Bitcoin Forum

I'm thinking about investing in it, I bought a little but wondering on more.


My hypothesis is simple, it sends and confirms under a second, is decentralised and is anonomous. In the end that really what people want, ie send money instantly with no double spend, who wants to wait a few minutes to buy something?


Right or wrong?

Give me ten thousand reasons why it should be a top ten coin?

Sorry I assumed people wouldn't be pricks.

Actual intelligent points and no dick waving please...,I'm open to both sides of the argument.

People are worn out from there always being yet another new coin claiming to be the next best thing - which they rarely are (not saying this VNL is or isn't). Kind of like crying wolf enough of times and people won't even bother checking them out anymore.

Yeah I get that. But I'm saying with all honesty that I'm simply asking the question. At the moment I see a coin that is respendable in a second and is anonomous, I'm not arguing it's going to become the reserve currency of the world, simply that possibly it deserves to be in the top 10 marketcap of alts?


like I said if people can explain the flaws in my thinking, I'm actually willing to dump what I bought. I can't be more transparent than that honestly. Some of us aren't shrills or FUDers but people simply trying to work out what is the real good stuff and what is the garbage.

Is there actually anything that says how it works yet? Open source?

Oh, and the name...

so how about masternodes ? may be i will interesting to buy it if dev update it LOL  :D

Zero confirmation bitcoin transactions are perfectly safe to accept. Bitpay and coinbase already do this. There's no "waiting" for anything.

The awful name doesn't help either.

Well that's certainly not true. It depends on the use case and the transaction itself.

Bitpay and Coinbase accept the risk of 0-confirm transactions. This does *not* mean they're safe.

Let's be objective.

Your hypothesis is that Vanillacoin provides something people want and is therefore fulfilling a significant market need.

But the reality is telling us otherwise. There's not enough interest in the project for it to have hit the top ten. You could say it's an issue of marketing, but most people in the crypto realm who deal with alts check out MANY alts.

Now you can spend a lot of time doing marketing and outreach if you have some great reason to believe Vanillacoin is so great, but if we're gonna be empirical here it's your hypothesis that isn't in line with reality.

Hmm,
I would have to disagree.

With a price increase of 474% in 30 days (and as high as 790%) and tons of volume, seems there is plenty of market interest in the project propelling it to top 10.

Not saying it will happen, but at this rate it would be top 10 within 5-6 weeks.

As for the name, I find it no worse than DarkCoin or Dogecoin or Litecoin, which all seem childish. I love Monero, and name sounds like "Money", but also very foreign to American (English speaking?) ears. Dash, Ripple, Etherium, Stellar are cool names, but don't say "Currency" to me. BitShares is probably the best name in the top 20.

Vanilla coin is like Vanilla Visa (prepaid) sounding. After initial hesitation I now like it and wouldn't bother changing it.

I never understand why people are so happy to dump coins.  I like it because I get my low ball ofers filled, but they are basically throwing away money, and giving it to me for free.  So thanks I guess.

For VNL, you will never know until time passes.  But right now the price has dropped so it might not be a bad time to get some short term, but then again you jsut never know what will happen.

I've actually seen quite a lot of weird names for mainstream financial products, and you've got the whole history of tech companies with pretty silly names, Google, Apple, android names, lollipop, ice cream etc....

I personally neglected to look at Vanilla coin for a while due to its name though. In many ways it provides an opportunity cause the silly name masks a serious innovation in tech and practical use. Vanilla works for me now cause vanilla makes me think of purity and simplicity, probably from plain vanilla yogurt...that's just me.


In the end a name can be changed....I hate the idea any coin does well or fails due to a name...kind of a retarded reflection on us as a community.

The original name was going to be 'LibCoin' but John found that it was taken already.  The decision to call it Vanillacoin was made to keep it in line with the reasoning to call it lib...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_software

may be if it was named Cookies N' Cream I would buy some  :D

Oh it is dickhead UnusualFacts making funny comments. Same guy who offered to bet 30btc in the CIRC thread and then suddenly would not own his words after two or three guys called his bluff with escrow no less.

