Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[cyberhacker]

The Supercoin bagholders seem to have no clue about Polo...
They are right in the thick of the mid-range exchanges with MintPal, Polo, Cryptsy, Bittrex...
All doing in the 1,000 BTC/day range more or less.

With listing fees and proprietary trading Polo probably makes >> $500K/year...
And they were smart adding the CNote coins now a big percent of their business and growing...
Polo >> Cryptsy and will very likely be here when Cryptsy is "hacked" and disappears.

So they need a dodgy coin?

Polo could have just said no... but they stuck their neck out to warn people.
Just go list somewhere else and pump away, please.

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/markets/info

"With listing fees and proprietary trading Polo probably makes >> $500K/year..."

only this part make me laugh

500k/year. do you have any idea how much a newbie in crypto world can make in one year. almost same amount.

but only smart guy.

the revenue is nothing to boast of.


busoni have to face the fact that he made false accusation against SUPER.

[1715101293]

1715101293

[1715101293]

1715101293

[1715101293]

1715101293

[bitrap]

YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.

The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.

[mnporter2001]

I wonder if this is the reason Silkcoin has made quite a significant fall today wiping nearly 50% of its face value ?

It staggering what one piece of information can do to a coin, even if this wasn't a malicious statement it has still caused quite a bit of damage.

Cheers
Mark

[Cohle]

This is called SLOPPY CODING you noobs.

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; 

This is how to do it, without hardcoding values

Code:

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

But then, too much greed to see the truth  

That value (150 million) is left over from SUPER's initial specs, prior to the recent fork. That line of code is innocuous. Read the thread, Polo-shill.

[maqa71]

YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.

The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.

I rest my case.

[Cohle]

YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.

The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.

I rest my case.

OMFG! LOL! You are fucking dense. That's the dev's acknowledgement of the limitations inherent in the phase 1 implementation (which is currently confined to testnet). Your lame FUD attempt doesn't show the outline below where the super dev aims to develop a trust-less system that cannot be cheated. FAIL!

[bitrap]

I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.

It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.

Emphasis added.

Why do we have to dig 12 pages into this thread to find admittance of this misstep? The least Busoni could do right now is update the topic and OP accordingly.

[chedigital]

This is called SLOPPY CODING you noobs.

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; 

This is how to do it, without hardcoding values

Code:

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

But then, too much greed to see the truth  

That value (150 million) is left over from SUPER's initial specs, prior to the recent fork. That line of code is innocuous. Read the thread, Polo-shill.

+1

MAX_MONEY is non issue, this has been repeated multiple times in the thread.

At this point Busoni stuck his neck out and made a post on code he himself did not fully understand at all. Unfortunately for him his comments were incorrect and the code is clean, looks like he already knows this, based on his backpedaling posts once it was verified by other parties that it was incorrect.  

Its just Amateur moves, all new entrepreneurs make stupid mistakes like this early in their career, it either makes them or breaks them.

The take away here is, if you discover a "securtiy hole' prior to disclosing it publicly, one may review all the code that is affected in their software ecosystem. The entire process of disclosing security holes must be take serious[1], especially when you are dealing with high volume of BTC.  He could of just said, "we found out super coin has funky code, and upon further research we found out that 70% of the other coins listed on our exchange suffer from the same venerability, we will look into the matter". Off course if he the above statement  massive panic would ensue, and it would be difficult for poloneix recover, but not impossible. Tough decisions.

If busoni was acting in good faith of the community as he has repeated many times in this thread, then he would just clean up his OP, apologize and say that his initial comments were way off with his findings, it was dumb to post with out it being verified by multiple sources,  and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review. Or he can just ignore it, and pray that we all forget in a few days how unprofessional their exchange currently looks to the community.

 [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2007/01/schneier_full_disclo.html

[bitcoinwonders010]

YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.

The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.

I rest my case.

last time i checked VRC coin is building  de-centralized system true so that must make them in busoni hit list, look where are they lol. FUD being spread again

[bitrap]

[...] and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review.

To be fair, he did use his hired expert to review the code, but again, you have to dig 12 pages to discover this explanation and apology.

[chedigital]

[...] and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review.

To be fair, he did use his hired expert to review the code, but again, you have to dig 12 pages to discover this explanation and apology.

