bitworldfun
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
|
 |
February 19, 2016, 02:32:12 PM |
|
In many ways Vanillacoin has become a testpot for a lot if not all the features people have been asking for Bitcoin to implement. whether that is significant or not is up to each person to decide.
but being that bitcoin is having an impossible time adding something as simple as scalable blocksize, and a lightning network without handing dev control to a group of heavilly invested entrepreneurs. VNL is a great project to see how these things can work in Real time and to test out the problems(if any) with them.
If it turns out that lightning networks/zerotime can work without to much risk,(please read up on sybil attacks), or if the mixer can be shown to run anonymously, quickly, and without bloat issues, then I will consider VNL as a frontrunner in the altcoin space.
If some of these things lend up being mathematically flawed, than at least it is another testing grounds for developers like John-connor to fix and grow from.
basically VNL by having these features has proved it isnt vaporware like so many other projects, but has not proved mathematically that it isnt flawed.... of course there is no such thing as 100% anonymity in crypography, and there is probably no such thing as an impossible double spend in a zerotime transaction, but if they work well enough to allow me to use them without worries of being cheated, I am happy.
|
|
|
|
|
l8orre
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1181
Merit: 1018
|
|
February 19, 2016, 02:39:37 PM |
|
As john-connor would say, "go read the code"
suuuuuuure! Which exactly were the stolen parts?  #!/usr/bin/perl -w use strict; my @d; my$__ # = ':'; my # $___ =18 ;for( 'a' ..'d' ){ push # @d,$_ .$__. $___;$___ ++;}$___ +=5;for('e'..'i'){push @d,$_.$__ .$___ ;$___+=6;}$___=''; for(1..3) { $___.=$_}push@d,'j'.$__.$___ ;$___=''; for( 1..9){$___.=$_ unless(($_-1)%4 ); }push@d,'k'.$__.$___;$___=''; for('a'.. 'am'){$___.=$_;}push@d,'l'.$__. length($___ );$___=length($___)+36;push @d,'m' . $__.$___;$___*=2;$___-=16;push @d,'n' . $__.$___;$___+=36;for('o'.. 's'){push @d,$_.$__.$___;$___+=7;}push @d,'W'. $__ .$___;my@__;$___=''; while( <DATA>){chomp;s/\s//g; $___.=$_; }push@d,split/\//, $___;my$m; foreach(@d){if( m/^(\w)  .*)$/ ){$m->{$1}="\033". '[48;5;'. $2."m \033[0m";} else{ s/S/ /g;my$_oO_; while((s/^(\d+)(.)//)) {$_oO_ .=$2 x$1}$_oO_ .=$_;$_= $_oO_;$_.= ######### reverse$_; s/(\w)/$m->{$1}/g; print;print "\n";}}#### __DATA__ 22S18 a/18S22b/16S24c /14a2S21d3S/ 14b2S13e11S/14c 3S17f6S/1S13d 3S17g6S/1S13e3S2 1h2S/1S6f3S5f5 S20i/2S5g5S6g6S1 6j/2S7h5S7h5S1 4k/2S9i5S8i5S11W/3 S4j2S5j4S10j4S8 W/3S4k4S5k4S9k6S5W/ 3S4W6S5W5S6W9S2W /3S6W6S5W5S4W3S2W6S/ 4S7W6S5W5S3W2S4W4S /4S9W7S4W3S3W3S5W2S/ 4S 12W6S8W3S6W1S/6S 12W7S6W2S7W/8S13W6S4 W3S6W/3S3W6S1W10l5S2 l1W3S1W5l/3S1W2l 2W 5S2W16l1W2S1W5l/3S2 W3l2W5S3W13l1W3S 1W4l/4S1W5m2W6S14W3S 1W4m/4S1W7m2W21S1W 4m/4S1W8m1W21S1W4m/ 5S1W7n1W21S1W4n/6S1W 6n1W16S3W3S1W3n/6S1 W7n4W10S2W2n1W3S1W3n/ 6S1W11o4W3S3W4o1W3S1W 3o/6S1W14o1W2S1W7o1W3 S1W3o/6S1W14o1W2S1W7o1 W3S1W3o/6S1W14p1W2S1W7 p1W3S1W3p/7S1W13p1W2S1W 7p1W3S1W3p/7S1W13p1W2 S1W7p1W3S1W3p/7S1W13q1W2S 1W7q1W3S4W/7S1W13q1W2 S1W7q1W7S/7S1W13q1W2S1W7q 8W/7S2W12q1W2S1W15q/9 S1W11r1W2S1W15r/10S1W10r 1W2S1W8r7W/11S1W9r1W2 S1W7r1W7S/12S4W5s1W2S1W5s2W 2S6W/16S2W3s1W2S1W4s1 W3S1W6q/18S4W2S1W4s1W2S1W7r /24S5W2S1W8s/24S5W2S9W /26S2W3S9W/ |
|
|
|
|
traumschiff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
|
|
February 19, 2016, 04:16:21 PM |
|
There are two markets for crypto currency. 1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that. 2. Attaining millions of users. So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2. As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so. If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do (  = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. Yeah, read Wolf0 again, you claim you are #2 and you are doing that since atleast a year on this forum. But, hey, atleast you are giving people fun times while they laugh at you. |
|
|
|