Your nick has dogshit smeared all over it. Better start new and don't be such an asshole this time around.

Pretty simple: lack of real demand. There are plenty of established coins with the same or similar features, and with lot more marketing. BTW functionality sometimes means nothing. Take a look at Qora or NXT and then take an other look at the big bunch of copy-paste-no invention shitcoins with far better exchange rates.

Well, for one the crypto community as a whole is quite small. Secondly, most of the crypto community has written off most alts and/or holding their bags of their favorite coin.

I personally find VNL incredibility impressive thus far. Multi-Tier Architecture and Zerotime is a recipe for success. Until recently, like you (nextgencoin), I have been raving since learning about it. It's a hidden gem.

Because there are at least 10 altcoins that are better than it?

if it is any good (which i doubt), its hidden in amongst 1001 shitcoins so few would find it anyways. tbh the name is so lame most would pass it over.

satoshi also assumed price will consistently remain above cost of production, which once a its listed on traded markets will not always be the case (admittedly something satoshi did add is a passing disclaimer), if such occured for an extended period guess what; "He expects these peers to behave a certain optimum way when they are not being paid to do so"  :-*

I'm in the latter category. To be honest, I fell into my rut because it's way too time-consuming to do even rudimentary due diligence on the different streams in the altcoin river. In a rushing-river environment, it makes practical sense to stick with the few coins you know and like.

Moving into a nice streambed rut also dovetails well with the gains from specialization (http://economicsonlinetutor.com/specialization.html). :)

To those wondering if double spend is possible, a bounty is available. Could probably be paid in BTC if preferred.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148745.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148745.0)

Is the OP involved in Vanilla coin in anyway?

vanilla is good
the big 5 at poloniex :)

My reply there, please go there for further discussion and their rebuttal:

I stated my position in the OP, can't you read?

Name them?

As far as I know Dash is slower but more importantly isn't fully centralised. Give me one coin that moves coins with confirmations quicker and is anonymous and then your point is sound.


Bear in mind this isn't a feature thing where new coded coins say oh we can do comic trilateral node configurations with an inbuilt game and selfie function. The simple fact is people need to send money instantly, safely and anonymously.....this coin as far as I can see can't be bet in that, right? So the natural progression is to use the fastest that works right? I mean who wants to use 3G when there is 5G?


I have too much respect for Bitcoin and its creator to suggest it could take over Bitcoin but think like this, once masses find out about crypto will they want to send money in a second or a few minutes or even more? A few minutes to buy a latte in starbucks will get old pretty soon. lol Vanilla coin could become the little brother of Bitcoin, for fast payments while Bitcoin is the older more established brother for slow moving funds.

Instant sending needs to be done. I think I know how to do it. I don't think VanillaCoin's method is sound per my post in the other thread. Let's see what John Conner has to say about it.

As I wrote before, the DarkPP is apparently vaporware. Afaics, nothing has been revealed about anonymity. I've (as AnonyMint) have been working on anonymity for 2 years. I doubt very much he has the innovations on anonymity that I have.

Thats purely speculation until John has answered.

Believing the anonymity is sound is pure speculation until John has answered. Glass half full? Half empty? Hard to tell when it's in a vault, yes?

I believe he is referring to my post about the zerotime algorithm being unsound. I'd rather argue that the argument that the algorithm could work is speculation. The argument against it being sound appears to be much more based in research and prior art analysis. But yes, let's wait for him to respond. Maybe I've totally overlooked something. But I strongly doubt it. I am reasonably expert in this field.

Edit: why i am doing this? Because someone asked me in a PM for my opinion. And also because I don't want to see people throwing more good money down rat holes. Shitcoin shit needs to be called out.

Thank you for your contribution! Your presence is always welcomed. Always been a fan of your insight and skills.

I'll readily admit I am wrong if John Conner is able to show some details and convincing proof against Sybil attacks on the global lock consensus.

