Yes, that is MobyDick.

Thanks, synechist.

Deposits and withdrawals are open again on Poloniex.

synechist ^

Please and thank you.

Would it be possible to get a block count + hash from the officially correct chain?

Who told you that? Withdrawals and deposits have been disabled because there may be a problem with the wallet. I PM'd the following to you hours before you made the above post:


I have yet to receive a reply.

Believe me, I have started completely from scratch a million times. We're past the point where that fixes things.

I'm not sure if you meant to imply otherwise, but of course we back up all of our wallets.

Poloniex is not on a fork -- it is in sync with the block explorer.

Hi,

The dev has been somewhat unresponsive, so I still haven't been able to get Poloniex's wallet running properly. After the last incident with Polo's wallet causing a fork, I asked him if I should disable forging -- I was not sure which would be best for the network, as sometimes having an exchange forge/stake can be beneficial. He told me to continue forging.

But it now occurs to me that forging may be what is causing Poloniex's wallet to malfunction. Since I haven't heard from the dev in a while, I'm turning to the community -- does anyone know how I can disable it in the command line wallet? Is there something I can put in settings.json?

This coin seems to be forked; is there an officially accepted correct chain? The block explorer is not on the longest chain.

After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision.
 
For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason.
 
Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.
 
We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision.
 
We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck.

Regarding the hack, I would like to point out that we repaid the loss in full to our customers -- we did not pass the loss off onto them and walk away. We have since implemented many security measures to ensure that nothing like that could happen again, including continual auditing of the exchange.

As for Qora, the technology was very new when ShareXCoin was still around, and prone to continual freezes and blockchain corruptions. We kept on top of them as best we could, but wallet downtime was unavoidable as it had to be resynced and the wallet rebuilt.

BTC from the ICO would be funneled straight into cold storage; no part of it would remain in the hot wallet for any appreciable length of time.

Hi,

I am hereby confirming that I have received the 750,000,000 NHZ, and they are locked safely away in cold storage.

I feel I should point out that signing messages is not proof of ownership of your account. It is proof of ownership of the address. People withdraw to addresses they don't own every day, and deposit from addresses they don't own as well (pools, other exchanges).

Hi,

If your withdrawal is stuck on PENDING, that means it hasn't been sent out. This is a problem on our end. I apologize for the recent trouble, I have been in contact with the dev about some issues we're having, and in the meantime I am devising workarounds. Deposits and withdrawals were just processed, but they may be a bit slow until this is completely sorted out.

I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.

It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

Did I say I'm not listing it because it was cloned?

jakiman said that the value may have been leftover from the old SUPER coin. I am saying that is not very likely, because this coin was cloned from Honorcoin, not the old SUPER coin. See bitcoinrpc.cpp of Honorcoin and (new) SuperCoin side by side: http://www.diffchecker.com/j8xl540o

This was cloned from Honorcoin. It even used Honorcoin's stake checkpoint.

Yes, you could change MAX_MONEY later, but that would be a lot more obvious if someone attempted to change that in an update.

The question here is why were the daemons deliberately made to handle 100 million more coins than the given maximum? You also have to consider the amount that can be minted during the PoS phase. It is hard to predict the exact amount that can be minted in that phase due to the random rewards. But the code allows for a lot more than a maximum of 50 million.

The devs could come back and say "whoops, that was a typo, didn't mean to put 150 million there; update, no harm done." And they could fix the coin. But you have to ask why that number was there. It's a pretty big stretch to say it was an accident. There is zero legitimate reason for it.

The questionable motives behind that also make the anon system extremely risky. The anon system allows for the operators of the mixing pool to steal coins at will, and it would be very difficult to trace. Do you trust the people who slipped this variable change in to handle your coins honestly? Because that's what you would have to do. You're handing them a hundred dollar bill and saying, "Please give this to X."