code in the first instance.
There's nothing wrong with copying and modifying the Bitcoin code, the MIT license allows you to do with it what you like, it just ask you not to be a scumbag and remove attribution and pretend you wrote the code in the first instance.
Maybe John doesn't have to give bitcoin code acknowledgement because he is Satoshi. Or if not, then Satoshi can ask John and he would comply.
At least one of the cited examples of plagiarism was not written by (someone believed by anyone to be) satoshi. In fact the various examples were almost certainly written by different people.
Okay you can make various increasingly contrived stories about how satoshi, the various authors of the various pieces of code, and john are all actually the same person but at some point Occam's Razor comes into play and you just have to conclude that john is more likely a liar and a plagiarist who wanted to pump his coin (and maybe his ego) on the basis of bogus claims of having written all the code himself.
I don't know why people find this so hard to believe, other than perhaps Upton Sinclair's famous explanation. There are many, many examples in history of capable (sometimes extraordinarily capable) people who nevertheless engaged in plagiarism. In fact they have to capable for their claims of authorship to be credible in the first place. That doesn't make those claims true, nor their work legitimate.
I still dont get it. Why are you so angry about Vanillacoin? Even, if you found some similarities in the code with BTC (what is it? a few lines, some 1%, or less?) Some common functions, whitch doesnt need to be rewritten. And are used - who knows since when. (you are reinventing the wheel here?)
Do you credit Dennis MacAlistair Ritchie for every if/else of your c code?
You dont see a big picture here: Vanillacoin is the most inovative coin in many aspects. Even if it has only decentralized ZeroTime
transactions with no posibility to double spend! You can spend, and respend your VNL in a few seconds. Nocoin-decentralized achieve this.
Also, Vanillacoin can support three times the transaction volume that Bitcoin can. (Yes, I copied this sentence from https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/164/how-will-the-vnl-blockchain-scale
Are you going to scream about it in every post you are going to make, I didnt credited John-Connor - that I used his sentence?)
Maybe John doesn't have to give bitcoin code acknowledgement because he is Satoshi. Or if not, then Satoshi can ask John and he would comply.
At least one of the cited examples of plagiarism was not written by (someone believed by anyone to be) satoshi. In fact the various examples were almost certainly written by different people.
Okay you can make various increasingly contrived stories about how satoshi, the various authors of the various pieces of code, and john are all actually the same person but at some point Occam's Razor comes into play and you just have to conclude that john is more likely a liar and a plagiarist who wanted to pump his coin (and maybe his ego) on the basis of bogus claims of having written all the code himself.
I don't know why people find this so hard to believe, other than perhaps Upton Sinclair's famous explanation. There are many, many examples in history of capable (sometimes extraordinarily capable) people who nevertheless engaged in plagiarism. In fact they have to capable for their claims of authorship to be credible in the first place. That doesn't make those claims true, nor their work legitimate.
Maybe John doesn't have to give bitcoin code acknowledgement because he is Satoshi. Or if not, then Satoshi can ask John and he would comply.
what I do have a problem with is the way you (Icebreaker) go out of your way to scream Scam about almost everything
Vanilla (stolen Bitcoin code and the theiving core dev would rather deflect than 'fess up? NO THX).
i reported a rob case to police bc i saw my neighbor's door wide open this morning.
what I do have a problem with is the way you (Icebreaker) go out of your way to scream Scam about almost everything
I don't "scream Scam about almost everything." Please #endthedrama
My screaming Scam has been limited to DiamondCoin (lol wat an obvious scam!), Darkcoin/Dash (an epic shit show from its genesis block onwards), Nautilus (Aurora airdop + Paycoin "Wall Street" backing, what could go wrong?), and Vanilla (stolen Bitcoin code and the theiving core dev would rather deflect than 'fess up? NO THX). Oh, and of course Neucoin/Paycoin (lol, just lol). Plus Bouldercoin, but that hardly counts as it went nowhere fast.
That's ~8 out of about 800+ coins which fail to pass my shitcoin filter (innovative, 100% FOSS/POW, no pre/insta/oops mine, etc).
If you feel the need to greatly exaggerate in order to play the victim and make your point, it's probably because your point would fail based on plain (IE not exaggerated) facts.
