Is it true that Vanillacoin uses the BTC code?

[smooth]

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp vs
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/key.cpp#L16

That code is essentially identical, but reformatted, and far beyond an occasional duplicated line or two. Even the variable names are the same, same sentinel values used, etc. It is clearly a copy.

In stripping out the Bitcoin attribution I call this clear fraud.

[1714914583]

1714914583

[1714914583]

1714914583

[1714914583]

1714914583

[Wheatclove]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

[smooth]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

It is copyright infringement.

It is also fraud to claim that you wrote all the code yourself when you did not.

[rnicoll]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

It is copyright infringement.

It is also fraud to claim that you wrote all the code yourself when you did not.

Yeah, claiming to have written all of it is clearly absurd, at least.

[americanpegasus]

Oh goodie.  The world of crypto was getting a little stale, despite the Ethereum launch.  
  
I need to start an online magazine, Electronic Currency Monthly.  This is too good.  
  
 
 

[Rick Storm]

Comparing a sample piece of code it is clear that at least some of it is based on Bitcoin code:

From vanillacoin - https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/address_manager.cpp#L1315

Code:

     * Try to find an entry that can be erased.
     */
    for (auto it = bucket_new.begin(); it != bucket_new.end(); ++it)
    {
        assert(address_info_map_.count(*it));
        
        auto & info = address_info_map_[*it];
        
        if (info.is_terrible())
        {
            if (--info.reference_count == 0)
            {
                std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> l1(mutex_random_ids_);
                
                swap_random(
                    info.random_position,
                    static_cast<std::uint32_t> (random_ids_.size() - 1)
                );
                
                random_ids_.pop_back();
                network_address_map_.erase(info.addr);
                address_info_map_.erase(*it);
                number_new_--;
            }
            
            bucket_new.erase(it);
            
            return;

From Bitcoin 0.9.2 in addrman.cpp:

Code:

    // first look for deletable items
    for (std::set<int>::iterator it = vNew.begin(); it != vNew.end(); it++)
    {
        assert(mapInfo.count(*it));
        CAddrInfo &info = mapInfo[*it];
        if (info.IsTerrible())
        {
            if (--info.nRefCount == 0)
            {
                SwapRandom(info.nRandomPos, vRandom.size()-1);
                vRandom.pop_back();
                mapAddr.erase(info);
                mapInfo.erase(*it);
                nNew--;
            }
            vNew.erase(it);
            return 0;
        }
    }

The above code from vanillacoin is based on bitcoin, albeit renamed, refactored, reformatted and re-commented at almost every possible occasion.

The algorithm is the same line by line and even the esoteric identifier name "IsTerrible"/"is_terrible" is used in both.

My guess is John started with a old bitcoin code base and refactored, renamed and recommented the code to a huge degree.

There has also been additions like the zerotime stuff which is not like anything in Bitcoin:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/zerotime.cpp

[HCLivess]

Thank you, these are great and valuable inputs. I feel like in a court room 

[blobafett2]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

It is copyright infringement.

It is also fraud to claim that you wrote all the code yourself when you did not.

Hi VNL community,

I did a tally of Smooth's attacks on his competitors today and notice him attacking VNL.

Attacking his competitors:

Dash thread: 26 posts (competing with the anon feature)
Vanilla threads: 20 posts (competing for Poloniex volume)
Bytecoin thread: 4 posts (competing "Anon coin")

Posting on his own threads:

AEON: 3 posts
Monero: 0 posts

Smooth's competitors attacking his coins on their threads:

Dash devs: 0 posts
Vanilla devs: 0 posts
Bytecoin devs: 0 posts

I made a thread to investigate Smooth after months of attacking his competitors and also attempting / succeeding to take over his competitors as developer,  please feel free to vote whether you think his actions are ethical / professional / not in conflict of interest.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.0

[americanpegasus]

Yes smooth,  stop your rampant cyber bullying on the "special" kids. 
 
   
 
But seriously, a currency which pitches itself as a world changing currency better be ready for some seriously harsh criticism. 
 
If your best response to allegations of fraud and plagiarism is "stop picking on me" you're gonna have a bad time.

[Wheatclove]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

It is copyright infringement.

It is also fraud to claim that you wrote all the code yourself when you did not.

Hi VNL community,

I did a tally of Smooth's attacks on his competitors today and notice him attacking VNL.

Attacking his competitors:

Dash thread: 26 posts (competing with the anon feature)
Vanilla threads: 20 posts (competing for Poloniex volume)
Bytecoin thread: 4 posts (competing "Anon coin")

Posting on his own threads:

AEON: 3 posts
Monero: 0 posts

Smooth's competitors attacking his coins on their threads:

Dash devs: 0 posts
Vanilla devs: 0 posts
Bytecoin devs: 0 posts

I made a thread to investigate Smooth after months of attacking his competitors and also attempting / succeeding to take over his competitors as developer,  please feel free to vote whether you think his actions are ethical / professional / not in conflict of interest.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.0

The only competitors to Monero are Shadowcash and Boolberry.

This isn't an attack on a competitor, it's bringing bad behavior into the light.