traumschiff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
|
|
February 19, 2016, 05:42:26 PM |
|
There are two markets for crypto currency. 1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that. 2. Attaining millions of users. So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2. As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so. If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do ( = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. No, I saw your point clearly. My point is that it's invalid without supporting evidence, of which you provide none. A premise backed by nothing isn't even worthy of consideration - it is simply hot air. Meaning from where I'm sitting, John has actually showed more in results than you have thus far. Trying to call him out for what he's doing with his coin while claiming to know better ways of doing it - yet having nothing real to show - only makes you look like an idiot. This isn't poker, bluffing gets you nowhere. You can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh! I'm stupid for not accepting your outlandish claims that you're succeeding in #2 - as of yet, you've shown proof of nothing. Okay, let's go with that. It's relevant because your premise that John is playing the game you describe in #1 has supporting arguments that depend on previous attacks against what he's doing with his coin - and those attacks include the claim that you can solve what you see to be issues, while providing no evidence for this. Now that I've explicitly laid out the dependencies your main attack has, you should see quite simply how you're simply building atop bullshit that doesn't hold water (that is, your claims) and because of this, the entire argument falls apart. Do we need to get out the crayons? Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard.  |
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 19, 2016, 05:44:39 PM |
|
There are two markets for crypto currency. 1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that. 2. Attaining millions of users. So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2. As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so. If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do ( = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. No, I saw your point clearly. My point is that it's invalid without supporting evidence, of which you provide none. A premise backed by nothing isn't even worthy of consideration - it is simply hot air. Meaning from where I'm sitting, John has actually showed more in results than you have thus far. Trying to call him out for what he's doing with his coin while claiming to know better ways of doing it - yet having nothing real to show - only makes you look like an idiot. This isn't poker, bluffing gets you nowhere. You can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh! I'm stupid for not accepting your outlandish claims that you're succeeding in #2 - as of yet, you've shown proof of nothing. Okay, let's go with that. It's relevant because your premise that John is playing the game you describe in #1 has supporting arguments that depend on previous attacks against what he's doing with his coin - and those attacks include the claim that you can solve what you see to be issues, while providing no evidence for this. Now that I've explicitly laid out the dependencies your main attack has, you should see quite simply how you're simply building atop bullshit that doesn't hold water (that is, your claims) and because of this, the entire argument falls apart. Do we need to get out the crayons? Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard. Well, go rest on your couch, if you have one, I know you are sad and angry that may happen that you wont live enough to see detailed white paper from John but... ..but please, it seems you are not quite well, sit and rest and drift away think about specs and distribution of your ImagoCoin in your dream land. I hope you’ll feel better. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
February 19, 2016, 05:45:22 PM |
|
There are two markets for crypto currency.
