If people make serious accusations that the code has been copied in part from VNL...
I'll alert smooth so he can come here and battle you on that issue. He was the one who pushed that recently not me. Gregory Maxwell apparently first discovered it in January. Take it to JC thread, why are you telling me, I'm not an expert. Seems like you don't want to ask someone who will make you look stupid. |
|
|
|
your tech ripped apart among claims of plagiarism in this situation....Dude you discovered your ideas after you read his white paper and code....what hope do you have?
Haha, my tech is so far removed from his. You are digging your grave. Just keep posting. Again sorry you got holding a bag of worthless coins. Charge it to experience. Dude FUD doesn't work like facts, you of all people should know that. If people make serious accusations that the code has been copied in part from VNL......the. For 99% of people it's a clone, whether it's true or not. That's how VNL has been attacked and it's shows how easy it is to attack a great project. Like I will say one last time, post on JC personal thread or forget you ever made a coin.......you will always be a cloner, nothing more otherwise. Honestly if you really had something great you wouldn't talk the way you do.....you're low level clearly. |
|
|
|
I honestly think the Bitcoin casual community has plenty of experts... Yet you say all of them are FUD. And you say we have to leave here and go to IRC to get the anonymous, liar "john conner" on record here.   Losers just have it in their genes I guess. Dude you are going to get slaughtered on here.... You know JC has his own thread on here , right. Why don't you post in detail your points against VNL? |
|
|
|
But it's you who have criticised VNL in a public place, it is you that has spread FUD, it's is you who should be the man to go directly to the one you have decided to criticise. JC doesn't care what you think...
I'll be on you like a rash if you start advertising your tech, it's the least you deserve for your cowardice...
Loser. You will be a loser your entire life. Have fun attacking it. You'll be resoundingly ignored. I tried to help you, but you are determined to be duped. Go ahead. You'll get exactly what you deserve. Trust me if you thought JC had a rough ride with his no nonsense direct personality you haven't even tasted how bad it's gonna be for someone like you who has spent so much effort to FUD a project and is clearly not diplomatic.......You got a world of pain ahead of you. like I said you best bet is to look like a straight guy and go to JC. How do you expect not to have your tech ripped apart among claims of plagiarism in this situation....you are more of a wackjob than I thought if so. Dude you discovered your ideas after you read his white paper and code....what hope do you have? |
|
|
|
Stop telling me I need to chase the anonymous "john conner" around to his preferred hiding places, after he has already lied to the entire community and he produced a white paper that did not do what he claimed it would do. He can come here where we are. If not, then stop advertising here. Go advertise in IRC. Are you paying me to waste my time? I made a judgment that he is not worthy based on the above. It is up to him to repair his reputation here. He seems not to care. But it's you who have criticised VNL in a public place, it is you that has spread FUD, it's is you who should be the man to go directly to the one you have decided to criticise. JC doesn't care what you think, but owners of the coin are being damaged by your FUD. Your clearly a bullshitter. Even more hilarious that you say you solved double spend just after looking into VNL. I'll be on you like a rash if you start advertising your tech, it's the least you deserve for your cowardice. Your best option as is Fuseleers is to go and challenge JC otherwise don't even bother trying to plug your tech on this forum......you will be labelled as copiers of VNL ideas. It's in your interest to show in some detail you have a better solution directly to JC or you guys will always be second to solve something........no prizes for second. |
|
|
|
As the link to the deleted post above apparently reveals, IRC is not a permanent record. We communicate here in the public view where (normally) information doesn't disappear and is also available for all Bitcoin interested folks to view now and as an archive.
May I suggest irccloud.com, it keeps 3rd party logs quite nicely. Feel free to point me to a link of all his justifications against our claims of attacks. I will review if you do. I am not a dishonest person. If he teaches me something, I will admit it. I will not go searching for it, if you do not provide it. This forum is very convenient for me. Here's the thing, of people really cared for the answer they would go to IRC, spend all of 3 seconds to log in, doesnt even ask for a password and ask the damn question directly to JC. Until then you just look like you are full of shit. If you genuinely think you aren't then go ask and look like the smarter guy, it's not like you dont spend hours and hours on here so don't pull the I'm too busy line, as soon as I post you pop up, you must be on here around the clock. So anything you make will be tarnished by the fact you seem full of shit from the gecko. For your benefit AND if you are correct you better go question what is by your endeavour your major competitor you are happy to FUd but not actually question. |
|
|
|
You should start stealing coins then cause it's so easy, wow wow.  If we steal coins via double spending, then coins will be worthless because we will have proven the vulnerability and the last remaining bag holding fools will even be induced to sell. I am sorry you got caught holding the bag after "john conner" lied to you (also lied to everyone about his code being written from scratch when in fact he reused Bitcoin code and tried to obscure that he was doing so), but that is not our problem. Your incessant pumping of a shitcoin is not helping your reputation. I never pumped a coin in my life. I like to ask questions, discuss potentials of coins and yes am positive about ones I find to be special or have some merit. What else would you do on a forum about altcoins? |
|
|
|
You clearly have an agenda, this is like the 5th thread in which you are posting the exact same things without a proper explanation. You are starting to seem like a troll. Forget the paper and review the code, see my previous response to some of the posters here.