It's your duty to prove it not mine. There is a large bounty on the public test network to produce and re-produce a double-spend scenario so if you can perform a Sybil Attack then you should be able to collect the reward. If you CANNOT DO IT then I will gladly accept your apology. I'm 100% confident you cannot do it. That said I won't be checking this thread again. 8)

https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty (https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/190/zerotime-double-spend-bounty)

Thank you for your support.

Because like most coins it has no use except to exchange with btc.

Bullshit.

I am calling scam on this coin now:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148745.msg12111401#msg12111401

Inability to prove something on a controlled testnet is not the same as sustaining Byzantine tolerance on the open internet. Besides, no one has time to go diving into your code to prove that. $2100 bounty can't buy more than a couple of days of my time. And I can't even be sure you haven't controlled something on the testnet that prevents proving the point, until I dig in and then I might lose the time. Sorry. I am working on something now that is worth $millions or more, so why would I stop to mess around in your testnet. Sorry!

You have an obligation to show in your white paper how the Byzantine fault tolerance is achieved.

Operation shit coin clean out in underway. No more bullshitters will be allowed.

Edit: also with the bountry denominated in VNL, then by the time it is paid out, it will probably worth 0. Because you will have already proved that the coin is broken.

I remember the Monero devs asking duffscammer to prove mathematically darkcoin/dash is sound enough and the shills replied similarly, you prove it lolz

Dev unable to provide proofs - SCAM

If something cannot be done now does not mean it cannot be done in the future with the required resources and enough incentive.

Its like saying there is god but i cant prove it. Rather you should prove that he doesnt exist

They should at least show how they achieve Byzantine fault tolerance, so that people can evaluate. All we have for now are some general statements about using Virtual synchrony, but those methods are known to not be Byzantine fault tolerant.

What appears to be the case here is some guy with some P2P programming experience decided he knows something about areas outside his area of knowledge, but so far hasn't shown sufficient documentation of his expertise in the form of a detailed and well developed white paper. The cart shouldn't come before the horse, unless it is tolerated by n00bs and fanboiz.

I (as AnonyMint) actually showed that Evan (duf) was likely doing a scam or at least that his technology wasn't sound, but I didn't make my criticism overt. I didn't know anything about the alleged premine and I have never involved myself in that issue. I made it appear I was helping him, and in fact I did try to help him. But I was simultaneously pointing out that his master node concept was unsound in terms of sybil attacks (but I didn't make it too obvious and I allowed a lot of n00bs and fanboiz to pump it up). I offered him the best suggestions I could for making it the least unsound. Since then CoinShuffle has improved upon CoinJoin and Dash should be using that instead. But still it will never be able to overcome some problems inherent in off chain anonymity. On chain anonymity will be superior for nearly all use cases. The reasons will be explained in detail at the opportune time.

At least with DarkCoin (Dash), it was offering some privacy. So I felt it wasn't my place to tell n00bs and fanboiz to choose between CoinJoin and Cryptonote. I figured let them learn over time.

I do not own any XMR. But you can see I have said it is the best on chain anonymity that I am aware of for the moment (except my research which is coming which is better than Monero).

But in the case of this VanillaCoin, it is claiming something which I can't even see it does at all. I don't see any documentation of the claimed zerotime Byzantine fault tolerance.

I will not go against a coin illogically. If John Conner shows the necessary explanations and technicals, then I will rescind.

We've (the Bitcoin community) burned up a lot of the capital that should instead be reserved for funding genuine new technology that could really improve the world. We can't allow charlatans to continue to extract this capital from our base of users because we need that capital to do important work.

Actually both of you are wrong on this.
If TPTB_need_war thinks that there is a bug, he should be able to demonstrate that. If john-connor believes that's not true, he should give a detailed technical explanation about why TPTB_need_war is wrong. ...and so on.

These "There's a bug you scammer!" "No, I don't think so. Mkay?" style discussions doesn't make too much sense.

It is not a bug. It is complete lack of Byzantine fault tolerance. A bug is an implementation error. This is a holistic design error. There is no design. Virtual synchrony is his claimed method. Virtual synchrony does not provide Byzantine fault tolerance.

