John on sybil attacks regarding ZeroTime: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/193/john-connor-irc-quotesIt may be possible to do it on InstantX, but you won't do it here. Also please don't compare paid masternodes to random super peers. ZeroTime is fully decentralized. Please note that the full code is available on GitHub, before trying to act professional and pasting the same attack vector that 10 people did before you (and which obviously John knows about also), do a research. Audit the code and give out your official review. 07:59 <@john-connor-afk> Finny is a offline attack.
08:00 <@john-connor-afk> 6 full block confirmations
08:00 <@john-connor-afk> so at least 20 mins 3.33 x 6
08:02 <@john-connor-afk> finney only applies to PoW coins in reality when you can outhash the network
It would appear that he doesn't understand what a Finney attack is: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4942/what-is-a-finney-attackhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#Finney_attackIt requires the attacker to be mining and controlling the content of his blocks; however, he can in theory do this with any hashrate, in particular significantly less than 50% of the network hashrate. 66% of our blocks are POS. Also these sources are...khm.. A stackexchange answer by noted Bitcoin expert Meni Rosenfeld and the Bitcoin Wiki itself which according to the page history was authored by sgornick( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2228) are bad sources? |
|
|
|
John on sybil attacks regarding ZeroTime: https://talk.vanillacoin.net/topic/193/john-connor-irc-quotesIt may be possible to do it on InstantX, but you won't do it here. Also please don't compare paid masternodes to random super peers. ZeroTime is fully decentralized. Please note that the full code is available on GitHub, before trying to act professional and pasting the same attack vector that 10 people did before you (and which obviously John knows about also), do a research. Audit the code and give out your official review. 07:59 <@john-connor-afk> Finny is a offline attack.
08:00 <@john-connor-afk> 6 full block confirmations
08:00 <@john-connor-afk> so at least 20 mins 3.33 x 6
08:02 <@john-connor-afk> finney only applies to PoW coins in reality when you can outhash the network
It would appear that he doesn't understand what a Finney attack is: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4942/what-is-a-finney-attackhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending#Finney_attack |
|
|
|
|
I assume the buying/volume is from people reading the chat in slack related to the new dev nearing completion on dbkeys' new algo.
Since people are wondering about why there's suddenly so much more buy support and volume, that's my best guess.
|
|
|
|
j777 is no different then blocknet, it's just jj777 is worst scammer. You're very wrong. Just look at everything he's done on Github. Not that lines of code means anything specific other than code existing, but how much code has he written thus far? 50k lines? 100k lines? I don't know the exact number, but it's very substantial. Actually what's desperately needed is more testers to test the beta version of InstantDEX that he's created, the decentralised exchange that's part of SuperNET. There are rewards for finding bugs too. I've been trying to recruit testers myself, so if anyone wants to see things first hand send me a message and I can assist. |
|
|
|
|
People should be moving all their volume to Poloniex now. It's the perfect time to consolidate all of the community's volume on a solid trusted exchange like Polo. They even have margin trading now too.
|
|
|
|
Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.
Yes, I believe they knew about a specific problem that if publicized could lead to a damaging attack on Bitcoin. They only let us know the full scope of the issue recently after the BIP 66 soft fork was completed as doing anything other than that would be foolish. Gmaxwell or anyone else who knows more specifics can correct me if I'm wrong. Notice how sipa says the discovered the issue in September 2014: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.htmlThe fact that some people are trying to pass this off as vindication for John Connor, or as some situation where he was the one who alerted everyone about a problem seems very deceptive. So let assume they knew about problem, so why didn’t they fix it on the first place? You believe what you think is right, I believe what I think is right. As this thread is about VNL and 'quiet words of warning' created by BTC core dev and not quiet words about BTC flaws created by john-connor I believe that this thread, as you say, actually is some kind of vindication. They did fix it with BIP 66. Notice how BIP 66 is dated Jan 10th. Bitcoin is not easy to update though and they set it to need 95% consensus to take effect which can take a while. There's no vindication, gmaxwell created this thread after seeing some fundamental misunderstandings from John Connor, as well as noticing that he had ripped off Bitcoin Core code without the proper attributions as per the MIT licence. More than enough reason to make a thread. If people still choose to ignore these red flags then there's nothing else he can do. But I for one appreciate the fact that he made the post, as people often get away with a lot of BS in the altcoin scene. |
|
|
|
Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.