When I stop seeing new threads stating the same thing about VNL, I will not feel the need to set the record straight by posting in them. I wouldnt bother, getting your opinion across on this forum most of the time is like having an opinion on religion. If you don't believe in the same god, you're an infidel, end of story. Most of your entries in threads like this started with you advertising your project. I guess I don't need to repost those since you probably know what I am talking about. My issue with you is the same with everyone else here, you attack the project from a theoretical vector while the code is 100% open source. Why aren't you pointing out a single line of code? I don't need to, because I knew it wasn't possible, and now other 3rd parties have stepped in and pretty much confirmed that there was miscommunication between what John said and what is being reported here. My intention was not to advertise, but to provide an example that mirrors what I know is possible. I made plenty of other statements without referencing mine or any other projects. The majority of people on this forum think they know more than they do, thats not a criticism of them personally, nor is it generally their fault, and its due to 3rd hand knowledge being presented and taken as fact even when the real facts are presented. If you would rather informed people such as myself and others not step in, and allow people that are duped into believe false statements, to dig themselves an early grave then..well... I guess eventually we'll get frustrated enough and all leave you to it. For some reason though, despite all the shit I receive, I still have a hard time turning my back on these poor people when most would have long ago! Dude that's so insulting to 95% of Bitcoin followers who love the abilities of Bitcoin but don't have the first clue how to code a coin like clearly you spend your entire time doing. Some of us do other specialised jobs which involve various skills many of which are not tech based. Half the world uses phones and computers but a tiny amount actually understand deeply the technology. We depend therefore on people to tell us what tech works great and what doesn't.....sadly the crypto community is so riddled with scammers or due to self interests (many have said like yourself) you can't get a straight opinion on anything. That's a problem and so as a user in the 95% group I want to ask questions and so far JC seems the credible one not his detractors. This thread is another good example.....what you should of said if neutral would be oh great the risk with zero confirmations is not an issue now, so solved instead you wanted to strain on a gnat for your own self interests. That's what I see as one of the poor people you hope to help... |
|
|
|
It will never be 100% solved due to CAP theorem.
Correct. And note that none of the solutions I've seen published are tolerate to partitioning (a.k.a. network fragmentation). That means Bitcoin is toast if the network fragments, because there can be a spend of every output on every network partition. Nevertheless, there is way to absolutely solve the issue and make it provable. But it does require an adjustment to the security model assumptions, but I think the change those assumptions is superior to the assumptions we make now with existing "subjectivity" for consensus models. Any way, I don't want to blabber on, because of course I haven't published anything yet. I just want to note that VanillaCoin has not solved anything w.r.t. to 0-confirmation double-spend attacks and we peers have already explained to them why in other threads. If they believe otherwise and want to rise above the peer review they've already received, then let them publish to a place where academics will take notice and peer review their white paper. You should start stealing coins then cause it's so easy, wow wow. |
|
|
|
I suppose most people file VNL under "just another shitcoin" like I did. Bored one day, I checked out the ANN thread and I was pleasantly surprised how unnoticed VNL was.
For anyone out there, Vanillacoin may surprise you too. Check it out.
The name has given accumulators and those who actually look into stuff rather than listen to FUD to have an early advantage. I say good, the amount of time VNL is mentioned it's dissmissed for complete junk like JC can't be trusted, the code is fake etc. Seems that combined with the name has really given VNL a delay reaction. Instead of moaning I suggest taking advantage of it......once the coins abilities are known the name will start sounding great to people. |
|
|
|
|
Like I said I'm sorry for using the term 100% solved if it's more 99.999999999999999999999999% 'solved' as in not a credible risk.....which obviously isn't the case for Bitcoin with no confirmations. This is clearly what VNL has done where no other coin has. Which is why it's news worthy particularly to the Bitcoin community and media IMO.
I'll let the pedantic argue over the term 'solved'.
|
|
|
|
"...timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high..."
*puts on smug hat* exactly what I have been saying as we have the same thing in our ledger tech Yeeeeeeah I'd probably keep that hat off for now.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=411366.0 |
|
|
|
As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?
Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that? I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that. Well I mean we could get into semantics of what it means by solving a problem but the whole point of the bounty was a challenge anyone to double spend I assume whoch was done having full confidence it couldn't be done. ie the risk was negated. So no I might not be able to find him actually saying its solved 100% but the basics idea is that the problem isn't an issue anymore right? plus there has been reddit threads that stated its solved with no real correction form vanilla coin community. I'm sorry if I misunderstood things, but like I said I don't need to be insane to assume it was for in all sense and purposes 'solved' Plus I would still like to hear from JC or his work quoted cause I still have a nagging idea I read him say the system wouldn't allow a double spend somewhere. Id suggest you find out for sure before claiming it again, as you aren't doing the guy any favors otherwise. Here John says he has resolved the problem. Yes that's not solved but a past problem is taken away so in my book it's 'solved' BS to the theoretical posturing, John says he has stopped a problem then I say he's solved it. And I also should of given more detail but it was a given that the risk of a double spend had been solved with zero confirmations....but I assumed that was a given....my question was actually more about the lack of media interest in the issue at the very least being negated. Having a theoretical on what means for something to be 'solved' isn't my bag. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148745.msg12118317#msg12118317 |
|
|
|
As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible?