What more is there for me prove? You are asking me to prove a dog isn't a cat. Isn't it obvious a dog is not a cat.

first it's my first time hearing about Vanilla coin maybe this is reason lake of advertising
second there is lots of altcoin ,people use it ,already top ten coin & give them what they need

I am not sure what is vanilla coin features?
I think it is hyped and will go back to below 30k soon.

How about we stop with the dick measuring contest bullshit and try and double spend it, come back with proof and you get not just the $$$ but also kudos and respect

If zero-time is as advertised, then why is there still POW and POS on top of this? Surely, such a strong and fool proof consensus would be able to operate without the need for two other different consensus mechanisms?

You are right, virtual synchrony does not provide Byzantine agreements, indeed. The white paper and the explanations in the Vanilla coin topics are also a bit sketchy without too many details. Some more details about the locking mechanism would be nice.

I guess the American court system is a scam too because it's on the burden of the accuser to prove the claim!

Why would I waste my time with $2100 (denominted in VNL which means it would shrink towards $0 before the bounty would be received) when I have this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12118600#msg12118600

People who can't think deserve to lose their money.

That is the last I will say on this matter. It is up you the reader to be a fool or not.

so you're giving up, well thanks for coming

So personal bias is a factor in your dismissal?

Noted and good luck with your ventures...

Are you an idiot? I think so.

You deserve your fate, because you can't understand basic computer science.

We've already told you that John Conner can not possibly achieve what he claims, because there is no way for a P2P network game theory to converge on consensus. Even Wikipedia documents that fact about virtual synchrony does not provide Byzantine consensus.

Go ahead and masturbate yourself idiot. Smart money will go where the truth is.

I try to help you understand then you try to turn it into me needing to play politics. I don't need to play politics. I can kick ass with my actual abilities, which very few people can do.

I am tired of this political bullshit. You will learn the hard way.

I regret now informing the community about VNL. Just let the idiots lose their money.

Personal bias is not a factor in his dismissal of the technology. He gave his opinion based on precise and valid technical arguments, which can be evaluated on their own merit.

What is a factor in his unwillingness to do pentesting (if the current testnet even counts as valid pentesting) for VNL is the fact that $2100 is not even close to enough to pay for his time, much less acquiring other resources for an attack.

Increase the bounty a lot and (again assuming the testnet is a valid test) you may have qualified people interested. You should also of course not be paying such a bounty in VNL, as was pointed out earlier on this thread. Otherwise it is little more than cheap trash talk, which only makes the coin look even more like a scam.

People do not understand that the goal here is not to make something it secure against attackers with <$2100 of resources. It is to make something secure against attackers with large to enormous resources, in the case where the coin is highly successful (which is the only case that really matters). At least that should be the goal. If you are instead trying to orchestrate a pump-and-dump (even a relatively slow and elaborate one, where perhaps you feel even if you aren't the ringleader, you can ride his coattails and dump at a profit to a greater fool), then your goals are quite different.

Dude, go take some medication and lie down, the white paper which I expect covers all your questions is coming out in a short time.

Not being out and open to scrutiny and peer review before launch is yet another red flag.

The thread subject asks the question why it isn't a top ten coin. One reason is the amount of shady stuff that is going on here. That is not "Proof of Scam" but it is enough to keep smart investors away.

That's also not to say there aren't any scam coins in the top ten, because there certainly are.

i don't see anything especial about Vanilla coin
correct me if i am wrong

Wow! You start an Ethereum thread filled with BS, and when I replied to your ignorant analysis, you start throwing rocks like a spoiled child. Now AnonyMint, Paul (monsterer), and smooth who are more knowledgeable than 99.99% of you turds, tells you there are red flags...  you resort once again by ACTING LIKE A CHILD?

You are officially a joke! Well done! Take a bow IDIOT!