Yes, I believe they knew about a specific problem that if publicized could lead to a damaging attack on Bitcoin. They only let us know the full scope of the issue recently after the BIP 66 soft fork was completed as doing anything other than that would be foolish. Gmaxwell or anyone else who knows more specifics can correct me if I'm wrong. Notice how sipa says the discovered the issue in September 2014: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.htmlThe fact that some people are trying to pass this off as vindication for John Connor, or as some situation where he was the one who alerted everyone about a problem seems very deceptive. |
|
|
|
Part of the reason that NXT assets don't attract a lot of volume at this point is because most people just buy them to hold and don't actively trade them.
Or there is just no demand. You can't have volume without demand. Now whether the lack of demand is a lack of true user interest or a lack of marketing is another debate. Well normally the business would sell of some percentage of equity for a certain price, or range of prices on the asset exchange. If they're able to raise the amount of funds they targeted then there was demand. Day to day trading between buyers and sellers of the asset who aren't the asset issuer are going to be a lot lower in volume than those fund raising periods. Obviously there are assets that don't attract any interest or demand, but then there are others who have no trouble raising the funds they need to. Day to day volume doesn't really tell the whole story about whether there is demand or not since the supply is directly controlled by the asset issuer. There might be a day in the future where the asset exchange is so popular that that day to day trading by the buyers and sellers of assets alone results in lots of volume, but that's also not the primary objective of what the asset exchange is meant to accomplish. I see it more as a way to build companies or other investment instruments through funding, as well as an easy way to provide dividends back to the holders. |
|
|
|
No serious business will EVER build on a platform controlled by ANONS from the Deep Web = NXT.
Plus NXT has no marketing strategy... "marketing" is constantly ridiculed in the NXT Forum...
And not only was SuperNET always a stupid idea... it simply has not been delivered.
Just playing devil's advocate, i've never used NXT or read much into it, I do know as a holder of NAUTcoin that NAUT is going to be changed over to NXT's monetary platform. With Brian Kelly's business and investment connections and a NAUT exchange opening soon in London with gold-reserves backing it and an airdrop into Greece, is it possible this could be something that will bring value and attention to NXT? I actually own a lot of NXT and was promoting it here for months... But NXT cannot succeed as a mainstream business platform. I invested in NXT... With the understanding that they were building "privacy" services for the Deep Net... You know, tap into the zillion dollar revenues from anon markets, torrents, VPNs, gambling, etc... I mean "grey area" stuff that's legal in Country A, but illegal in Country B. You need Balls of Steel to build shit like this... But the 10 people that control NXT are afraid to get caught jay-walking. So it's a non-starter. Check out today's 24 hour volume on NXT AE (it's been this low all summer)... And the Top 5 Assets are controlled by one person = "James Lee". So there are 2 problems right there: (a) zero liquidity (b) market manipulation  Pangea and MMNXT aren't run by James I don't think. Pangea is a SuperNET asset so SuperNET investors own a part of it, but it's a project by separate group of people. And I think MMNXT is run by Cassius, not sure on that though. And while SuperNET is reliant on James for his development skills, over time it should become less so. In the short term I don't see it as any kind of problem. Part of the reason that NXT assets don't attract a lot of volume at this point is because most people just buy them to hold and don't actively trade them. CoinShuffle is ready to be implemented in NXT now if it's not in already, so that's a pretty solid addition to privacy. CoinShuffle is supposed to be superior to CoinJoin from what I understand, and I don't know of another live implementation of it yet, so that's pretty good. Not to mention all the privacy features that people will be able to use via SuperNET, which will be substantial. So there's been a lot of good progress on the privacy front if that's a major concern of yours. |
|
|
|
Nxt is definitely not dying: 1. 1.6 is coming. Features for 1.7 are in progress as well 2. There was a very interesting discussion in the dev maillist recently(not to be disclosed atm) 3. Heavily updated Nxt fork, Burst, got turing-complete scripting(so-called Automated Transaction) so Ethereum tech many months before the Eth. So Nxt can get this on-board very quickly, but for now it's better to watch the experiment aside  I run a special program via the NXT API... That estimates the numbers of "serious users" of NXT... Roughly defined as the numbers of accounts with > $1,000 and > 10 tx in the prevoius X months. The NXT user base has been dead flat at about 200-300 users (maybe 500 if you stretch it)... So here you have a "growth business" that is dead flat for a year or more. It doesn't matter what metric you use: (a) users or (b) price = NXT is dead flat... This is in spite of adding many great new features... bolting on more features is a waste of time. NXT growth needs to be viral... it's dead flat. As for ETH, it's built from the ground up to be used by banks and corporations and little guys... It's a super-elegant design... much like the combination of DOS and Basic in 1984 that exploded... So it's no surprise that IBM has been building on ETH for many months. No serious business will EVER build on a platform controlled by ANONS from the Deep Web = NXT. Plus NXT has no marketing strategy... "marketing" is constantly ridiculed in the NXT Forum... And not only was SuperNET always a stupid idea... it simply has not been delivered. I use NXT and would consider myself a serious user, but your program wouldn't include me. But I use it more as a platform than as an investment. |
|
|
|
I too have looked at the the paper in more detail as it seems to be a hot topic and I concur TPTB's statements.
