[AC] AsiaCoin | Pure PoS | 100% Interest

[lionhead666]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

So what is to prevent the original developer from selling more coins from the premine as we speak? Are you rolling back the block-chain to some point in the past or what, I don't get it?

Im not a coder, but as far as i know, there is a hardcode to block wallet, where the orriginal dev have these premined coins. That's the main reason for stop deposits and withdraws on exchanges and the rason why we'rewaiting for new updated wallet. Those premined coins will be, simply told, ignored.

I am a coder. I'll break it down.

Everyone can look on our AsiaCoin block explorer from the OP that wallet AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu gained 3228519924.78 AC from transaction 4f2a34278389aac0b88bbb283338d4dac9314ec62e7dba0f263fc4570aa93c3b. If we go back to the first blocks, it's easy to spot that  block 1 is the original dev's premine and has a similarly large value to the dev wallet above.

As for the code fixes, look here and here for the hard coded dev wallet bans. We can all see redundant checks to block AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu in ProcessBlock, IsStandard, and AcceptBlock. Check it out for yourselves. Each dev wallet ban in the code looks similar to this:

Code:

static const CBitcoinAddress lostWallet ("AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu");

Code:

if (lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()){
	return error("CBlock::AcceptBlock() : Banned Address %s tried to send a transaction (rejecting it).", addressSource.ToString().c_str());
}

[Maestro1]

To be clear,

It's not only a two-month-old account, as our lead developer (who actually led the coding of the fix and has been very active on this thread) is micryon, who has a pretty trustworthy profile here, and mullick from Cryptsy has been involved in every single step of the development.

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

I think you can assume that micryon and mullick are not the original developers.

I also invite everyone to go through the codes (links are on the first post and on our website), to both confirm that line by line there's nothing hidden there, and also to check that the code does what we claim it does (invalidating the premined coins in the original developer's wallet). Actually when we contacted the exchanges, they can confirm, this is what we asked them to do:

We believe it is absolutely crucial for all exchanges to thoroughly review the source code for two reasons: (1) to be confident about our work and indentions here and (2) to inform us if indeed there is something missed or a bug somewhere

I hope this helps.

[Maxikosw]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

[Maestro1]

The block explorer (that mullick has put up for us), has been up and down continuesly. I have contacted cryptexplorer.com and altexplorer.net to see if they are able to put up a block explorer (I believe the block explorer should be a by a third party, not us).

If anyone is interested in helping out with block explorer, please PM me.

[gemstar5000]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

LMAO. Some people huh.

[silencesilence]

A small updated article :

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/2014/5/7/asiacoin-source-code-cleaned-up-released-to-exchanges

More to come as you guys keep progressing

good job

[MacMuffin]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

So what is to prevent the original developer from selling more coins from the premine as we speak? Are you rolling back the block-chain to some point in the past or what, I don't get it?

Im not a coder, but as far as i know, there is a hardcode to block wallet, where the orriginal dev have these premined coins. That's the main reason for stop deposits and withdraws on exchanges and the rason why we'rewaiting for new updated wallet. Those premined coins will be, simply told, ignored.

I am a coder. I'll break it down.

Everyone can look on our AsiaCoin block explorer from the OP that wallet AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu gained 3228519924.78 AC from transaction 4f2a34278389aac0b88bbb283338d4dac9314ec62e7dba0f263fc4570aa93c3b. If we go back to the first blocks, it's easy to spot that  block 1 is the original dev's premine and has a similarly large value to the dev wallet above.

As for the code fixes, look here and here for the hard coded dev wallet bans. We can all see redundant checks to block AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu in ProcessBlock, IsStandard, and AcceptBlock. Check it out for yourselves. Each dev wallet ban in the code looks similar to this:

Code:

static const CBitcoinAddress lostWallet ("AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu");

Code:

if (lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()){
	return error("CBlock::AcceptBlock() : Banned Address %s tried to send a transaction (rejecting it).", addressSource.ToString().c_str());
}

Fair enough.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

You can download this handy program, winmerge, to check the sourcecodes yourself. Other than that, you can't know if anybody is lying or not.