1. Selling features to speculators. Never mind if these features ever get used by millions of people, because none of these altcoins are ever going to attain that.
2. Attaining millions of users.
So far, no one has done #2. I intend to do #2.
As for #1, "John" (who is this anonymous person?) hasn't given us one complete white paper yet. So therefor he is being attacked (bcz the speculation market is all about perception), and rightfully so.
If he was all about implementation, then he would have a plan for #2. As I claim I do ( = secret). Right, as you claim you do. So... who are you to attack someone else when you're standing on weak ground yourself? You entirely missed the point. Try reading again. Hint: #1 is where John is playing and #2 is where I am playing thus I am immune to foruming attacks. In #1, perception is what drives speculation. No, I saw your point clearly. My point is that it's invalid without supporting evidence, of which you provide none. A premise backed by nothing isn't even worthy of consideration - it is simply hot air. Meaning from where I'm sitting, John has actually showed more in results than you have thus far. Trying to call him out for what he's doing with his coin while claiming to know better ways of doing it - yet having nothing real to show - only makes you look like an idiot. This isn't poker, bluffing gets you nowhere. You can't even comprehend that whether I am succeeding in #2 (or not), is irrelevant to the point that John is playing his game in #1 and thus is subject to the fact that perception is what drives results in #1. It has nothing to do with me. Duh! I'm stupid for not accepting your outlandish claims that you're succeeding in #2 - as of yet, you've shown proof of nothing. Okay, let's go with that. It's relevant because your premise that John is playing the game you describe in #1 has supporting arguments that depend on previous attacks against what he's doing with his coin - and those attacks include the claim that you can solve what you see to be issues, while providing no evidence for this. Now that I've explicitly laid out the dependencies your main attack has, you should see quite simply how you're simply building atop bullshit that doesn't hold water (that is, your claims) and because of this, the entire argument falls apart. Do we need to get out the crayons? Well those with sufficient brain stem can see you still haven't gotten the point. Have fun with your crayons. I with not respond again to this retard. Lol. Of course not, I am laughing at you. I will not respond again to this second retard who can't seem to comprehend I have no reason to be mad because I was correct and it is hilarious that the supporters of VNL confirm their very low IQs and thus providing evidence as to why they are easily manipulated by their "John". |
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 19, 2016, 05:46:31 PM |
|
As john-connor would say, "go read the code"
suuuuuuure! Which exactly were the stolen parts? Well that question show how much exactly you know, so.. If you have some questions you should probably ask your copyright FUD squad friends... or Go read the code, I wonder if you can Than read the code again, and try to understand What your FUD pals don't want you to know is ...that Vanilla is the only way to go. |
|
|
|
|
adhitthana
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
|
|
February 20, 2016, 12:47:58 AM |
|
Vanilla uses code stolen from Bitcoin, and the scam dev refused to do the right thing when gmaxwell, etc asked him to fix the lack of proper attribution, as required per the software license.
So did GMaxwell copyright some code he added to the original Bitcoin code? |
|
|
|
|
cryptohunter2
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
|
|
February 20, 2016, 01:41:14 AM |
|
He really asked smooth if John is a good coder. This is ridiculous. I haven't reviewed his code LOL  What's ridiculous about it? G maxwell said in his comments (for exact words look up the thread ...) he sees the work of a general coder not someone with specific talents in the field of decentralized crypto currency? I was merely asking a reasonable person who is know to work in that field for a 2nd opinion. I have a few VNL i was wondering if I should get a bit more or just put the rest into a different project. I was also asking about initial distribution because I don't like coins where there was a huge instamine or premine. Question are not allowed? Are you in a position personally to make in depth evaluation of his design and coding skills? if so you are probably in the minority. |
|
|
|
|
|
Riseman
|
|
February 20, 2016, 02:04:59 AM |
|
Finally, this coin is starting to rise after being below 15k for a few months. Is this the start of a new rally or is this just used to dump onto people who buy?
I don't see any good news for this coin at the moment.