If you would keep your own coin honest (by getting credit where due for reused code), we wouldn't have to.
What people really need to know is John-Connor is not a kid in his basement copying code to make a shit clone.
He is an experienced coder and project leader that has been involved in very successful P2P and crypto coin projects.
He also HAS attorneys which he consults with regularly about his coin and business. I am sure his attorneys agreed
with him on not attributing bitcoin or he would. This guy is a professional, you can troll him, but it won't matter.
He is an experienced coder and project leader that has been involved in very successful P2P and crypto coin projects.
He also HAS attorneys which he consults with regularly about his coin and business. I am sure his attorneys agreed
with him on not attributing bitcoin or he would. This guy is a professional, you can troll him, but it won't matter.
Why a moderator would delete my post i have all the rights to anser and its not even off topic.
Is this a gimmick icebreaker aka many accounts has a moderator account?
Is this a gimmick icebreaker aka many accounts has a moderator account?
Quote
Quote
My neighbor has bicycle with two wheels I think I sue them because mine has two wheels.
Quote
My neighbor has bicycle with two wheels I think I sue them because mine has two wheels.
ROFL,
fucking priceless
My neighbor has sedan with 4 wheels I think I sue them because my bicycle has 2 wheels and he steals my 2 wheels idea twice.
hmm
Guys, are you sure you are the ones who need to sue your neighbours?
I think someone from bronz age should do that.
Also someone should call cave man regarding use of fire.
Quote
My neighbor has bicycle with two wheels I think I sue them because mine has two wheels.
ROFL,
fucking priceless
My neighbor has sedan with 4 wheels I think I sue them because my bicycle has 2 wheels and he steals my 2 wheels idea twice.
Bump your topic once every 24 hours
Smooth and Icebreaker want to play merry go round repeating the same thing over and over
Smooth and I are just messengers, please stop shooting at us.
Your issue is really with gmaxwell and gjhiggins, the people who demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that VNL contains, in violation of applicable licenses (and common courtesy/standards of decency+honesty), unattributed BTC code.
I'm also responding to risible code-theft-rationalizing nonsense like 'VNL's code theft is OK, Because Bitcoin Copied Hashcash.'
Why do you desire that such specious opinions go unchallenged?
I have no problem with you challenging John-Conner over whether or not he should aknowledge Bitcoin
what I do have a problem with is the way you (Icebreaker) go out of your way to scream Scam about almost everything. As well as your perpetual desire to make sure that you bump anything good happenning with the VNL project out of the way so you can point your finger yelling scam again.... I mean I bet you yourself havent even stuck the two together and really looked at them.
At least Smooth has the decency to aknowledge Johns skillset with coding before reposting his opinions.
you have shown your opinion enough times now, we have all read it, John has shown some evidence to refute it, while showing the rest in private because he doesnt care what you think..
anyways how about this,
I will agree with you in this, mostly because I respect what has been done in bitcoin
John should have aknowledged the bitcoincode is some way. even if he has the legal rights to the code you are discussing.
Think on this though, John has a better understanding of the legal rights of his code than either of you.
and, if there was an entity that could legally take John to task over this, it already would have because all accusations are 9 months old already.
Seeing as there is no desire by either party to make this a legal issue, and that the only people who seem to have really taken notice have a history of trolling projects to derail them, seemingly because that is how they find satisfaction in life (being so called messangers). I believe your argument is completely null and void.
if you want to take this up further, make it a legal issue. contact someone who cares, and stop parading around like you know all the ins and outs of what and who own the rights to every bit of code written in Bitcoin.
now let me repost my front page to stop all this derailment.
why you should really consider VNL.
September 24, 2015, 06:45:29 AM
Reply with quote Edit message Delete message #1
Prenote: later in this thread certain things come to light, all these misunderstandings are nothing more than FUD and misunderstandings.
There has been a lot of discussion about VNL and John-Conner Lately, most of it surrounding his lack of aknowledgement of towards his deciphering of bitcoin code.
all this discussion has been a distraction.