[smooth]

There has also been additions like the zerotime stuff which is not like anything in Bitcoin:

I have no doubt that his completely new stuff like ZeroTime is not from bitcoin. The problem is that there is a lot of code that is from Bitcoin, and he refuses to comply with the copyright license terms and, claimed (and as far as I know still claims) that the coin was built from scratch in its entirety, which was and is a lie:

No, this is not a fork. It was built from scratch in it's entirety.

Note: quoted date is incorrect; correct date is 2014-12-15, 00:19:37

That kind of behavior is reprehensible and is a huge red flag. If he's lying about that what else is he lying about, or willing to lie about?

Quoting the supporting evidence below (only one example, others have been cited elsewhere), because I am going to link this post when I give negative trust to jc.

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp vs
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/key.cpp#L16

That code is essentially identical, but reformatted, and far beyond an occasional duplicated line or two. Even the variable names are the same, same sentinel values used, etc. It is clearly a copy.

In stripping out the Bitcoin attribution I call this clear fraud.

EDIT: posted below, showing VNL code inheriting bugs from the Bitcoin code that was copied/reformatted. Pathetic

Oh, he'll want to fix some of the inherited bugs:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/51c6960b2a14ffbf67af19aefac6291768e1ffbc/include/coin/address_manager.hpp#L120

corresponds to

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/addrman.cpp#L12

but not

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.10/src/addrman.cpp#L13

I presume for someone who is apparently smarter than the entire Bitcoin development team put together, understanding why and updating the code accordingly will be trivial.

EDIT (2015-09-21): More evidence quoted below

Comparing a sample piece of code it is clear that at least some of it is based on Bitcoin code:

From vanillacoin - https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/address_manager.cpp#L1315

Code:

     * Try to find an entry that can be erased.
     */
    for (auto it = bucket_new.begin(); it != bucket_new.end(); ++it)
    {
        assert(address_info_map_.count(*it));
        
        auto & info = address_info_map_[*it];
        
        if (info.is_terrible())
        {
            if (--info.reference_count == 0)
            {
                std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> l1(mutex_random_ids_);
                
                swap_random(
                    info.random_position,
                    static_cast<std::uint32_t> (random_ids_.size() - 1)
                );
                
                random_ids_.pop_back();
                network_address_map_.erase(info.addr);
                address_info_map_.erase(*it);
                number_new_--;
            }
            
            bucket_new.erase(it);
            
            return;

From Bitcoin 0.9.2 in addrman.cpp:

Code:

    // first look for deletable items
    for (std::set<int>::iterator it = vNew.begin(); it != vNew.end(); it++)
    {
        assert(mapInfo.count(*it));
        CAddrInfo &info = mapInfo[*it];
        if (info.IsTerrible())
        {
            if (--info.nRefCount == 0)
            {
                SwapRandom(info.nRandomPos, vRandom.size()-1);
                vRandom.pop_back();
                mapAddr.erase(info);
                mapInfo.erase(*it);
                nNew--;
            }
            vNew.erase(it);
            return 0;
        }
    }

The above code from vanillacoin is based on bitcoin, albeit renamed, refactored, reformatted and re-commented at almost every possible occasion.

The algorithm is the same line by line and even the esoteric identifier name "IsTerrible"/"is_terrible" is used in both.

My guess is John started with a old bitcoin code base and refactored, renamed and recommented the code to a huge degree.

There has also been additions like the zerotime stuff which is not like anything in Bitcoin:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/zerotime.cpp

Define "uses". There's certainly structural similarities:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp vs
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/key.cpp#L16

Thanks for that.

Adding “#L34” to the vnl URI nails it for me:

Code:

int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY * eckey, BIGNUM * priv_key)
{
    int ok = 0;
    
    BN_CTX * ctx = 0;
    EC_POINT * pub_key = 0;

    if (eckey == 0)
    {
        return 0;
    }
    
    const EC_GROUP * group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);

    if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }
    
    pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);

    if (pub_key == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }

Code:

int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY *eckey, BIGNUM *priv_key)
{
    int ok = 0;
    BN_CTX *ctx = NULL;
    EC_POINT *pub_key = NULL;

    if (!eckey) return 0;

    const EC_GROUP *group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);

    if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == NULL)
        goto err;

    pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);

    if (pub_key == NULL)
        goto err;

That's a lot more than just a structural similarity.

It’s hard for me to see this as anything other than incontrovertible evidence of the author having a naively self-centred perspective on intellectual property rights, broadly translatable as “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine’s my own”.

More tellingly, it's also hard to reconcile this evident difficulty in critical thinking with any kind of work in the area of cryptography, notorious for its relentlessly stern demands of cognitive sophistication in its proponents.

Stand back a few yards and the picture becomes somewhat clearer. I've not even bothered looking at vnl, being confident that it’s just another variant of the “misunderstood but brilliant maverick outsider, wronged by a complacent community” media narrative and all the posturing is entirely consistent, even the expedient arrogation of others’ work. Given the evidence in the codebase, I'm reassured that my confidence is not misplaced, although I do have to admit that his choice of pseudonym is a bit of a give-away in and of itself.