The good news should come soon if the 6-month timeline won't become a 12-month timeline. I've been watching the VNL market quite closely during the past 2 months and I'm sure these spikes were just speculative pumps. I saw that guy moving his walls, "drawing" the chart with them and then dumping his coins while trying not to crash the market. After each spike he "releases" the market for some time and the daily volume drops to its usual 4-6 BTC. What is he up to in the end I don't know. Actually I don't get it. There seems to be something really wrong with how this coin is traded. It's as if no one is interested and there is no activity apart from those fake rises and daily 4-6 BTC dumps (when only about 3 BTC worth of coins is mined daily). It's not just another shitcoin but it is surely traded like one. Maybe it has already depleted it's "pump capacity" for the first couple of years after the launch and no one wants to take a risk. I mean not only to pump but also to invest big time and cause a natural growth. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
February 20, 2016, 02:16:27 AM
Last edit: February 20, 2016, 02:34:04 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I am glancing at John's (VNL's) code now. I notice he likes to put the opening brace on the next line, which wastes vertical space (expert programmers like to maximize the LOC they can view without scrolling). And he places a redundant 'break;' after 'default;' but this is form of protecting against future human error code edits. This sort of unnecessary structuralization of code is meaningful to junior programmers who think it works some kind of magic. He is not at all using functional programming and instead creating procedures (i.e. have side-effects) which is known to produce spaghetti code (brittle code). He sure loves to waste vertical space and make it appear his code has more LOC than it does! 3 line comments for 3 words. Makes me think he gets confused quickly if code is dense. Throwing exceptions puts the program in a state of indeterminism! Catching an exception puts the program in a random state, because it is bypasses deterministic static typing of invariants. By definition of determinism, in every case where the is a determinstic state to bubble an exceptional condition to, i.e. to deterministically recover from an exceptional condition, this bubbling can be accomplished statically at compile-time. It is another way of saying that halting the program when it is in an non-deterministic state, is "given more eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". The type of bugs that deterministically bubble coherently at compile-time, are those that are not semantic logic errors in the programmer's type design. Semantic logic errors means the program is by design in an incoherent, random state (that thus must be halted). Thus semantic logic errors that randomly trip on an exception, should be handled the same as bugs which deterministically bubble at compile-time and trip on an exception. Halting the program may be restarting the program from (i.e. rewinding to) a historic copy of coherent state, and/or reporting into a debugger. There was a long fruitful discussion that illuminated the above concepts. Consider the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at compile-time, i.e. the function's invariants are statically typed and the throw (i.e. halt) is provably bubbled outside of the function at compile-time. class NonZeroDiff
{
a, b // also these might be declared to be read only outside the new() constructor
new( a : Int, b : Int )
{
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
this.a = a
this.b = b
}
}
function f( ab : NonZeroDiff )
{
return (ab.a * ab.b) / (ab.a – ab.b)
}
result = f( new NonZeroDiff( 2, 1 ) )Compare the above, to the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at run-time, i.e. the function's invariant type is dynamically typed. The inputs to the function (f) are statically typed Int, but the invariants a - b != 0 is not asserted by Int inputs, and instead the throw (i.e. halt) is inside the function at compile-time and can only bubble at run-time. function f( a : Int, b : Int )
{
// could instead be thrown by the / operator
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
return (a * b) / (a – b)
}
result = f( 2, 1 )The fundamental conclusion is that in dynamic typing, the throw check is inside the function (f) being reused, and in static typing the check is outside the function, in the type of the invariants specified by the function’s type. Thus in the dynamic-typing case, the function inherently bind's its internal check in a futures contract to the universe of possible external code (because the external code is not forced by the compiler, to do a throw check itself), i.e. tries to in vain to define the limit of the external universe. Whereas, in the static-typing case, the external code is forced to check for itself, in order to comply with the compile-time checked invariants of the function. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
February 20, 2016, 02:52:41 AM |
|
