Looks like a real joke here  |
|
|
|
Thank you dev for giving us an answer and choosing to release the code (hopefully sooner than later, so we can get this train moving). I to think supercoin will still have a future if this is the case. Like others have mentioned though, maybe release it to someone like Cryptobull first, as he has put in a lot for this coin. Then community can make decisions together on where to go next, it gives us a chance to try and get the code audited professionally before it is publicly released. That way supercoin can be known as the FIRST, before all the copy-cat coins. Perhaps open sourcing it will get us a free audit and publicity though? It hard to say.
Instead of donating to advertisement right now, maybe we should create a community bounty system soon?
New wallet design - xxxxx super
New website host - xxxxx super
etc
Also Dev, would you consider giving trusted community member access to official twitter/facebook accounts, or should we create new ones?
If we work together, and we have a code that can be improved upon, have the structure in place already (stakingwallets, blockchain, exchanges etc) we can make something out of this guys.
Forgive me if this has been covered, but I must play devil's advocate. Do we know who Cryptobull is beyond this thread? Is he someone trustworthy of wielding the Super Sword? What's to say he doesn't keep the code to himself as well or release a copycat himself? Opportunity can do strange things to otherwise seemingly good-willed individuals. Cryptobull, I mean no slight to you, I simply want to try and determine a safe way to migrate this Closed -> Open transition. With only 1 party (other than Superdev & team) in control of the source, we risk being in the same situation that we are in now. I do not wish for this to happen. Community, are my thoughts being over cautious? Would handing the code over to a group of Super community members mitigate this risk? Or perhaps if there is an auditor we can agree on that the code get released to only Cryptobull & the auditor simultaneously...this ensures the community that the source is within reach & that the Supercoin is the first coin audited & recognized for fully trustless decentralized multisig. It may give us the exposure oppurtunity to shop for a top level dev to move forward with the project. Any other thoughts folks? lol CryptoBull is fine dont worry about him hes a very good guy, maybe too much of a good guy for supercoindev and supercointeam. Dont claim victory, we don't have the source code yet. They said "by the end of the month", this means no answer for another 2-3 weeks. I'm sorry but supercointeam/supercoindev are the perfect example of the crooks and shitty dev everybody have been complaining on the crypto market for the last few months. When I saw some users having trouble with the new wallet in august with the price 2500sat, I sold pretty much everything but I still had doubts, so I couldn't tell everyone I knew to sell SUPER. I know a lot of friends with big losses on SUPER, these guys should be ashamed of themselves and release the source code tonight. Then, leave the crypto market forever. Nobody want to see them on another project. Yes I believe in a SUPER takeover with the community and the source code, this is the only 2 good things about Supercoin.One reason the dev left is because in this space there are too many bullshits like you. Open your eyes and see how much work dev did for this coin, and be thankful. And as a comparison how many complaints you made. If people just make complaints and not take initiatives, nothing will be happening. Look at yourself and think if you really want to help the coin, what you should do, instead of blaming devs. Dev did excellent job. If I were the dev I'd be very disappointed by the dismal performance of this coin. It is not because of the great tech the dev spent countless hours to implement and promote (just look at the whitepaper and you know how much time they spent there, let alone the coding/debugging). I doubt there are qualified people to take over the code. These high fly coins are not because they have advanced tech, but because they have good promotions. They have 10, 20 people just doing promotions. That makes the diffs. Most of their devs don't even know what is multisig. Just look at the threads of discussion with cloak and XC and judge yourself if these "devs" know anything (links below), it is a joke. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=734578.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742025.0Right on the spot. Dev did his work, but we did not have an organized promo like some other coins did. |
|
|
|
One reason the dev left is because in this space there are too many bullshits like you. Open your eyes and see how much work dev did for this coin, and be thankful. And as a comparison how many complaints you made. If people just make complaints and not take initiatives, nothing will be happening. Look at yourself and think if you really want to help the coin, what you should do, instead of blaming devs. Dev did excellent job. If I were the dev I'd be very disappointed by the dismal performance of this coin. It is not because of the great tech the dev spent countless hours to implement and promote (just look at the whitepaper and you know how much time they spent there, let alone the coding/debugging). I doubt there are qualified people to take over the code. These high fly coins are not because they have advanced tech, but because they have good promotions. They have 10, 20 people just doing promotions. That makes the diffs. Most of their devs don't even know what is multisig. Just look at the threads of discussion with cloak and XC and judge yourself if these "devs" know anything (links below), it is a joke. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=734578.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=742025.0The community did an excellent job pushing the dev's work after they launched the supposedly revolutionnary "SuperSend Trustless". They launched a wallet with a few bugs, we had a forking issue and it drove the price down. Now, the investors who donated and invested from their own money asked for a POD. I personally don't really care, but it looks like the market is giving value to POD...so I guess the investors had a right to know who they are. The Supercoin team could've also paid for an audit (1-2BTC), because investors didn't want to donate more because of confidence issue. It seems a POD would've been a nice idea from the start because this team clearly abandonned the project, and nobody know how to contact them. They basically "scammed" us. By the way, the only reason the dev left is because he can't manage a project like that. I'll give you bullshit lol, this dev leaving the boards for 3 weeks and driving the price from 1500 sat to 300sat. Stop being mad at me when I have nothing to do with this. You asked for POD, devs rejected it. That's it. Kid grow up and know what are your rights and what are others rights. You can also ask for Satoshi to do POD, does it help?? By the way, it will be better for this coin if you and other craps leave. Fudding does not help the coin. If you can do 1% of what dev did for the coin, you'll appreciate much more what dev did. |
|
|
|
Getting the code audited or verified by respected people is part of promotion in crypto. This is a reality right now. There is so many cryptos, people want the safe one.
From what I can understand you are willing to collaborate with CryptoCobain, I guess we can contact him more seriously and release the source code.
That's ok man we can get him see some part of codes or ask any questions. So he can verify our system trustless and works. JFI you basically ask from a senior developer to be verified by amateurs who cant even do trustless system. Otherwise he would see the whitepaper and it would give him enough confidence about the rest this is a better answer. |
|
|
|
lmao, audit what? anyone can try the feature, it is there publicly. Why an expert will let amateurs to "audit"? Do they know what to look at? Do they understand any tech? If they do, they would have implemented the same code. The supercoin dev team published so detailed flowchart and examples already, so far I don't see a second coin have the tech implemented... For all the dumbs there, no need to "inspect" or "audit" the code. It is a joke. |
|
|
|
Make no mistake, your still liable for losses, the community will make sure of that.
you probably in a dream. The dev team is never responsible for that. Supercoin dev team did much more than they should to do. If you are still not happy, find another coin. |
|
|
|
this is the trustless wallet 3.1.1 https://mega.co.nz/#!0p53XQ4S!dOTXHGWEnas8QL8JmVIHOvVLfoTu-YKatwKUFFug6f0 now this is very confusing wich V.1.6.1 and 3.1.1 which one should we use? i've been syncing 1.6.1 for like an hour or so, and is not even half way done now do i need to switch to 3.1.1 or should i keep syncing 1.6.1?  ? You can use any. 3.1.1 is trustless anon version, 1.6.1 is non-anon version. |
|
|
|
Please read my previous response. If you don't understand the ramifications of your actions and are not willing to work with us, there is nothing more I can do to help this community. Given your stance, we will be reverting to the old fork. If someone can explain the situation and the necessary solutions more clearly, please do so  And for the record It was very simple, we have some reports about forking, some said yes some said no, we could not be sure, we checked our nodes, no problem there. We watched the issue few days.
If you knew of potential problems and didn't tell anyone, and then didn't update the official block explorer when you "fixed" the problem. The fault lies with you. We already made sure we followed your block explorer. Thanks richie@bittrex I don't get your point there. If you see many reports there for missing coins, you should suspend the trading and investigate. You did not do that, you missed it, now you try to blame the dev. It is your job to watch all the coins trading in your exchange. You are the only one to watch it, not dev, not other people. When you have issues, consult with the dev or check the coin thread. It is as simple as that, I don't see your points trying to find a scapegoat there. |
|
|
|
There is a issue:
Wallet compiled from github can't sync across the block 428419. I don't like download the blockchain, I just want sync from scratch. I have mentioned it for many times, dev,why did you not answer it?
it does not sync because you are in the fork, this is what the checkpoint is for. I am sync'ing fine from scratch, even it takes quite some time. If you don't want to sync, just get the full chain and sync from there. It's easy and fast to sync from the existing chain. |
|
|
|
|
I found a lot nonsense here in the thread. The forks occur from time to time in coins, when this happen, what do the devs do? They identify the correct chain, and put some checkpoints to support the chain, and that's it. People who use the new version will be in the correct chain.