Cheers

Graham

EDIT: 2015-09-29 additional comments from Rick Storm (quoted above)

There are many places where Vanillacoin copied Bitcoin code. I have pointed out a good example previously, it won't be hard to find dozens more.

There's nothing wrong with copying and modifying the Bitcoin code, the MIT license allows you to do with it what you like, it just ask you not to be a scumbag and remove attribution and pretend you wrote the code in the first instance.

FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.

[americanpegasus]

Well, it's not like we haven't seen this movie before smooth.  
  
Has he released the source, the real source?  
  
It should be obvious what comes next.  There *is* a need for a "zerotime" currency, but the issue remains: is this a valid implementation of it?  
  
So a code review needs to be done to see if this is even a workable solution to the problem.  Is the threat of double spend with john's code acceptable for a $3 latte?  If so, this code has merit.  If the threat of double spend isn't worth it, then we will keep looking for a true "zerotime" implementation.  
  
10 If CheckCode(Vanillacoin) = 1 then goto 30 else goto 20
20 end
30 Let Credits = Vanillacoin  
40 Develop(Credits)  
50 Promote (Credits)

[HCLivess]

Can you stop promoting monero in this thread? I have a feeling that you all bought it because of Ryan Pumper and then he made a buck on you.

[rnicoll]

Can you stop promoting monero in this thread? I have a feeling that you all bought it because of Ryan Pumper and then he made a buck on you.

Agreed; there's value in pointing out issues with claims made, but muddling it up with promotion of other coins basically undermines the whole message.

[boolberry]

Copyright (c) 2009-2015 The Bitcoin Core developers

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.


From Bitcoin^.
I'd call it copyright infringement.

It is copyright infringement.

It is also fraud to claim that you wrote all the code yourself when you did not.

Hi VNL community,

I did a tally of Smooth's attacks on his competitors today and notice him attacking VNL.

Attacking his competitors:

Dash thread: 26 posts (competing with the anon feature)
Vanilla threads: 20 posts (competing for Poloniex volume)
Bytecoin thread: 4 posts (competing "Anon coin")

Posting on his own threads:

AEON: 3 posts
Monero: 0 posts

Smooth's competitors attacking his coins on their threads:

Dash devs: 0 posts
Vanilla devs: 0 posts
Bytecoin devs: 0 posts

I made a thread to investigate Smooth after months of attacking his competitors and also attempting / succeeding to take over his competitors as developer,  please feel free to vote whether you think his actions are ethical / professional / not in conflict of interest.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.0

The only competitors to Monero are Shadowcash and Boolberry.

This isn't an attack on a competitor, it's bringing bad behavior into the light.

While I agree that the number of legitimate anonymous projects are small in number it could be argued that there are more than the three you mentioned.

Unfortunately aside from technical limitations of some other projects fraud continues to runs rampant. I think bringing light to legitimate fraud claims is a good thing as it could save potential investors a lot of time and money so we agree on that point.

[TPTB_need_war]

Gmaxwell reported these issues back in January apparently:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.0

It should be obvious what comes next.  There *is* a need for a "zerotime" currency, but the issue remains: is this a valid implementation of it?  
  
So a code review needs to be done to see if this is even a workable solution to the problem.  Is the threat of double spend with john's code acceptable for a $3 latte?  If so, this code has merit.  If the threat of double spend isn't worth it, then we will keep looking for a true "zerotime" implementation.  

We should not have to reverse engineer code to check whether a design has merit. The white paper should contain sufficiently detailed descriptions and math to convince the technical readers. His white papers don't[1].

[1]	https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1149219.msg12111463#msg12111463 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148745.msg12111401#msg12111401 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1149219.msg12111694#msg12111694

I can't yet determine whether john-conner is an intentional scammer or just a person who believes his capabilities are greater than they really are:

Hal Finney was the first to point out 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 advise people to be suspicious of someone making these sorts of claims that are both without evidence, and impossible anyway.

But it doesn't matter. Bottom line is stay away unless you enjoy losing your money.

He clearly has some technical knowledge.

[TPTB_need_war]

I only feel sorry for weak people. And mostly what I've come to find is that the weak people are the ones that are the haters.

john-conner makes a sockpuppet.

We are not hating. Learn how to write a white paper properly so you don't waste our time. We will support that which is proven and fully described.

[smooth]

Learn how to write a white paper properly so you don't waste our time. We will support that which is proven and fully described.

And while you are at it stop ripping off Bitcoin's code, removing attributions, and passing it off as your own work "built from scratch in it's entirety"

EDIT: ^ directed at j-c not TPTB

[rnicoll]

Oh, he'll want to fix some of the inherited bugs:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/51c6960b2a14ffbf67af19aefac6291768e1ffbc/include/coin/address_manager.hpp#L120

corresponds to

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/addrman.cpp#L12

but not

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.10/src/addrman.cpp#L13

I presume for someone who is apparently smarter than the entire Bitcoin development team put together, understanding why and updating the code accordingly will be trivial.

[smooth]

Oh, he'll want to fix some of the inherited bugs

"built from scratch in it's entirety"

Scammer: confirmed.