https://github.com/john-connor/papers/blob/master/chainblender.pdfSorry it can be jammed and/or Sybil attacked. Else it must use trusted relays (a la Dash masternodes), which means one need only control or infiltrate these trusted relays to deanonymize. Sorry Cryptonote and Zcash are end-to-end principled anonymity, not this BS of putting the anonymity in the network. And Zcash does it correctly by making the meta-data such as IP address irrelevant. Chainblender needs to split into denominations same as for Cryptonote, which Monero is eliminating with RingCT. Zcash/Zerocash never had this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 20, 2016, 08:22:16 AM
Last edit: February 20, 2016, 08:47:30 AM by YAdaminer |
|
He really asked smooth if John is a good coder. This is ridiculous. I haven't reviewed his code LOL What's ridiculous about it? G maxwell said in his comments (for exact words look up the thread ...) he sees the work of a general coder not someone with specific talents in the field of decentralized crypto currency? I was merely asking a reasonable person who is know to work in that field for a 2nd opinion. I have a few VNL i was wondering if I should get a bit more or just put the rest into a different project. I was also asking about initial distribution because I don't like coins where there was a huge instamine or premine. Question are not allowed? Are you in a position personally to make in depth evaluation of his design and coding skills? if so you are probably in the minority. What is ridiculous? Well, it's like you ask Opel car salesman whether Audi is better car and he says, look I never drove the Audi but I think not. Regarding G maxwell, he speaks about john-connor as 'general coder', but hey that general coder made ZeroTime while G maxwell even with raised $55 Mil can't explain how should Lightning Network work. So, if he can't explain how the hell he will make it. If you have VNL and not only have them on exchange you should already know what is all about. Initial distribution, about that you can hear stories and as far as I know and I mine VNL from almost beginning is that john-connor was always in fight with those who were looking for ways to instamine or rape the coin through mining, but than again after a year on exchanges that question becomes irrelevant. Questions are welcome. Everyone is in position to read the code, can one evaluate it is other thing but commenting code while claiming you read none is just BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 20, 2016, 08:44:06 AM |
|
I am glancing at John's (VNL's) code now. I notice he likes to put the opening brace on the next line, which wastes vertical space (expert programmers like to maximize the LOC they can view without scrolling). And he places a redundant 'break;' after 'default;' but this is form of protecting against future human error code edits. This sort of unnecessary structuralization of code is meaningful to junior programmers who think it works some kind of magic. He is not at all using functional programming and instead creating procedures (i.e. have side-effects) which is known to produce spaghetti code (brittle code). He sure loves to waste vertical space and make it appear his code has more LOC than it does! 3 line comments for 3 words. Makes me think he gets confused quickly if code is dense. Throwing exceptions puts the program in a state of indeterminism! Catching an exception puts the program in a random state, because it is bypasses deterministic static typing of invariants. By definition of determinism, in every case where the is a determinstic state to bubble an exceptional condition to, i.e. to deterministically recover from an exceptional condition, this bubbling can be accomplished statically at compile-time. It is another way of saying that halting the program when it is in an non-deterministic state, is "given more eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".
The type of bugs that deterministically bubble coherently at compile-time, are those that are not semantic logic errors in the programmer's type design. Semantic logic errors means the program is by design in an incoherent, random state (that thus must be halted). Thus semantic logic errors that randomly trip on an exception, should be handled the same as bugs which deterministically bubble at compile-time and trip on an exception. Halting the program may be restarting the program from (i.e. rewinding to) a historic copy of coherent state, and/or reporting into a debugger.
There was a long fruitful discussion that illuminated the above concepts. Consider the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at compile-time, i.e. the function's invariants are statically typed and the throw (i.e. halt) is provably bubbled outside of the function at compile-time.
class NonZeroDiff
{
a, b // also these might be declared to be read only outside the new() constructor
new( a : Int, b : Int )
{
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
this.a = a
this.b = b
}
}
function f( ab : NonZeroDiff )
{
return (ab.a * ab.b) / (ab.a – ab.b)
}
result = f( new NonZeroDiff( 2, 1 ) )
Compare the above, to the following example, which asserts the invariants of the function (f) at run-time, i.e. the function's invariant type is dynamically typed. The inputs to the function (f) are statically typed Int, but the invariants a - b != 0 is not asserted by Int inputs, and instead the throw (i.e. halt) is inside the function at compile-time and can only bubble at run-time.
