Smooth VS VNL

[BagHolder010]

This is is just full of Monero haters hating everywhere as always.

And now the usual Monero-hater suspects from Dash. Welcome.

You misqouted again....

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

Thank you for your support.

Smooth dares to call out people for copy pasting now? LOOOOOOOOOL....I Guess he is jealous of anyone with coding skills something not only Smooth can't comprehend but all the 30 Monero developers who can't do shit for a year and half alrdy.

This is is just full of Monero haters hating everywhere as always.

Also get out of DASH ANN thread you're a nuisance over there with all the Monero group who always seems to come to Dash Ann thread.

If you guys have nothing but speculations and attacking others why don't all of you meet up and maybe just maybe start a true PR for Monero? this is how you get ppl involved with you not by attacking since you don't know how to code.
 P.S - Cry*p*to about it into forums type of developers are the worse man grow up and start coding! perhaps some lessons from Evan haha

[1714796427]

1714796427

[1714796427]

1714796427

[1714796427]

1714796427

[Liquid71]

Smooth doing the community a solid, cheers smooth

[Liquid71]

This is is just full of Monero haters hating everywhere as always.

And now the usual Monero-hater suspects from Dash. Welcome.

You misqouted again....

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

Thank you for your support.

Smooth dares to call out people for copy pasting now? LOOOOOOOOOL....I Guess he is jealous of anyone with coding skills something not only Smooth can't comprehend but all the 30 Monero developers who can't do shit for a year and half alrdy.

This is is just full of Monero haters hating everywhere as always.

Also get out of DASH ANN thread you're a nuisance over there with all the Monero group who always seems to come to Dash Ann thread.

If you guys have nothing but speculations and attacking others why don't all of you meet up and maybe just maybe start a true PR for Monero? this is how you get ppl involved with you not by attacking since you don't know how to code.
 P.S - Cry*p*to about it into forums type of developers are the worse man grow up and start coding! perhaps some lessons from Evan haha

Does even use lube with you or is he a rough rider?  

[jimlite]

Use common sense. NO dev codes non stop 24/7/365 for a year constantly pushing code to github to make a scam coin. The 500 scam coins you see pop up here every year are from no talent "devs" that spend a few hours cloning a coin, putting up an ANN, and doing a 1 week pump and dump Yobit coin and then disappear. I think even with all our disagreements, we can surely agree that VNL is NOT a Karsen or clown dev. few hour clone job from a serial shit coin dev. that just pumps out shit coin after shitcoin with pre-mines and ICOs that all fail. Whether you like John Connor and Vanilla coin or not, he definately deserves to be held in high regards with similiar devs from XMR, DASH, DOGE, LTC, and other top coins. He has nothing in common with bottom barrel Yobit or C-Cex coin devs that pump out crap coin after crap coin, and Ocminer has attested to that, and he has seen more crap coins than anyone here, LOL.

[Wheatclove]

stolen? an open source?

Open source licenses have conditions. Bitcoin's license has very few conditions indeed -- you can do almost any damn thing you want with it legitimately -- but one of few it does have is retaining the attribution.

I wouldn't waste your keystrokes on EmilioMann if I were you.

[jwinterm]

Use common sense. NO dev codes non stop 24/7/365 for a year constantly pushing code to github to make a scam coin. The 500 scam coins you see pop up here every year are from no talent "devs" that spend a few hours cloning a coin, putting up an ANN, and doing a 1 week pump and dump Yobit coin and then disappear. I think even with all our disagreements, we can surely agree that VNL is NOT a Karsen or clown dev. few hour clone job from a serial shit coin dev. that just pumps out shit coin after shitcoin with pre-mines and ICOs that all fail. Whether you like John Connor and Vanilla coin or not, he definately deserves to be held in high regards with similiar devs from XMR, DASH, DOGE, LTC, and other top coins. He has nothing in common with bottom barrel Yobit or C-Cex coin devs that pump out crap coin after crap coin, and Ocminer has attested to that, and he has seen more crap coins than anyone here, LOL.

Did you read the OP:

john-conner's project, Vanillacoin (VNL), includes a significant amount of reformatted and, at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code which has illegally and unethically had its attribution and copyright notices removed. In addition, he describes Vanillacoin as written "from scratch in its entirety", a false, misleading, and fraudulent claim that is being used to promote his coin. Given that this shows dishonesty, low credibility, and willingness to engage in unethical conduct, extreme caution is advised.

The issue is whether he illegally and unethically used Bitcoin code without attribution. The answer is 'yes'.

[iCEBREAKER]

The issue is whether he illegally and unethically used Bitcoin code without attribution. The answer is 'yes'.

[/thread]

[john-connor]

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

Thank you for your support.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Thank you for your support.

Attacking smooth for his excellent work on XMR and AEON does nothing to change this fact:

The issue is whether [VanillaCoin] illegally and unethically used Bitcoin code without attribution. The answer is 'yes'.

The more you deflect, the more it confirms you are a scammer.

[john-connor]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[Wheatclove]

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

Thank you for your support.

Attacking smooth for his excellent work on XMR and AEON does nothing to change this fact:

The issue is whether [VanillaCoin] illegally and unethically used Bitcoin code without attribution. The answer is 'yes'.

The more you deflect, the more it confirms you are a scammer.

Smooth was not the first person to show evidence that the code was simply reformatted from Bitcoin, either.

[john-connor]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Thank you for your support.

Attacking smooth for his excellent work on XMR and AEON does nothing to change this fact:

The issue is whether [VanillaCoin] illegally and unethically used Bitcoin code without attribution. The answer is 'yes'.

The more you deflect, the more it confirms you are a scammer.

Smooth was not the first person to show evidence that the code was simply reformatted from Bitcoin, either.

Yes, it's adorable how the VanillaScammers attack gmax for (of all things) being a BTC core dev.  As if that disqualifes his findings of fact w.r.t. other cryptocoins... 

[alphacenturion]

Yawn. So much FUD on these forums its ridiculous. It would seem the more FUD, the more legit the project.

[Wheatclove]

Smooth - the dev of XMR has made serious accusations against Vanilla coin:

john-conner's project, Vanillacoin (VNL), includes a significant amount of reformatted and, at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code which has illegally and unethically had its attribution and copyright notices removed. In addition, he describes Vanillacoin as written "from scratch in its entirety", a false, misleading, and fraudulent claim that is being used to promote his coin. Given that this shows dishonesty, low credibility, and willingness to engage in unethical conduct, extreme caution is advised.

What do you guys think? Is this accusation grounded?

This is not an accusation made solely by smooth. Anyone with even a novice eye for C++ (like myself) can check out both source codes and prove it.

[Liquid71]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

when skynet becomes self aware will VNL coin owners be spared on doomsday or are they going to become a pile of dead organic matter like the rest of humanity  

hint: market VNL as a way to avoid the hell of Armageddon and be spared by skynet on doomsday and you will open up a new market. Reynolds Aluminum generates millions every year off tin foil hats, so while a small segment of society they can still 100x VNL market cap.

[john-connor]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[BagHolder010]

You know this is a screwed up forum when you see Monero developers attacking Conner while they did not give any credit to Bytecoin but guess what they attacked Bytecoin instead! LOL

I sure hope Fluffypony doesn't come here and copy paste here as well...they have developed an amazing copy paste skills within last 1.5 years so far. Last I heard they managed to move around some codes as well and called it *theirs*  

[iCEBREAKER]

Smooth - the dev of XMR has made serious accusations against Vanilla coin:

john-conner's project, Vanillacoin (VNL), includes a significant amount of reformatted and, at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code which has illegally and unethically had its attribution and copyright notices removed. In addition, he describes Vanillacoin as written "from scratch in its entirety", a false, misleading, and fraudulent claim that is being used to promote his coin. Given that this shows dishonesty, low credibility, and willingness to engage in unethical conduct, extreme caution is advised.

What do you guys think? Is this accusation grounded?

Yes, this 100% fact.

Scam confirmed.

Citation:

github http://vanillacoin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=420

Hah. Looks like poking here had some effect.

So... this code is substantially an older copy of Bitcoin Core (maybe copied from the ppcoin codebase? I see some fragments of that) with the attribution removed (in violation of the software license for Bitcoin core) and run through an ugly auto-formatter.


It also doesn't agree with the binary on the site (linux64 sha256sum b07f40515ee75b768424189942d44af8c68b816bfc3018da65f4af273a283183):

E.g. ECDSA verification in the binary on the site gives this disassembly:

000000000054bc00 <_ZN4coin3key6verifyERKNS_6sha256ERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEE>:
  54bc00:       48 89 5c 24 e8          mov    %rbx,-0x18(%rsp)
  54bc05:       48 89 6c 24 f0          mov    %rbp,-0x10(%rsp)
  54bc0a:       4c 89 64 24 f8          mov    %r12,-0x8(%rsp)
  54bc0f:       48 83 ec 18             sub    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc13:       48 8b 2a                mov    (%rdx),%rbp
  54bc16:       48 8b 5a 08             mov    0x8(%rdx),%rbx
  54bc1a:       4c 8b 27                mov    (%rdi),%r12
  54bc1d:       48 89 f7                mov    %rsi,%rdi
  54bc20:       e8 bb a1 03 00          callq  585de0 <_ZNK4coin6sha2566digestEv>
  54bc25:       48 89 e9                mov    %rbp,%rcx
  54bc28:       31 ff                   xor    %edi,%edi
  54bc2a:       ba 20 00 00 00          mov    $0x20,%edx
  54bc2f:       48 29 eb                sub    %rbp,%rbx
  54bc32:       4d 89 e1                mov    %r12,%r9
  54bc35:       48 89 c6                mov    %rax,%rsi
  54bc38:       41 89 d8                mov    %ebx,%r8d
  54bc3b:       e8 d0 59 1e 00          callq  731610 <ECDSA_verify>
  54bc40:       83 f8 01                cmp    $0x1,%eax
  54bc43:       48 8b 1c 24             mov    (%rsp),%rbx
  54bc47:       48 8b 6c 24 08          mov    0x8(%rsp),%rbp
  54bc4c:       0f 94 c0                sete   %al
  54bc4f:       4c 8b 64 24 10          mov    0x10(%rsp),%r12
  54bc54:       48 83 c4 18             add    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc58:       c3                      retq   
  54bc59:       90                      nop
  54bc5a:       66 0f 1f 44 00 00       nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)

compared to this source code:

bool key::verify(
    const sha256 & h, const std::vector<std::uint8_t> & signature
    )
{
    bool ret = false;
   
    if (signature.size() > 0)
    {
        auto ptr_signature = &signature[0];
       
        ECDSA_SIG * ecdsa_sig = 0;
       
        /**
         * Make sure that the signature looks like a valid signature before
         * sending it to OpenSSL (like in the test cases).
         */
        if (
            (ecdsa_sig = d2i_ECDSA_SIG(
            0, &ptr_signature, signature.size())) != 0
            )
        {
            std::uint8_t * pp = 0;
           
            auto len = i2d_ECDSA_SIG(ecdsa_sig, &pp);
           
            ECDSA_SIG_free(ecdsa_sig), ecdsa_sig = 0;
           
            if (pp && len > 0)
            {
                ret = ECDSA_verify(
                    0, h.digest(), sha256::digest_length, pp, len, m_EC_KEY
                ) == 1;
               
                OPENSSL_free(pp), pp = 0;
            }
        }
    }
   
    return ret;
}

Which contains a workaround for the change in OpenSSL behavior that the john-connor was so busily insulting us about. The disassembly shows no calls to d2i_ECDSA_SIG in that function-- the only one in the whole binary is the one inside OpenSSL that was there all along.  Extra fun is the fact that this change appears to have been deceptively backdated in the git repository to December 9th.

Doesn't appear to have any of the GUI code either; I wonder what other ways the source doesn't agree with the binary?

[flipme]

Smooth - the dev of XMR has made serious accusations against Vanilla coin:

john-conner's project, Vanillacoin (VNL), includes a significant amount of reformatted and, at best, lightly-edited Bitcoin code which has illegally and unethically had its attribution and copyright notices removed. In addition, he describes Vanillacoin as written "from scratch in its entirety", a false, misleading, and fraudulent claim that is being used to promote his coin. Given that this shows dishonesty, low credibility, and willingness to engage in unethical conduct, extreme caution is advised.

What do you guys think? Is this accusation grounded?

Yes, this 100% fact.

Scam confirmed.

Citation:

github http://vanillacoin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=420

Hah. Looks like poking here had some effect.

So... this code is substantially an older copy of Bitcoin Core (maybe copied from the ppcoin codebase? I see some fragments of that) with the attribution removed (in violation of the software license for Bitcoin core) and run through an ugly auto-formatter.


It also doesn't agree with the binary on the site (linux64 sha256sum b07f40515ee75b768424189942d44af8c68b816bfc3018da65f4af273a283183):

E.g. ECDSA verification in the binary on the site gives this disassembly:

000000000054bc00 <_ZN4coin3key6verifyERKNS_6sha256ERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEE>:
  54bc00:       48 89 5c 24 e8          mov    %rbx,-0x18(%rsp)
  54bc05:       48 89 6c 24 f0          mov    %rbp,-0x10(%rsp)
  54bc0a:       4c 89 64 24 f8          mov    %r12,-0x8(%rsp)
  54bc0f:       48 83 ec 18             sub    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc13:       48 8b 2a                mov    (%rdx),%rbp
  54bc16:       48 8b 5a 08             mov    0x8(%rdx),%rbx
  54bc1a:       4c 8b 27                mov    (%rdi),%r12
  54bc1d:       48 89 f7                mov    %rsi,%rdi
  54bc20:       e8 bb a1 03 00          callq  585de0 <_ZNK4coin6sha2566digestEv>
  54bc25:       48 89 e9                mov    %rbp,%rcx
  54bc28:       31 ff                   xor    %edi,%edi
  54bc2a:       ba 20 00 00 00          mov    $0x20,%edx
  54bc2f:       48 29 eb                sub    %rbp,%rbx
  54bc32:       4d 89 e1                mov    %r12,%r9
  54bc35:       48 89 c6                mov    %rax,%rsi
  54bc38:       41 89 d8                mov    %ebx,%r8d
  54bc3b:       e8 d0 59 1e 00          callq  731610 <ECDSA_verify>
  54bc40:       83 f8 01                cmp    $0x1,%eax
  54bc43:       48 8b 1c 24             mov    (%rsp),%rbx
  54bc47:       48 8b 6c 24 08          mov    0x8(%rsp),%rbp
  54bc4c:       0f 94 c0                sete   %al
  54bc4f:       4c 8b 64 24 10          mov    0x10(%rsp),%r12
  54bc54:       48 83 c4 18             add    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc58:       c3                      retq   
  54bc59:       90                      nop
  54bc5a:       66 0f 1f 44 00 00       nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)

compared to this source code:

bool key::verify(
    const sha256 & h, const std::vector<std::uint8_t> & signature
    )
{
    bool ret = false;
   
    if (signature.size() > 0)
    {
        auto ptr_signature = &signature[0];
       
        ECDSA_SIG * ecdsa_sig = 0;
       
        /**
         * Make sure that the signature looks like a valid signature before
         * sending it to OpenSSL (like in the test cases).
         */
        if (
            (ecdsa_sig = d2i_ECDSA_SIG(
            0, &ptr_signature, signature.size())) != 0
            )
        {
            std::uint8_t * pp = 0;
           
            auto len = i2d_ECDSA_SIG(ecdsa_sig, &pp);
           
            ECDSA_SIG_free(ecdsa_sig), ecdsa_sig = 0;
           
            if (pp && len > 0)
            {
                ret = ECDSA_verify(
                    0, h.digest(), sha256::digest_length, pp, len, m_EC_KEY
                ) == 1;
               
                OPENSSL_free(pp), pp = 0;
            }
        }
    }
   
    return ret;
}

Which contains a workaround for the change in OpenSSL behavior that the john-connor was so busily insulting us about. The disassembly shows no calls to d2i_ECDSA_SIG in that function-- the only one in the whole binary is the one inside OpenSSL that was there all along.  Extra fun is the fact that this change appears to have been deceptively backdated in the git repository to December 9th.

Doesn't appear to have any of the GUI code either; I wonder what other ways the source doesn't agree with the binary?

Haha. I remember Monero didn't even have a GUI for months to come. HAHAHAHA