That strikes me as a stupid idea, using cash to load up a credit card? Or worse still using another card to load up another card.  |
|
|
|
Oh, miners who disabled the sanity checks on blocks then mined the wrong blocks? Yes, that's what happens when you turn the safeties off to make it go faster. I'm going to explain this once in case anyone is actually listening rather than just trying to pump a coin: John Conner didn't warn of a fork, he stated the developers should hard fork immediately ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69482103). He states Bitcoin was incorrectly encoding the signatures; this is false, signatures are fine when encoded by the reference client, however it used OpenSSL to validate those signatures and OpenSSL was permissive of slightly incorrectly formatted signatures. Whether using industry standard cryptographic tools to verify signatures is not a discussion I have time to get into, but ultimately this is why libsecp256k exists, to remove this dependency. That was in January. Instead of hard forking at the time to implement a fix that would have broken validation on all historical signatures, the Bitcoin developers introduced BIP 66, which included a new block version (3). Once 75% of the last 1000 blocks were mined as v3, such blocks only validated if all signatures were standard. Once 95% of the last 1000 were mined as v3, non-v3 blocks were rejected. This gave them a couple of months between the release of Bitcoin Core 0.10, and the feature actually enabling, for miners to upgrade their software. What it turned out miners were doing was running custom software that did not enforce those requirements. They were accepting arbitrary blocks from the network, performing cursory checks (such as validating the hash met the difficulty target), and then mining on top of them. They produces v3 blocks, but did not require v3 blocks, meaning that when at 96% v3 blocks an old miner produced a v2 block, they accepted it and mined on top of it, creating a fork. Warnings about BIP 66 being activated were sent via Twitter, reddit, the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, and that's just the channels I'm aware of. This screwup falls directly at the feet of the miners. Notably, Litecoin later enabled the same fork with absolutely no problems, due to their miners actually validating correctly. So John Conner 1: Fudders 0 Why do none of these people ever delete their comments and apologise for being flat out wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Lets petition to get this smooth dickwad banned..
|
|
|
|
|
Like people care about a developers personality if they think a coin is brilliant and makes them money.....groan.
Personally his personality is more patient than I would be. Actually his Trump like behaviour tell me one thing.....he does not give a shit what people think....ie he isn't trying to fool anyone. If you want a friendly developer I heard Tittie coin is a nice guy.
|
|
|
|
Professional trolls like Smooth are the biggest scumbags here...
Because they have enough in-depth knowledge to "appear" objective to n00bs...
And are experts are subtle fallacious reasoning that "appears" authoritative...
But their agendas are to impune and destroy the hard work of other Devs.
The Alt Forum has been effectively destroyed by Smooth and his Monero shills.
Keep exposing this c*cksucker... and I'll keep bumping this thread.
Something this forum has been getting wrong recently is lack of real rules. I believe in Liberty but Liberty is not Anarchy, society needs rules to function. You can't get rid of newbie accounts easily (though you could make a minimum posting in a newbie section) But what you can do is ban without mercy long term accounts that spread lies constantly. This forum really needs to clean up this mess, this forum is getting a bad reputation. |
|
|
|
Um... People might be waking up to the reality that things aren't quite what they seem with this coin. I think people need to know 1) who is the mystery angel investor? 2) Who really is the dev? 3) We need an unbiased code review. 4) why are people saying this isn't original code when it was claimed to be? The price is reflecting people's uncertainty at this point.
The price is reflecting the quantity of FUD lets be clear... Any day now we are getting a full whitepaper, and zerotime is on testnet wit a bounty to break it, soon to go live....what more can a developer do? A dev who can stop treating some of us like a shit. His personality and manner to think/deal about community are big problem. You're the big problem to this coin... |
|
|
|
Um... People might be waking up to the reality that things aren't quite what they seem with this coin. I think people need to know 1) who is the mystery angel investor? 2) Who really is the dev? 3) We need an unbiased code review. 4) why are people saying this isn't original code when it was claimed to be? The price is reflecting people's uncertainty at this point.
The price is reflecting the quantity of FUD lets be clear... Any day now we are getting a full whitepaper, and zerotime is on testnet wit a bounty to break it, soon to go live....what more can a developer do? The issue is this Vanilla coin walks all over coins like Dash and Monero which has the biggest bunch of assholes as supporters and will attack with vengence anything that threatens their territory. But if your smart you will know they are buying as well. haha |
|
|
|
Am I the only one who thinks this fake code thing is overblown?
As I understand it not 100% of the code is fake but just snippets here and there, mostly hiding the secret cause to prevent copy/pasters. I see nothing wrong with a dev protecting his work in the initial stages and throwing off copiers, would people prefer it be totally closed source instead?
It's called FUD, vanilla coin gets loads cause people want to buy it, I know weird eh. |
|
|
|
too much whales on VNL pumping and dumping playing with alot of BTC's
Even (IF) zero time will be released it is already calculated in price....
really sad that whales fuck up everything
You think a coin that has solved double spending and confirms under a second is valued right at 1m marketcap? hahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha what whales? The vol is like 50btc meanwhile Eth has a VOL over 5,000btc! People have been holding the price down accumulating, that's a fact looking at wallets. A the smart money has been quietly accumulating while FUDing the coin cause they know that this coin has the potential to explode 10x easy. |
|
|
|
Evidence? I see no stylistic similarity in writing or anything else for a start. What do you have? I personally can see the similarity, smart and lacking in patience. Surely won't you readily admit IF he has solved the double spend problem then that would be revolutionary and a sign of the developers high competence? Sure. That's one huge IF. Which is why this is one huge coin. The guy is obviously incredibly smart, so either he is insane or more likely he has done what he said he has...why not be hopeful instead of assuming he's lying. I honestly think I have a good bullshit detector and I'm sure he's legit...so everything points to this being legit and a breakthrough. |
|
|
|
Is it true BTC is based on Bitgold?
You realize that proposing such a ridiculous counterargument is close to an admission right? Get your nose of out john-conners ass long enough to be objective please. If he stole code, reformatted and it and removed attribution, then he is a scumbag and a scammer. Did that happen or did i not? I don't want to hear about Bitgold and RPOW and David Chaum and Milton Friedman and John Nash. I want to hear about whether john-conner stole Bitcoin's code, reformatted it and stripped out the attributions. I would prefer to know if he really has solved double spend with zero confirmations more actually...cause if he has it wouldn't matter where the original code came from. |
|
|
|
Evidence? I see no stylistic similarity in writing or anything else for a start. What do you have? I personally can see the similarity, smart and lacking in patience. Surely won't you readily admit IF he has solved the double spend problem then that would be revolutionary and a sign of the developers high competence? |
|
|
|
Hal Finney was the first to point the 0 confirmation double spend attack. And it's named the 'Finney Attack' in his honour.
I think it's safe to say with absolutely certainty that he is not Hal Finney.
And the fact that he would claim this was his own doing is extremely concerning and I'd advice people to be suspicious of someone making these sorts of claims that are both without evidence, and impossible anyway.
have you looked at the how he is speaking on github? The guy is seriously smart and called out issues with big developers....and was right, this isn't a scam developer.....at all. Plus you are missing the point, John Conner just made double spend impossible... |
|
|
|
Awesome if it is, he seems half genius half belligerent...I like him already. Great we have such a pioneer in Bitcoin development in this coin. Clearly he thought out properly what Bitcoin needed to evole. Everyone is chasing Ethereum, but I think it might be a red herring and actually the big news now is Vanilla coin. woop woop. I'm glad I invested. It certain sounds like the same guy... |
|
|
|
|
so who was around when the first time double spend was highlighted as a problem, I assume on this site?
|
|
|
|
I'm not a technical person but you got to love the way he responds to big core developers like a BOSS!!! John Conner is the Donald Trump of Crypto! Lol Maybe vanilla coin the name hides the fact it's such a quality project but seriously no one can deny the developer of this coin is a BOSS! |
|
|
|
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto, creator of Bitcoin?
Everyone deserves some privacy.. For me it's not important who he is but what the man delivers.
No I mean who is he in the Bitcoin community on this site, alias name of course. |
|
|
|
|
John Conner today said that it was him that initially notified the Bitcoin team about the risk of double spend, he wasn't listened to and Bitcoin lost tons of people's money and Bitcoin had to in force no O confirmations. clearly he has been part of the a Bitcoin loop here for a long time.
Any ideas who he is, shouldn't be too hard to work out?
BTW he solved the issue....the guy is one to watch clearly.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure John Conner just answered his critics...  |
|
|
|
|
So many threads popping up with just the point to FUD. This to me says one thing, some are trying to accumulate....no one FUDs a coin they couldn't care less about.
See you at the top of the mountain, I don't think anyone knew about Vanilla coin until these attack threads started....thank you Monero bag holders living in fear. Lol
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