function f( a : Int, b : Int )
{
// could instead be thrown by the / operator
if (a – b == 0) throw "Unexpected inputs"
return (a * b) / (a – b)
}
result = f( 2, 1 )
The fundamental conclusion is that in dynamic typing, the throw check is inside the function (f) being reused, and in static typing the check is outside the function, in the type of the invariants specified by the function’s type. Thus in the dynamic-typing case, the function inherently bind's its internal check in a futures contract to the universe of possible external code (because the external code is not forced by the compiler, to do a throw check itself), i.e. tries to in vain to define the limit of the external universe. Whereas, in the static-typing case, the external code is forced to check for itself, in order to comply with the compile-time checked invariants of the function.
LOL This is like you are commenting handwriting neatness of Homer's Iliad & Odyssey |
|
|
|
|
|
hughbt
|
|
February 20, 2016, 10:38:21 AM |
|
He really asked smooth if John is a good coder. This is ridiculous. I haven't reviewed his code LOL What's ridiculous about it? G maxwell said in his comments (for exact words look up the thread ...) he sees the work of a general coder not someone with specific talents in the field of decentralized crypto currency? I was merely asking a reasonable person who is know to work in that field for a 2nd opinion. I have a few VNL i was wondering if I should get a bit more or just put the rest into a different project. I was also asking about initial distribution because I don't like coins where there was a huge instamine or premine. Question are not allowed? Are you in a position personally to make in depth evaluation of his design and coding skills? if so you are probably in the minority. What is ridiculous? Well, it's like you ask Opel car salesman whether Audi is better car and he says, look I never drove the Audi but I think not.Regarding G maxwell, he speaks about john-connor as 'general coder', but hey that general coder made ZeroTime while G maxwell even with raised $55 Mil can't explain how should Lightning Network work. So, if he can't explain how the hell he will make it. If you have VNL and not only have them on exchange you should already know what is all about. Initial distribution, about that you can hear stories and as far as I know and I mine VNL from almost beginning is that john-connor was always in fight with those who were looking for ways to instamine or rape the coin through mining, but than again after a year on exchanges that question becomes irrelevant. Questions are welcome. Everyone is in position to read the code, can one evaluate it is other thing but commenting code while claiming you read none is just BS. I couldn't have put it better myself. It's a common sense and natural thing that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. Not every source of information is trustworthy. So far the only objective, independent and trustworthy party which reviewed the code is Poloniex. Besides bitcoin this is the only 1conf coin listed there. So there is no need for academic discussions - if someone think it's flawed then double spend it or stfu. People can keep talking shit about extra brackets in the code(sic!) but life already verified those bs claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
Indianacoin
|
|
February 20, 2016, 10:58:15 AM |
|
The community behind Vanilla coin is pretty small and it is not even known by 50% of altcoiners till now.
They need to uplift their community as well as try to advertise their asset.
Also they have a few exchanges (so far only at Bittrex and Poloniex).
They need to diversify their exchanges in order to get larger trade volumes + interest.
The interest rate to secure the network is also very low (only 0.7%) which is why most members are not interested to invest in it. In other words the interest rate not worth nowadays.
|
|
|
|
|
traumschiff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1001
180 BPM
|
|
February 20, 2016, 11:25:34 AM |
|
The community behind Vanilla coin is pretty small and it is not even known by 50% of altcoiners till now.