It's wide open to various gaming and DoS attack vectors as stated by him. Mainly due to there being no cost penalty at all for an attacker to perform these malicious activities.
Some kind of burn would be the simplest fix as suggested in this thread, with compensation of some kind for the nodes whose votes are accepted.
I would also say the same to you, you're a known person on this forum and have had your own project with focused discussion of your IRC so I ask of you really want to ask these questions to someone who can give a real answer. https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#VanillacoinIf you're reasonable I think he is willing to answer questions you have, it would be great for all of us, investors, Fudders, hyper to get to the bottom of this, cause a lot of accusations are being pointed at zero time and it's a massively important issue. Please take the time as many did with your project to ask questions on IRC. I think it's the fair thing to do. Attacks here at this point are more like slander than genuine efforts to ask the actual person you need to. you suffered the same in your project I should expect you understand how destructive that is. If he absolutely doesn't want to post here, why don't you ask him to write up a response and post it here on his behalf? You realize that all these people criticizing aren't just some random newbies but people who are all very knowledgeable about cryptocurrency in general and have been involved in it for many years now, right? This needs a debate, otherwise we will be bouncing around on this forever. And the only ones who can debate are the ones who 'think' they know the problems with zero time... This is almost the perfect forum for a debate though. IRC not so much imo. Is there any particular reason he won't post here? I'd really like to her his responses personally. You really think that for a debate a forum is just as well suited where you have to push reply to write up a comment and push post afterwards while refreshing the page waiting for an answer compared to a live chat client?  I do yeah. Mainly because you can write out long responses that address each point individually by quoting them. Also you have more time to consider your responses and it's not as emotional as an IRC chat can sometimes be. IRC is alright, but I prefer the long form style on a forum. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid you failed to actually understand the discussion. First, there has been no Bitcoin hard fork; the article you're linking to is simply flat out wrong. Secondly, John Connor didn't warn about anything there-- in fact, he copied the code he was complaining about into his own codebase, after reformatting and with incorrect attribution in violation of the very minimal software license, and then lied about the functionality being in his forware all along. (See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.msg10122209#msg10122209). I find it remarkable that people will continue to use software written by someone who has been caught outright lying about the content of the binaries they distribute. It reduces my faith in the potential for the success of cryptocurrency at all. What greater warning sign could you ask for? Hmm, hmm, You were discussing over a problem yet john-connor didnt warn you, khmm Yea, right and I heard that earth is actually flat. Makes you wonder how stuff member can go out with opinions and discuss on any topic here which strongly reduces my faith in service quality and competence of this forum. edit Oh, mr. Maxwell you even started this thread, isn't this some kind of conflict of interest? Does this forum have some or any kind of code of conduct? This has nothing at all to do with the forum. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. He's a mod in some of the forums here, but not this one. And you realize he's one of the five Bitcoin Core developers who have commit access on Bitcoin Core itself, right? |
|
|
|
I too have looked at the the paper in more detail as it seems to be a hot topic and I concur TPTB's statements.
It's wide open to various gaming and DoS attack vectors as stated by him. Mainly due to there being no cost penalty at all for an attacker to perform these malicious activities.
Some kind of burn would be the simplest fix as suggested in this thread, with compensation of some kind for the nodes whose votes are accepted.