I will agree with the distraction in this way, John-Conner probably should have made some sort of aknowledgement about the fact that he used the Bitcoin/Peercoin code to rewrite his own version of what cryptocurrency should be. I will disagree with it this way, there is no legal body that can take John to task for doing this. John did rewrite it in entirety this is not a Fork, or a clone, and although similar it is not the same. half of the people fighting John support coins that are nothing more than Forks of other project, and I will take a rewrite that allows growth and understanding into development over a simple fork anyday.
but lets face it all this argument is nothing more than a distraction.
John did not copy the code in order to make another crap shit scam forked project.
What he did is take an outdated system, and completely retype it so that it could do what modern cryptocoins need to do.
What is left of the old code is the bread and butter of how addresses work, but what he added to it is nothing short of miraculous.
He has made a project that allows us to trade coins instantly.
Hell after that there are a bunch of other changes to the code that make all the flaws of the bitcoin protocal obsolete.
I actually dont care if you want to join the project, I am still accumulating, but dont be so easilly distracted as to rule VNL out.
everything you want in a cryptoproject is here, is you want to learn the truth just head to https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#Vanillacoin
there are so many technically minded helpful people here that it will blow your mind.
I have been around a long time, and have been through almost every major breakthrough project, as well as some scams, and I have never seen a more open and resourcefull team of crypto experts!!!
In the end its your decision, but if there is one project out there that can surpass bitcoin on its merits as a currency alone it is VNL.
Smooth and Icebreaker want to play merry go round repeating the same thing over and over
Smooth and I are just messengers, please stop shooting at us.
Your issue is really with gmaxwell and gjhiggins, the people who demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that VNL contains, in violation of applicable licenses (and common courtesy/standards of decency+honesty), unattributed BTC code.
I'm also responding to risible code-theft-rationalizing nonsense like 'VNL's code theft is OK, Because Bitcoin Copied Hashcash.'
Why do you desire that such specious opinions go unchallenged?
Isn't this kind of pointless? Bitcoin copied hashcash. Then bitcoin dev Satoshi Nakamoto decided he wanted to be anon forever. So like the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, Satoshi Nakamoto has no legal entity and is no different than Santa Claus. Smooth and Icebreaker, drop this silly arguement, and I am sure that if Satoshi came forth and asked John to acknowledge Bitcoin, he would, or he would ask Satoshi why he copied him.
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
the argument is getting to lets agree to disagree stage
On a Different note, well actueally the note that started this thread
You should really consider VNL because, It has implemented Peer Mining aka collateral & incentive tax from miners to peers.
no reason to waste money on expensive minig equipment, just run a full working Node and you recieve the fruits of your labor
all that is required is https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vnl-incentivecollateral-rewards-for-superpeers-how-to-1190741
bump
because this thread is about why you should consider VNL not why Smooth and Icebreaker want to play merry go round repeating the same thing over and over, there are already 3 other topics revolved around that.
Isn't this kind of pointless? Bitcoin copied hashcash.
Bitcoin contains zero lines of unattributed hashcash code.
VNL contains multiple lines of unattributed Bitcoin code.
See the difference?
Isn't this kind of pointless? Bitcoin copied hashcash. Then bitcoin dev Satoshi Nakamoto decided he wanted to be anon forever. So like the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, Satoshi Nakamoto has no legal entity and is no different than Santa Claus. Smooth and Icebreaker, drop this silly arguement, and I am sure that if Satoshi came forth and asked John to acknowledge Bitcoin, he would, or he would ask Satoshi why he copied him.
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
the argument is getting to lets agree to disagree stage
On a Different note, well actueally the note that started this thread
You should really consider VNL because, It has implemented Peer Mining aka collateral & incentive tax from miners to peers.
no reason to waste money on expensive minig equipment, just run a full working Node and you recieve the fruits of your labor
all that is required is https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vnl-incentivecollateral-rewards-for-superpeers-how-to-1190741
Isn't this kind of pointless? Bitcoin copied hashcash. Then bitcoin dev Satoshi Nakamoto decided he wanted to be anon forever. So like the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny, Satoshi Nakamoto has no legal entity and is no different than Santa Claus. Smooth and Icebreaker, drop this silly arguement, and I am sure that if Satoshi came forth and asked John to acknowledge Bitcoin, he would, or he would ask Satoshi why he copied him.
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
P.S. Smooth and Icebreaker, are you in the top 50 VNL rich list yet?
Jump to: