Smooth VS VNL

[iCEBREAKER]

You have no defense of your well-documented scumbag code theft, so you just keep crapflooding the forum with repetitive links to the DashHole's We-Hate-Smooth thread.

[1714066881]

1714066881

[1714066881]

1714066881

[1714066881]

1714066881

[john-connor]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[BagHolder010]

I think you got it all wrong, it was Smooth who created the thread of why he hates Evan and Dash. THEN blockfett CREATED that thread, remember we were in peace in the DASH ANN thread until we started seeing you/Smooth and probably the entire Monero people showing up day after day there. Not sure if that's how you think PR should look like or what lol.

[jimlite]

All I see is stupid accusations on what tiny part of code might be similiar to previous code.  Code will have similiarities to older code that works.  When you guys play Batman, Star Wars Battlefront, Metal Gear Solid, and Halo 5 this holiday season are you going to bitch that the devs of those games used DirectX and didn't re-code their own directx? Directx is what, 500MB and those games are about 30-50GB, so these games are all using .01% of the same code, who cares? I am sure they use far more of the same code for their graphics, sound, a.i. routines, artwork, etc. Hell John should have wrote his own operating system and computer language as well, right? So if he said it was coded from scratch it would satisfy you guys.

[smooth]

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

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:

Parts of this file are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

(May 9, 2014, when Monero had been forked in mid April)

As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

[jimlite]

This is like if Beethoven was FUDding Bach for using C# and 4/4 tempo, wtf? Like he isn't allowed to use notes because Beethoven did it first?
You guys are getting way too technical and upset over nothing. I get mad at these "Rap" artists that sample 2 seconds of a good old rock song
and somehow have a hit song when they clearly just scammed the hook or riff, but it isn't illegal (for a certain size sample or notes), and the
new audience may all like the rap song better, even if I like the original. Think EMINEM, Puff Daddy, hell just about all rappers.

[john-connor]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[john-connor]

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

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:

Parts of this file are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

(May 9, 2014, when Monero had been forked in mid April)

As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

Now you've publicly admitted that you do not know if the Monero and AEON source code is legal to distribute in source or binary form. You should have an attorney review this situation ASAP. Caveat emptor

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

[smooth]

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

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:

Parts of this file are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

(May 9, 2014, when Monero had been forked in mid April)

As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

Now you've publicly admitted that you do not know if the Monero and AEON source code is legal to distribute in source or binary form. You should have an attorney review this situation ASAP. Caveat emptor

Thank you for your support.

Nah. You're suggesting that bytecoin might not have had the right to distribute it under those terms. But that doesn't fly because same code was also posted directly by cryptonote as well, on their own repo https://github.com/cryptonotefoundation/cryptonote with the same attribution and license. For example:

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

But to get back on topic here, Vanillacoin apparently violating Bitcoin's license on substantial portions of the code (as documented in the Reference link and gmaxwells post and elsewhere) is another matter entirely.

Or can you point to some source documenting you were given permission to reformat the Bitcoin code and redistribute it without the attribution? If you can do that I will remove the negative trust and add positive trust correcting my earlier error.

[jimlite]

https://youtu.be/b7cy-3f3sc8?t=90

[john-connor]

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

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:

Parts of this file are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

(May 9, 2014, when Monero had been forked in mid April)

As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

Now you've publicly admitted that you do not know if the Monero and AEON source code is legal to distribute in source or binary form. You should have an attorney review this situation ASAP. Caveat emptor

Thank you for your support.

Nah.

I can have our attorney look into this situation regarding Monero and AEON at no cost since you are not a lawyer nor am I. But it does raise lot's of questions and I appreciate you bringing it to light.

Thank you for your support.

[smooth]

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

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:

Parts of this file are originally copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.

Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers

(May 9, 2014, when Monero had been forked in mid April)

As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

Now you've publicly admitted that you do not know if the Monero and AEON source code is legal to distribute in source or binary form. You should have an attorney review this situation ASAP. Caveat emptor

Thank you for your support.

Nah.

I can have our attorney look into this situation regarding Monero and AEON at no cost since you are not a lawyer nor am I. But it does raise lot's of questions and I appreciate you bringing it to light.

Better to have your attorney look into the situation with your reformatting of the Bitcoin code, redistributing with attributions removed (in violation of its license), and then passing it off as built from scratch

But who are we kidding here. If you actually had a qualified attorney and paid any attention to the advice from said attorney, you wouldn't be doing that in the first place.

Since you seem to have missed this the first time, I'll bold it for you:

Or can you point to some source documenting you were given permission to reformat the Bitcoin code and redistribute it without the attribution? If you can do that I will remove the negative trust and add positive trust correcting my earlier error.

[Gillette]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

Don`t make me believe that spamming is the only thing VNL dev can do.

Instead of producing substantial arguments in your coin`s favor, you begin spamming? 

[asepticskeptic]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

Don`t make me believe that spamming is the only thing VNL dev can do.

Instead of producing substantial arguments in your coin`s favor, you begin spamming? 

Note the tactical use of his own well substantiated argument other peoples words to sell the bait.

A true master.

[iCEBREAKER]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

Don`t make me believe that spamming is the only thing VNL dev can do.

Instead of producing substantial arguments in your coin`s favor, you begin spamming? 

Just report the crapflood to the mods, he's basically begging to get teh almighty ban-hammar.   

[bigfryguy]

XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

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

Thank you for your support.

Don`t make me believe that spamming is the only thing VNL dev can do.

Instead of producing substantial arguments in your coin`s favor, you begin spamming?  

thats idiotic, yes he spams, but the normal John-Conner spams are to github with constant updates
and that is more than enough for followers of this project to be happy about.


this coming from a guy who created a thread to restart an argument that people stopped caring about months ago.
John is just spamming you for trolling

[EmilioMann]

hey we have also SDC shadowtrash trolls here.
They reminded me of this thread "The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=818939.0

[EmilioMann]

I really dont care if someone took a line of an open source and not written where it came from or if another took a whole code and instead of putting it was copied and pasted from a scam called bytecoin, put "cryptonote creators" to make people think that the creators are themselves.

What really matters to me is that vanilla coin will soon be a perfect currency, much better technically than btc, xmr (timebomb) and dash.

I just hope vnl changes its name

[Wheatclove]

hey we have also SDC shadowtrash trolls here.
They reminded me of this thread "The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=818939.0

Why are you still so salty of people in the Shadowcash community going out of their ways to try and protect your dumb ass from being scammed?

[EmilioMann]

hey we have also SDC shadowtrash trolls here.
They reminded me of this thread "The full truth behind ShadowCash trolls and Their attacks on other coins."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=818939.0

Why are you still so salty of people in the Shadowcash community going out of their ways to try and protect your dumb ass from being scammed?

Shut up kid or I'm going to ask to ICM dump more hundreds of thousands of SDC that he got through the shadowtrash exploit