I tentatively disagree and at the risk of garnering his wrath further I would like to present the context for my snide comment (yes, it was kind of snide and if I could take it back I would.  I don't understand computer science like he does but I am also not illiterate.)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg12118600#msg12118600

He is claiming to doom Monero and Bitcoin and if that is the case (he is dotting his eyes in a proper manner so props) than there is a personal bias - meaning I don't blame him for not wanting to spend his time with an (apparently) underwhelming bounty (how does one simulate a global context?). So I acquiesce to an extent...it was a snide comment but based on his own posts and my own bias.  Fair enough.  I admit to being aware of the issues presented but not versed enough to actually debate it...

I understand that this post is probably going to be crunched and so be it...I have a job and am not only working with PhD's in my respective field (cognitive neuropsychology; cue laughter, it is fine) but think that this is more of a hobby than my livelihood.  That said, we do pick up our interests and focuses as we do...especially in a diluted communicative base that is this forum.


Again, not sure how to simulate a global interest for a bounty to be large enough. 


My goals are very different and they roughly mesh with crypto currencies.  More social than economic and I won't suffer a rats cheese if BTC fails..or any other crypto.  I find it interesting though...

Which leads me to a short response to 'The Powers That Be Need War'...Of course they do.  That's the point.  Fuck it up if you can.

I'm going back to topics I know more about...

Enough proof to buy a lot of it right now. Thanks.

If I produce a physical safe which I claim is unbreakable, but it appears to be made from paper, would you not want proof from me in advance that it is in fact, actually unbreakable before you buy it, and then store your valuables in it?

I hope we will never hear these crippled EGO's again when the whitepaper gets released. The proof is in the pudding.

~ An idea not coupled with action will never get any bigger than the brain cell it occupied.

What indication is there that VNL is made out of paper though? One can see with your own eyes that coins send and confirm almost instantly on the blockchain. It fulfills its main purpose for existing from the outset. It's like me going out and picking out a safe, closing it, locking it, and checking to see if the door opens when I pull it. If it doesn't open when I pull with all my strength or pop open immediately when I take a hammer to it, that is good enough proof it "works" as advertised.

Now whether there is a security hole in the software for the digital safe lock that is a wholly different issue. What product owner is going to say, "oh i'm sorry, my creation is not secure, you better not buy it". That is silly, for one thing they are inherently biased and will be protective of their own creation or they may just totally have no clue there is a problem and may believe after their own testing it is secure. Not every car maker that gets recalled rolls out automobiles knowing there are problems for instance. Hence that is why it is up to a neutral 3rd party to prove their claims otherwise and we have things like consumer reports or the FDA to regulate or warn about unscrupulous or mistaken claims.

Btw Bitcoin has exploits and bugs too, don't kid yourself, it doesn't mean the whole software is a fraud or insecure. Things can be fixed and risks mitigated. This is why there is a term in retail called breakage, shit happens and you have to take that into account as a cost expense of doing business. Unfortunately there are alot of Walter Whites around here expecting 99.999% perfection, it just doesn't exist anywhere.
 

The key indication is that zerotime uses an algorithm which is known to be unsafe in the face of the byzantine generals problem.

The analogy would be that in the case of the safe made of paper, the substance 'paper' is unknown to the community at large; on the one hand you have the maker of the safe claiming that 'paper' is unbreakable, and on the other hand you have a few members of the community who know the failure modes of this new substance and would like evidence from the manufacturer that he has overcome these limitations.

One of main question is - how the crypto coin is implemented in various sites, for example in gambling sites etc.  ;) Then you can understand the whole altcoin market  :D

Damn Jezus, bunch of kids....break the code and proof that the dev talks crap, but in the mean time he showed us that it works. He gives everyone the opportunity to show otherwise, but instead of that i only see words and no action.

He fix the flaws many crypto are facing and all others are doing right now is crying for what he has done. Stop typing and get the bounty. Not for the money, but to shut Johns "big mouth". But strangely enough nobody succeeds in this for now. How come? 

He showed us his show, what do you guys have to offer? Bunch of words?