The supercoin dev team did the right things. Now if the fork is not fully supressed, then they need to put more checkpoints and eliminate other forked chains.
|
|
|
|
Will it sync by program but does't download the blockchain?
with 3.1 you should be syncing to the right chain, it could take some time. I did not have any problems with my 3 nodes... |
|
|
|
|
I don't have sync issues...
|
|
|
|
Ok another problem with someone's wallet. Everytime he tries to open it, the wallet freezes. He tried to restart the computer and the wallet many times and it's always freezing (not answering) What should he do? Do I suggest him to download the new Trustless wallet and open his file in the new wallet, how does it work?  occasionally I see this too, just be patient and wait for 5 mins, it will be ok. I think during the sync process there are some locks sometimes take longer than expected. So just need to be patient. My wallet always sync, just need some time as the blockchain is long. |
|
|
|
ok so dumb question but im curious.
in my wallet i have multiple deposit addresses that I have used for multiple exchanges & mining. Does the wallet have a single outward facing address that it uses when i send and how do i find that? I'd like to check the block explorer but am not sure if I have to input each addy separately.
Thanks
If you use coin control, you can select what address the coin you want to use to send. That will be the address shown in the tx. Otherwise, the system will pick the coins in some addresses, and these addresses will be shown in the tx (as part of the txin). so no way to check entire contents of wallet on blockchain explorer at 1 time? I guess this also affects the rich list results? If i have 100k super but 10 separate receive addresses in wallet how will I show up on rich list? 10 x 10k? thanks Yes this is true. Rich list based on coins on one address. If your coins spread across 10 addresses, no one will know it. |
|
|
|
ok so dumb question but im curious.
in my wallet i have multiple deposit addresses that I have used for multiple exchanges & mining. Does the wallet have a single outward facing address that it uses when i send and how do i find that? I'd like to check the block explorer but am not sure if I have to input each addy separately.
Thanks
If you use coin control, you can select what address the coin you want to use to send. That will be the address shown in the tx. Otherwise, the system will pick the coins in some addresses, and these addresses will be shown in the tx (as part of the txin). |
|
|
|
 Update... great picture, this is all about the world first multisig based crypto currency coming with Supercoin. It's beyond all known anon centralized technologies. It's something new. is this the new website? |
|
|
|
We need 3rd party audit, if you we wanna see 500btc + volume True and just to be 1000℅ sure Guys (Supercointeam and Supercoindev), make sure this is done, this seems to be very important to attract new investors since the FUD we had last night. 3rd Party Audit let's go! Yup Mammoth and Super should get 3rd party to test it, so nobody can bitch about it There's no such need at all. We see multisig address created and tx there, many such examples. We have detailed algorithm, we have detailed logs in each anonymous tx (you can see some screenshots posted). Everything is there and working. There's no need for people to see how it is implemented so they can copy it, user level test will make sure it works fine functionally. Once released everyone can test it as they wish. |
|
|
|
Yes that's good. BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them. Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend. If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper. WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker. Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense. People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it! what language do you speak so I can arrange a translation for you... I'm not native english but still I can understand what atc is saying... what don't you understand that it does not use multisig adressesso no use of adresses starting with 4 Do you understand anything at all at multisig address and tx?? |
|
|
|
Yes that's good. BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them. Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend. If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper. WOW!! you can read code and understand stuff better then some of us, your so superior aren't you, XC will release a white paper for you to jack off too latter today so do your wrist stretches and get your aloe and lanolin ready wanker. Yes yes, whitepaper, resume, etc, stop talking these nonsense. People here are asking you for a simple multisig address, so they can verify what you have claimed implemented multisig. So many posts are done, no single multisig address can be provided, what does that meaning? anyone can see it! |
|
|
|
Yes that's good. BTW, XC supporters, the 2 multisig addresses I created (I suppose most of you if not all first time to see real multisig address for XC), they are not on the blockchain explorer yet. Because no tx associated with them. Hint: do some deposits to the two addresses, then you will see them in the blockchain explorer. The only problem is that you will not be able to spend the fund there, as I am the only one to have the private keys that can sign and spend. If needed, I can provide a tutorial on how the multisig tx can be used and how they are signed etc. Actually you find most already in the SuperSend's whitepaper. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