[EnabledZombi3]

I think you're right to be skeptical. We should all always be skeptical of new altcoins. However, there is a way to verify whether an altcoin (or in this case, a fix to an altcoin) is a scam, and that way is to review the code.

I encourage all concerned parties who have even a rudimentary ability to read code to review micryon's changes and voice your approval and/or concerns. This is not just for your own benefit, but for the whole community.

The link again. Thank you for your efforts.

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

[cryptoba]

Great work, great new team, great goals, GREAT COIN !!!

Come on AsiaCoin 

[cryptoba]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

Sometimes, in life you need a bit of trust ! And also, being able to make the difference between something good or bad !
If not you will never be sure of anything !

[crunchynut]

So what is to prevent the original developer from selling more coins from the premine as we speak? Are you rolling back the block-chain to some point in the past or what, I don't get it?

Im not a coder, but as far as i know, there is a hardcode to block wallet, where the orriginal dev have these premined coins. That's the main reason for stop deposits and withdraws on exchanges and the rason why we'rewaiting for new updated wallet. Those premined coins will be, simply told, ignored.

I am a coder. I'll break it down.

Everyone can look on our AsiaCoin block explorer from the OP that wallet AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu gained 3228519924.78 AC from transaction 4f2a34278389aac0b88bbb283338d4dac9314ec62e7dba0f263fc4570aa93c3b. If we go back to the first blocks, it's easy to spot that  block 1 is the original dev's premine and has a similarly large value to the dev wallet above.

As for the code fixes, look here and here for the hard coded dev wallet bans. We can all see redundant checks to block AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu in ProcessBlock, IsStandard, and AcceptBlock. Check it out for yourselves. Each dev wallet ban in the code looks similar to this:

Code:

static const CBitcoinAddress lostWallet ("AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu");

Code:

if (lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()){
	return error("CBlock::AcceptBlock() : Banned Address %s tried to send a transaction (rejecting it).", addressSource.ToString().c_str());
}

you also checked whether this code is ever executed and there isn't anything hidden that prevents that check?

and did you check cbitcoinaddress, cbitcoinaddressvisitor, cbase58data, etc. that there is nothing hidden that would let the cbitcoinaddress constructors or "lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()" do something unexpected? you can confirm that the == operator works correctly and has no tiny flaw added that will fail in this special case?

it's easy to quote a few lines of code that somehow look like that everything is ok while there are several thousand lines of code involved in making this one comparison work and where you could easily hide your stuff.

[lilikiki]

What would happen if you took the source modified out the fixes, created 2 different wallet without the fix.  You then send the money from the premine account through the modded wallet, to the wallet of the other account with the modded wallet.  What would that do? Would that effectively transfer the coins from the premine to another account, thus it would be valid from there right?

Or do the nodes reject it? The nodes reject right?

[X-Laboratories]

Can some1 go through all the codes, just to be on the safe side... I mean we cannot know if the devs are in fact all the same as the original dev.

How can you be sure that new code inspektor is not friend with old code creator if the coin creator is old dev. It could be even old code creator wifes father cats cousin that inspect that new code. O_o

Sometimes, in life you need a bit of trust ! And also, being able to make the difference between something good or bad !
If not you will never be sure of anything !

So true.
+1

[Maxikosw]

What would happen if you took the source modified out the fixes, created 2 different wallet without the fix.  You then send the money from the premine account through the modded wallet, to the wallet of the other account with the modded wallet.  What would that do? Would that effectively transfer the coins from the premine to another account, thus it would be valid from there right?

Or do the nodes reject it? The nodes reject right?

Maestro1 says on page 37:

Only transactions from the wallets of the original developer (which holds the premined coins) are voided in the new wallet. All other transactions will remain valid regardless. However, people must upgrade to the new wallet when we release it to make sure that they are on the right network/blockchain if the original developer decided to mess around.

[Maestro1]

What would happen if you took the source modified out the fixes, created 2 different wallet without the fix.  You then send the money from the premine account through the modded wallet, to the wallet of the other account with the modded wallet.  What would that do? Would that effectively transfer the coins from the premine to another account, thus it would be valid from there right?

Or do the nodes reject it? The nodes reject right?