The dev has told too many double-truths, first about angel investors that don't actually exist and then he released false source code to github... plus most of the Vanillacoin topic is just empty shill comments.
I've done blockchain analysis on my own and found some disturbing irregularities in the blocks that were created in January when the dev was turning PoW on and off again and a select few were doing the mining.  On some days a ridiculous number of blocks were generated which went right into a select few people's pockets: 
 
https://i.imgur.com/fUOKgI5.png  
https://i.imgur.com/q1S0fAs.png
  
Oh, and if you publicly criticize VanillaCoin you can expect some threatening messages in your inbox from the Vanilla Teamsters.  
  
I was actually considering investing in VNL at a certain point but did my due dilligence and decided something definitely smells wrong about it.  
  
I even asked /r/math what they thought and everyone seemed very wary of zerotime claims, basically saying that it creates an unsustaininable promise and that the released white papers are full of empty hype and promises.  
  
https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/3fv115/theres_a_new_cryptocurrency_that_claims_to_be/  
  
New cryptocurrencies need to be transparent, honest, and be able to stand up to the most intense scrutiny.... sadly I have to say that VNL does not.  And, for those of you wondering, neither does Ethereum so stay away from that too.

Because Chocolate coin will come and make Vanilla coin look like an obsolete plain old Vanilla shit coin

I replied to the new zerotime white paper:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1152106.msg12134345#msg12134345

OK, now please convert me to Monero because I have problems believing in it also. PMs welcome.

A "logical reason" would be people wanting to stay the hell away from an anonymous developer who's few public actions include ripping off Bitcoin's source code, bugs and all, stripping off the attributions, reformatting it, and passing it off as "built entirely from scratch".

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151160.msg12128046#msg12128046

Wake up people. It's way too easy for scumbags to operate and to scam in this environment, where people throw money at anything that claims to solve the world with no due diligence. Be more discriminating.

The only thing ppl waking up to is your trolling.. look at the numbers on the poll :)

Your efforts are starting to look depressing, I stopped commenting in your shitcoins thread after 24 hours because trolling is just not for me, but it seems you can cope with being a troll.

Just look at the code, and stop focusing on the personalities.

If you've done that you will see that what I wrote is correct.

If you don't, then your comments are pointless.

If I wanted to, I could create sock puppets and post the same thing. Since I don't, the cost of that is trolls like you turning every substantive point I make (such as above) into an opportunity for a personal attack.

Or, perhaps, you were trolling and I am not.

Look at the code.

You gave John a negative trust rating on BCT, and I quote: "at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code"

You know that Bitcoin had no POS code in it to begin with? You know that it's not a lightly edited code to begin with? You can call it whatever you want, but this negative trust rating is complete trolling.

There is a link to a reference there. The reference cites specific sections of code, which are, at best, lightly edited (but mostly just reformatted).

I never claimed, nor do I claim that the entirety of VNL is copied from Bitcoin or Peercoin or anywhere else, but portions of it certainly are, and are both missing the required (and ethical) attributions and also is misrepresented as "built from scratch in it's entirety" (emphasis added here).

If after reading this you believe my trust is inaccurate in some specific factual way let me know and I will consider modifying it. Indeed I will modify it if you make valid points and I find them credible.

It is not trolling, it is factual, and it is relevant.

"at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code"

This was your comment with the negative trust rating. Read it again. Stop fabricating explanations on your trolling when someone points it out.

I modified the negative trust rating to clarify that significant portions of the code are ripped off from Bitcoin, and not the whole thing. It still points to the reference page where additional supporting details and evidence are posted.

Thank you for pointing how the manner in which it was previously (though unintentionally) unclear.

So now that you have seen the huge bias that you have versus the project, read the whole trust rating again and delete it.

It is correct and accurate as far as I know at this point.

If you have contradictory information on the matter of the ripped-off Bitcoin code, please provide it.

As you have seen I'm willing to revise anything that is unclear or inaccurate.

What difference does it make if he is biased if he is correct? If I tell you your house is on fire, are you going to check or ponder about my motives for telling you (especially if you see smoke pluming from the street you live on)?