They need to uplift their community as well as try to advertise their asset. Everything is a community effort currently, so that explains why advertising is non-existent currently. Also advertising on this forum will be called out as shilling, scamming etc. Seems Monero shilling is the only accepted form of advertising here.John will push marketing when the product is finished, while other projects are getting pushed even while being in a buggy/non-finished/alpha state. They need to diversify their exchanges in order to get larger trade volumes + interest. Well these are the better western alt-coin exchanges, Chinese exchanges will follow up probably after the coin gets marketing rolling and additional miners and investors. The interest rate to secure the network is also very low (only 0.7%) which is why most members are not interested to invest in it. In other words the interest rate not worth nowadays. The POS part was probably never meant as a source of income, if the project would reach it's true value in the future, even that 0.7% might be a good interest for "only" securing the network. Since VNL has a staking android and iOS wallet, which really don't take up much battery life (1-2% maybe), that's not a huge price for getting "free" coins. It was mainly meant for further securing the network. POW/POS models should be more secure than simply POW or POS networks (see Decred is also running with this model). Also since fees are burned so it evens out the coin count in the future. Also if you want something that pleases investors, VNL has Node Incentives running where you can run a Super Peer with collateral running (10k) and get a % of PoW rewards. --- I'm fine with POS, but I agree that we need more marketing and exchanges, but it will all follow up with time when the "product" is finished. |
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 20, 2016, 11:40:04 AM
Last edit: February 20, 2016, 11:57:25 AM by YAdaminer |
|
The community behind Vanilla coin is pretty small and it is not even known by 50% of altcoiners till now.
They need to uplift their community as well as try to advertise their asset.
Also they have a few exchanges (so far only at Bittrex and Poloniex).
They need to diversify their exchanges in order to get larger trade volumes + interest.
The interest rate to secure the network is also very low (only 0.7%) which is why most members are not interested to invest in it. In other words the interest rate not worth nowadays.
That is because john-connor said it's not yet time for marketing, he always wanted to finish project first. Some members of community even left Vanilla cause they were against such approach and I can't blame them if they were looking for quick pump but Vanilla is not that kind of project. Look at Ethereum, Decred they all came out as not even semi finished products, on recently heavily pumped EXP you can even find one of those people on community manager position. Anyway this what I said should also shut mouth to dose saying that john-connor only want to sell his coins by developing Vanilla features while they are not mentioning that several coin developers already pulled some fixes from Vanilla for their coins. Regarding exchanges, there was c-cex but their incompetency cost some of us some Vanillas, nothing huge in my case but still, some other exchanges tried to implement Vanilla but without success, meaning Vanilla is not just another 15 min copy/paste clone and that's why you can see all that copyright FUD/steal/scam/ FUD coming from 'respectful' project members. Their projects and their full bags are threatened to become worthless. And they follow Goebbels strategy that if you repeat lie 100 times people will think it must be something there and they'll decide to stay away. Regarding network security I can say you didn't asked and searched enough and I'll point you to https://github.com/john-connor/papers …specially this one https://github.com/john-connor/papers/blob/master/node_incentives.pdf…and I can say it’s very profitable investment anyone can do. edit ... and here you can check current network status: http://www.vanillacoin.net/network.php |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
February 20, 2016, 12:11:47 PM
Last edit: February 25, 2016, 01:50:44 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I already explained upthread that ZeroTime (even when it is not Sybil attacked) can't scale and even your own shill admitted it isn't trustworthy. And I already explained that ChainBlender is another Dash-like nonsense anonymity design. The 'John' is not at our level. Period. Now you know why the community is ignoring you. And I will now ignore you as well. Enjoy your circle-jerk. |
|
|
|
|
YAdaminer
|
|
February 20, 2016, 12:23:24 PM
Last edit: February 20, 2016, 01:18:33 PM by YAdaminer |
|
I already explained upthread that ZeroTime (even when it is not Sybil attacked) can't scale.
And I already explained that ChainBlender is another Dash-like nonsense anonymity design.
The 'John' is not at our level. Period.
Now you know why the community is ignoring you. And I will now ignore you as well. Enjoy your circle-jerk.
You explained only that you are angry/sad/probably terminally ill dev wannabe dreamer, nothing else. Yes, john-connor actually working on real solutions he is not at your vaporware dreaming about level. Yea sure, just your wishful thinking... again. Finally, please ignore us, go somewhere, we all know circle-jerk follows you... ...or go rest on your couch and dream about features of your imaginary coin. |
|
|
|
|
|
