Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[arielbit]

using poloniex here and it is quite a while since i used craptsy 

[1715085312]

1715085312

[1715085312]

1715085312

[1715085312]

1715085312

[1715085312]

1715085312

[cyberhacker]

I WILL BOYCOTT POLO SINCE THEY ARE STARTING TO BAN PPL TELLING TRUTH

I WILL NEVER TRADE ON POLO!

[testadimerlo]

yeh, maybe we should really to update our sig. Busoni needs us much more than how we need his exchange. Bittrex works perfectly, for example. If within this evening busoni doesn't give the apologies to the supercoin community, I'll update my sig. Not because I'm directly involved in that coin - yeh I have 10K, very little fish - but because this shame could happen to every coin of this world. He is looking very unfair

[traumschiff]

yeh, maybe we should really to update our sig. Busoni needs us much more than how we need his exchange. Bittrex works perfectly, for example. If within this evening busoni doesn't give the apologies to the supercoin community, I'll update my sig. Not because I'm directly involved in that coin - yeh I have 10K, very little fish - but because this shame could happen to every coin of this world. He is looking very unfair

Agree.

They just burned hundreds of people with spreading fud.

Polo should expect waves of fud in their direction if not compensated with adding it / public apology.

[cyberhacker]

yeh, maybe we should really to update our sig. Busoni needs us much more than how we need his exchange. Bittrex works perfectly, for example. If within this evening busoni doesn't give the apologies to the supercoin community, I'll update my sig. Not because I'm directly involved in that coin - yeh I have 10K, very little fish - but because this shame could happen to every coin of this world. He is looking very unfair

+111

[testadimerlo]

I suggested to the supercoin community to write an open letter to Poloniex, so all of us can read and see how unfair poloniex is. Supercoin has not nothing to hide. An open letter is the best thing, asking for official apologies or something similar

[cyberhacker]

@supercointeam; did POLO contact you or any dev to apologize and make it right ?

No they did not contact us yet.

Open Statement under "Alternate cryptocurrencies" sub-column

We deserve their apology.

so ignorant are they.

[provenceday]

busoni, my friend, how is the code review by yourself going? We need some clarification from you. Thanks.

[heartastack]

Don't forget cloak community was hit by this first and didn't even get an official statement. Polo = failmafia

[cyberhacker]

busoni, my friend, how is the code review by yourself going? We need some clarification from you. Thanks.

BUSONI fucked up his own business. i will not talk in their trollbox and will not trade there anymore.

i will tweet as much as i can.

i will let all big whales and traders know the truth.

the incompetence and ignorance will drain out their volume

i will give BITTREX my golden hints and tips about improvement, actually i already did.

hope bittrex will get more attractive to users and beat polo soon.

Polo is acting like 10-year girl, refusing take responsibility.

[cyberhacker]

don't ask who i am, just call me "Leifeng" 

[mistress]

I suggested to the supercoin community to write an open letter to Poloniex, so all of us can read and see how unfair poloniex is. Supercoin has not nothing to hide. An open letter is the best thing, asking for official apologies or something similar

i changed my sig. Busoni, tell the truth!

[lunswor]

Give give busoni a break. All they are trying to do is to raise the level of what coins are added to their exchange

1. If SuperCoin code is fine then someone should pop up and show the code where everything is fine and then im sure busoni will get this reviewed again and withdraw his statement if nessecary.

2. Coins already added i'm sure will go through code reviews in the mean time but to review all 100+ markets and still add new coins to the exchange in one go is impossible.

Personally this exchange had a few problems in the early days and the way the dealt with that was outstanding which is the reason why they are still here today. Try to actually understand the efforts people are making to improve the crypto world instead of just criticizing.

[cyberhacker]

check my sig

[mistress]

Give give busoni a break. All they are trying to do is to raise the level of what coins are added to their exchange

1. If SuperCoin code is fine then someone should pop up and show the code where everything is fine and then im sure busoni will get this reviewed again and withdraw his statement if nessecary.

2. Coins already added i'm sure will go through code reviews in the mean time but to review all 100+ markets and still add new coins to the exchange in one go is impossible.

Personally this exchange had a few problems in the early days and the way the dealt with that was outstanding which is the reason why they are still here today. Try to actually understand the efforts people are making to improve the crypto world instead of just criticizing.

i could agree with u but... if u have the time to destroy a coin with a false announcement, maybe u should find the time to repair! i hate to be so rude, but it is an injustice

[heartastack]

check my sig

can you add 'and CLOAK'

[SirChiko]

I don't see why we shouldn't trust busoni's claim when it's true, explain why was it higher value than the other one then?

[BTCFinancials InvestGroup]

I don't see why we shouldn't trust busoni's claim when it's true, explain why was it higher value than the other one then?

Because it has jack shit to do with the max coin supply, it is so irrelevant they didnt bother changing it.

[chesthing]

Poloniex has decided not to list SuperCoin because of some disturbing things we turned up in our code review. I would like to draw your attention to this part of the ANN post:

- Total PoW coins will be 18.2 millions.
- Total coins (including PoS) will be about 50,000,000.

And these parts of the source code:

Code:

if (dAmount <= 0.0 || dAmount > 150000000.0)

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 150000000 * COIN;
static const int64_t POW_MAX_MONEY = 50000000 * COIN; 

MAX_MONEY is pretty much what it sounds like. This means that the actual maximum supply of SuperCoin is 150 million, not 50 million. Furthermore, the maximum PoW coins is 50 million, rather than the claimed 18.2 million. The 150 million number appears twice in the code, so it can hardly be considered an accident.

We did not find evidence of an existing hidden premine, but extra coins could potentially be minted all at once at the end of the PoW phase, sent to exchanges via the "anon" feature, and dumped.

We have other concerns about the coin, particularly concerning the proposed method of anonymity, but the shenanigans with the maximum supply is sufficient for us to reject this coin.

why did not you try to contact me before for explanation

Instead of calling out Busoni for not contacting you first, why didn't you give us your explanation? Busoni doesn't owe you shit.
It doesn't even matter about the fishy 150m coins as max money, Busoni doesn't like the anon system and for good reason. A centralized trust-based system is an unacceptable way to achieve anonymous transactions. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, the rest are just piling on to the idiots pumping this coin.

[cyberhacker]

Instead of calling out Busoni for not contacting you first, why didn't you give your explanation? Busoni doesn't owe you shit.
It doesn't even matter about the fishy 150m coins as max money, Busoni doesn't like the anon system and for good reason. A centralized trust-based system is an unacceptable way to achieve anonymous transactions. Anyone who doesn't see that is an idiot, the rest are just piling on to the idiots pumping this coin.

wow. where is logic?