Do you have any proof or anything that JC claimed that? I'm hearing from people who talk with him, and he never claimed that. Well I mean we could get into semantics of what it means by solving a problem but the whole point of the bounty was a challenge anyone to double spend I assume whoch was done having full confidence it couldn't be done. ie the risk was negated. So no I might not be able to find him actually saying its solved 100% but the basics idea is that the problem isn't an issue anymore right? plus there has been reddit threads that stated its solved with no real correction form vanilla coin community. I'm sorry if I misunderstood things, but like I said I don't need to be insane to assume it was for in all sense and purposes 'solved' Plus I would still like to hear from JC or his work quoted cause I still have a nagging idea I read him say the system wouldn't allow a double spend somewhere. |
|
|
|
lol double spending isnt an issue, if it was you would be getting "the press"  WOW Thats great it isn't an issue. Can you please tell all the exchanges, no more confirmations needed!!!! |
|
|
|
Its an issue because by claiming these things shows a lack of understanding of information theory at its most basic, or highlights some potential dishonesty.
Ah this whole thing is a fud attempt. I found out that he didn't claim to have solved it! Uggh trolls. As the OP I'm not attempting FUD my understanding is Double spend was solved......so should we see it more as so difficult the possibility is negligible? |
|
|
|
|
hahah still time to be here posting in detail the issue though.
I don't know what a developer can do to prove something works apart from white paper, open source code, and beta....he even gave a reward to anyone who could do a double spend when the transaction has 0 confirmations. So apart from answering peoples concerns there is nothing left.
So I'll just put you down as someone who won't put their ideas (FUD) to the appropriate people to be openly challenged...ie Chicken.
|
|
|
|
Try publishing in a peer reviewed journal, let the experts tear into the theory, and if it survives, generally that's the point the press will pick up on it. Also, in case you haven't spotted this yet, the press LOVE a disaster, successes not so much. I honestly think the Bitcoin casual community has plenty of experts...I'ts weird but I never saw another Altcoin come under this level of suspicion, scrutiny and generally have its innovations claims simply dismissed especially after they post the code, white paper and and have a working beta. When did NEM, NXT, etc get pulled apart by MIT? You obviously haven't seen the level of shit I've been put through over the past 2 years then haha  It's simple, if he claims he has solved it 100%, he's either lying, or doesn't understand CAP theorem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theoremIn brief CAP theorem: - Consistency (all nodes see the same data at the same time)
- Availability (a guarantee that every request receives a response about whether it succeeded or failed)
- Partition tolerance (the system continues to operate despite arbitrary partitioning due to network failures)
You can never have a network that can provide all 3 all of the time, and it has been proven. Most distributed networks allow for failures in all of them, but prioritize 2 of them. For John to have 100% solved double-spends, he would have to support all 3, 100%, probably the most important being C. Well as you've spent so much time on it I imagine you must be bursting to ask him how he at least claimed to of solved it. Tell us if you do go and ask your question. https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#Vanillacoin |
|
|
|
I honestly think the Bitcoin casual community has plenty of experts...I'ts weird but I never saw another Altcoin come under this level of suspicion, scrutiny and generally have its innovations claims simply dismissed especially after they post the code, white paper and and have a working beta.
When did NEM, NXT, etc get pulled apart by MIT?
You asked why no-one's talking of Vanillacoin's technology, I'm answering that question. Did take a quick look for anything on NXT, turns out it's all articles about Lego! What's NEM claiming it's fixed? Like I said everything is open source, John Conner is available on IRC. Ive seen a few challenge him with potential issues and he quickly shows they don't know what they are talking about and they sheepishly wander off. So IF you think there is a problem with the code then its you as a challenger to directly address them to the developer who has made himself completely available in a public place. Otherwise an indirect criticism is just FUD. https://kiwiirc.com/client/irc.freenode.net/#Vanillacoin |
|
|
|
Try publishing in a peer reviewed journal, let the experts tear into the theory, and if it survives, generally that's the point the press will pick up on it. Also, in case you haven't spotted this yet, the press LOVE a disaster, successes not so much. I honestly think the Bitcoin casual community has plenty of experts...I'ts weird but I never saw another Altcoin come under this level of suspicion, scrutiny and generally have its innovations claims simply dismissed especially after they post the code, white paper and and have a working beta. When did NEM, NXT, etc get pulled apart by MIT? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