I would also say the same to you, you're a known person on this forum and have had your own project with focused discussion of your IRC so I ask of you really want to ask these questions to someone who can give a real answer. https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#VanillacoinIf you're reasonable I think he is willing to answer questions you have, it would be great for all of us, investors, Fudders, hyper to get to the bottom of this, cause a lot of accusations are being pointed at zero time and it's a massively important issue. Please take the time as many did with your project to ask questions on IRC. I think it's the fair thing to do. Attacks here at this point are more like slander than genuine efforts to ask the actual person you need to. you suffered the same in your project I should expect you understand how destructive that is. If he absolutely doesn't want to post here, why don't you ask him to write up a response and post it here on his behalf? You realize that all these people criticizing aren't just some random newbies but people who are all very knowledgeable about cryptocurrency in general and have been involved in it for many years now, right? This needs a debate, otherwise we will be bouncing around on this forever. And the only ones who can debate are the ones who 'think' they know the problems with zero time... This is almost the perfect forum for a debate though. IRC not so much imo. Is there any particular reason he won't post here? I'd really like to her his responses personally. |
|
|
|
I too have looked at the the paper in more detail as it seems to be a hot topic and I concur TPTB's statements.
It's wide open to various gaming and DoS attack vectors as stated by him. Mainly due to there being no cost penalty at all for an attacker to perform these malicious activities.
Some kind of burn would be the simplest fix as suggested in this thread, with compensation of some kind for the nodes whose votes are accepted.
I would also say the same to you, you're a known person on this forum and have had your own project with focused discussion of your IRC so I ask of you really want to ask these questions to someone who can give a real answer. https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#VanillacoinIf you're reasonable I think he is willing to answer questions you have, it would be great for all of us, investors, Fudders, hyper to get to the bottom of this, cause a lot of accusations are being pointed at zero time and it's a massively important issue. Please take the time as many did with your project to ask questions on IRC. I think it's the fair thing to do. Attacks here at this point are more like slander than genuine efforts to ask the actual person you need to. you suffered the same in your project I should expect you understand how destructive that is. If he absolutely doesn't want to post here, why don't you ask him to write up a response and post it here on his behalf? You realize that all these people criticizing aren't just some random newbies but people who are all very knowledgeable about cryptocurrency in general and have been involved in it for many years now, right? |
|
|
|
You still don't seem to understand that the people capable of attacking it won't do it until there is enough value to extract out of attacking it. I already explained several times that $2100 in VNL is not a bounty because after one successfully attacks it, the VNL will very likely decline in value before the person gets paid the bounty and can convert it to BTC. And it is not high enough any way. It will require some resources, time, and skills to work out and launch such an attack. Personally I am not interested.
Sorry but I still don't get this argument. There are several companies that offer $1,000-$5,000 bug and exploit bounties for Bitcoin. However you are under the assumption any bug found in vanillacoin means the coin is permanently dead, which is like saying BTC is dead if I find an exploit. Which btw if someone DOES find a Bitcoin exploit, what incentive is there for them to come forward either when they can profit more of it then reporting it? Bitcoin doesn't make any exceptional claims that can't be proven by plain old math, networking, and computer science. And for example, say someone did find an exploit in Bitcoin where they could monopolize mining or something, then yeah Bitcoin probably would have a chance of dying. Also, there are lots of white hats who gladly report bugs that they could profit more from than what they'd get from the reward alone. |
|
|
|
|
Probably because there's actual demand for them since people need them to play on that site. I don't really follow clams at all or have any, but it's interesting to see a cryptocurrency being apparently successful in its specific niche.
|
|
|
|
...
VNC started getting some decent volume so it became another topic of discussion in this forum. If you look at this thread for example OP posed an interesting question and many people such as myself are curious as to what the answer is. It's not really a coincidence that threads that uncover things and put developer claims in to question are popular posts. The important thing in my opinion is just whether or not the truth comes out. I don't pay any attention to Dash at all, but I do know Bytecoin is a total scam, and now it seems like Vanillacoin has some serious issues with claims made by the dev. So I don't see anything wrong with someone posting in threads where there's probably some shady things happening. That's just what we're supposed to do as a community, try to separate the good from the bad. |
|
|
|
Why do you keep beating around this debunked myth? It does not cost nothing to produce a block. Wha t the fuck...
Who are you replying to here? Proof of stake in the PP/NVC fork is essentially different from NXT algo. It is not true that no resources are used. Everything is mixed up and confusing. Yes, I assume you're responding monsterer rather than OP then. |
|
|
|
Oh, he'll want to fix some of the inherited bugs
"built from scratch in it's entirety" Scammer: confirmed. Time for a 'Blowing the lid off Vanillacoin' thread?  Also, I just re-read the OP and gmaxwell mentioned it being run through an auto-formatter rather than actually refactored by hand, which seems like even more deliberate deception to me. Not sure if that part is true though. |
|
|
|
Why do you keep beating around this debunked myth? It does not cost nothing to produce a block. Wha t the fuck...
Who are you replying to here? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
