If double spending is such an issue and VNL solved it, where is the press?

[x0rcist]

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

So... you didn't actually want an answer to why it's not getting press attention?

Edit: 'cos I'm not press, can't help you, I can only tell you how I'd get their attention.

It's called vanilla for a reason, when its feature complete more attention will be spend towards the proper channels (press, peer reviews etc).

[rocoro]

Because it isn't easy to do even with a moderate duration of attack window, and so is not worth the time and effort to prove something is false that can not be true in the first place due to accepted laws of physics.

You make it sound as if nobody is going to try and to this due to the difficulty, and not being "worth it". 

So why is this even really an issue? 

Maybe it isn't solved per se,  but it may be that its even *more* difficult to do with this coin.
I'm guessing people are looking for evidence of that?

[Fuserleer]

Because it isn't easy to do even with a moderate duration of attack window, and so is not worth the time and effort to prove something is false that can not be true in the first place due to accepted laws of physics.

You make it sound as if nobody is going to try and to this due to the difficulty, and not being "worth it". 

So why is this even really an issue? 

Maybe it isn't solved per se,  but it may be that its even *more* difficult to do with this coin.
I'm guessing people are looking for evidence of that?

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.

If its the former, then what other hidden gotchas are present in the platform?  You would rather that nobody challenged these wild claims and just took a developers word for it, then at some later point in time non-technical individuals invest because they trust the word of the developer and lose money?  I think there is already enough of that going on that is having a massive negative impact overall.

I get endless challenges from others on my research when it doesnt contradict proven theories or "truisms", so why should it be any different for more grandiose claims.

Should someone turn up here claiming to have found a way to exceed the speed of light, everyone would have a problem with it because it is common knowledge that current theories, proven or not, have shown that it cant be.   What he is claiming is the same thing with regard to information theory, the issue is that these topics are not as common knowledge as the speed of light limit, so its easier to pass them off as fact.

[thefunkybits]

lol double spending isnt an issue, if it was you would be getting "the press" 

[rocoro]

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.

[nextgencoin]

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?

[nextgencoin]

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!!!!

[rocoro]

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

Really??? This guy has been going around for weeks saying that he has!

[nextgencoin]

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.

[Fuserleer]

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.

[nextgencoin]

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

[Levole11]

Well I was the one in the irc chan, remembering John never claimed that.. I will ask him again when he's in the chan; to my remembrance he said something like: " timeframe in which the double spend being way too small for anybody to achieve and the costs of it would be to high".. iam a 420 er and my memory sometimes fails me , i'll ask again when he's in the chan..

[Fuserleer]

"...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

[Levole11]

"...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

Don't disregard my comment on the effects of 420 on my memory just yet though

[nextgencoin]

"...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

[rocoro]

The title of this thread is simply false.  Its' not 100% solved, nor will it ever be.

To say something is simply so difficult, it might as well be "solved" is just a pseudo assumption.

Press usually likes to report on facts, that is why imo.. there is no press release saying its solved.

This thread is pointless and OP talks in circles. 

[Fuserleer]

"...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

*yawn*  Ive been nothing but reasonable, curteous and attempted to inject some humour.   Yet you have to resort to dragging up past affairs of which there was not any proof of some nut jobs claim, never has been, and never will be.

Ignored.

[traumschiff]

Yet another thread with the same people. Only need smooth and TPTB.

@Fuserleer again advertising his own currency in a different thread and @rnicoll again just casually commenting on the 56th VNL BTT/Reddit thread. How about you guys review the ZT/Vanilla code finally, your casual commenting is getting boring since you are running around in circles stating the same things again and again without pointing at specific lines of code.

Don't tell me you don't have enough time on your hands, because that is obviously not the case. Currently as it stands, I have never seen anyone pointing out a single line of code while talking about ZeroTime vulnerabilities sadly meaning that no one here on on any other thread has any clue on what they are talking about (regarding the specific solution).

[monsterer]

The paper reads like it was written in 5 minutes, contains nothing novel at all and hasn't 'solved double spend' because:

A) the presented technique is susceptible to sybil attack
B) double spend was already (and actually) solved by satoshi
C) double spend was also not solved by instant-x which this is an almost carbon copy of (slightly worse without the collateral), making it a truly zero cost attack