Adding to what Maxikosw quoted from me:

That's why need to make sure that exchanges have the correct wallet, and that everyone updates to the new version so that they will not accept any coins sent from the banned address of the original developer. This way whoever remains in the old wallet could be sent those invalid coins (this creates a fork), but the network that people who use the updated wallet and exchanges are on will not accept any blocks that there is a transaction from the banned address, therefore we're safe.

It's the same for any other cryptocurrency, you can take the source and ban any address but it will not matter as the places that matter (exchanges and pools in the case of PoW coins) are on the correct blockchain running the correct wallet.

[EnabledZombi3]

@Crunchynut
Thanks for playing devil's advocate. We need everyone to provide constructive criticism, and it sounds like you're code savvy enough to help us out. Go ahead and review the code. Let us know if you see a problem that needs to be addressed, or you could even address it yourself.

So what is to prevent the original developer from selling more coins from the premine as we speak? Are you rolling back the block-chain to some point in the past or what, I don't get it?

Im not a coder, but as far as i know, there is a hardcode to block wallet, where the orriginal dev have these premined coins. That's the main reason for stop deposits and withdraws on exchanges and the rason why we'rewaiting for new updated wallet. Those premined coins will be, simply told, ignored.

I am a coder. I'll break it down.

Everyone can look on our AsiaCoin block explorer from the OP that wallet AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu gained 3228519924.78 AC from transaction 4f2a34278389aac0b88bbb283338d4dac9314ec62e7dba0f263fc4570aa93c3b. If we go back to the first blocks, it's easy to spot that  block 1 is the original dev's premine and has a similarly large value to the dev wallet above.

As for the code fixes, look here and here for the hard coded dev wallet bans. We can all see redundant checks to block AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu in ProcessBlock, IsStandard, and AcceptBlock. Check it out for yourselves. Each dev wallet ban in the code looks similar to this:

Code:

static const CBitcoinAddress lostWallet ("AKPy5ugy98yBkBCNU9Ne1bHExy5tqdq9Gu");

Code:

if (lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()){
	return error("CBlock::AcceptBlock() : Banned Address %s tried to send a transaction (rejecting it).", addressSource.ToString().c_str());
}

you also checked whether this code is ever executed and there isn't anything hidden that prevents that check?

and did you check cbitcoinaddress, cbitcoinaddressvisitor, cbase58data, etc. that there is nothing hidden that would let the cbitcoinaddress constructors or "lostWallet.Get() == addressSource.Get()" do something unexpected? you can confirm that the == operator works correctly and has no tiny flaw added that will fail in this special case?

it's easy to quote a few lines of code that somehow look like that everything is ok while there are several thousand lines of code involved in making this one comparison work and where you could easily hide your stuff.

[Kazulya]

when can we expect the opening of trading?

[Maestro1]

Great news:

I have received word from Bter.com that they reviewed our code, are happy with our solution and have upgraded their wallets. Trades and deposits are still suspended until we confirm that it is safe to do so (after the new wallets are released and marketed to the community) and the new wallets are widely tested, which should be in around a week.

Hopefully more exchanges will follow soon.

[bluebit25]

Great news:

I have received word from Bter.com that they reviewed our code, are happy with our solution and have upgraded their wallets. Trades and deposits are still suspended until we confirm that it is safe to do so (after the new wallets are released and marketed to the community), which should be in around a week.

Hopefully more exchanges will follow soon.

This is fantastic news!!!! Way to go devs and the whole community for the support!!!

[X-Laboratories]

As soon as I download the new wallet I will donate as promised.
20% of my total AC holding  to the DEV AC address.
Please provide the correct address for the tranfer.
Great job guys!!!
 P.S.

We need to coordinate with miners to sustain the market price of the AC.
I hope the multipool will be the next step of this brilliant initiative.
We need to have a decent and costant BUY pressure on major markets, and to stabilize price.
We need to point our hashing power to one or max two multipools. (X-Lab can provide respectable hashing power)
We need to mine other alts----->sell them at market price to obtain BTC and then BUY decent quantities of AC coin costantly, over multiple markets and with the right pace to avoid price drops.