My apologies looks like I missed that post, where he explains that the person reviewing it was a alternative coin security expert. Looking through his posts now to double check. Maybe going forward it would make sense to have multiple parties review source, it mean it is decentralized currency.

Lets assume that Poloniex, was acting in good faith, since they are publicly doing their coin security audits now. Why not openly discuss the auditing "system", so that it can better strengthen the community, and the new coins that released.

[bitcoinwonders010]

[...] and that he did not hire an expert in to conduct the coder review.

To be fair, he did use his hired expert to review the code, but again, you have to dig 12 pages to discover this explanation and apology.

My apologies looks like I missed that post, where he explains that the person reviewing it was a alternative coin security expert. Looking through his posts now to double check. Maybe going forward it would make sense to have multiple parties review source, it mean it is decentralized currency.

Lets assume that Poloniex, was acting in good faith, since they are publicly doing their coin security audits now. Why not openly discuss the auditing "system", so that it can better strengthen the community, and the new coins that released.

thats where our issue is, he should not have been quick to jump the gun. he should have confirmed it with dev. even if the dev could have covered it up,  busoni would still have been believed.was here trying to be a hero who knows, but it seems like whenever a coin with a anon function that is competitor to dark coin it gets taken down.

[show_off]

Good decision, I strongly support you!

[traumschiff]

Good decision, I strongly support you!

Legit account with good reasoning.

/s

[maqa71]

YES, I think it would be only fair to freeze those coins too untill they solve the problem, if any found.
I guess the same counts for SUPER. Fix whats found and explain the concept of 'anonymity'.
Its up to the exchange owner to decide if to add the coin or not. Its him taking the risk, not us.

The point has been iterated and reiterated that that specific code line doesn't effect the number of max coins produced. The concept of the de-centralized anon feature is explained on both the OP of the SuperCoin thread and website. You, Busoni, or anyone have yet to provide any real, legit evidence for foul play on the part of SuperCoin devs, yet the slanderous, inaccurate OP still remains untouched while Busoni's apology is tucked many pages into the thread.

I rest my case.

last time i checked VRC coin is building  de-centralized system true so that must make them in busoni hit list, look where are they lol. FUD being spread again

So .... you are telling me to buy a coin which has a potential risk of beeing stolen while transfered. LMAO!!!

[DigiByte]

Code:

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

There is a huge misconception out there that MAX_MONEY sets the total coin count for a coin. This is false. MAX_MONEY sets the maximum amount of coins that can be sent in a single transaction over a network. It is customary to typically set this to the maximum coins that will be created but it is not necessary.

We have played around and tested this to verify it on the DigiByte testnet before. We made sure this was the case.

The actual reward is determined here between lines 1033 & 1082: https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp

Code:

// miner's coin base reward
int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)
{
	int64_t nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;

	if(nHeight == 1)
		nSubsidy = INITIAL_OFFERING_PERCENTAGE * POW_MAX_MONEY;

	if(nHeight > LAST_POW_BLOCK)
		return 0;

	int nPoWHeight = GetPowHeight(pindex) + 1;
	printf(">> nHeight = %d, nPoWHeight = %d\n", nHeight, nPoWHeight);

	int nReduceFactor = 0;
	if(nPoWHeight < SWITCHOVER_POW_BLOCK)
	{
		nReduceFactor = nPoWHeight / 43200;

		if(nReduceFactor > 9)		
			nSubsidy = nMinSubsidy;
		else
			nSubsidy >>= nReduceFactor;
	}
	else
	{
		if(nPoWHeight < 19200)
			nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 28800)
			nSubsidy = 256 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 38400)
			nSubsidy = 128 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 48000)
			nSubsidy = 64 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 57600)
			nSubsidy = 32 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 67200)
			nSubsidy = 16 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 76800)
			nSubsidy = 8 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 86400)
			nSubsidy = 4 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 96000)
			nSubsidy = 2 * COIN;
		else
			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
	}

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

To find the exact coin coin count you would need to do the math and add everything up in there.

For a comparison this is where Bitcoins maximum coin supply is determined. Once again you have to calculate it out to prove it is 21 million.

Code:

int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
    int64_t nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
    int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval();

    // Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
    if (halvings >= 64)
        return nFees;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
    nSubsidy >>= halvings;

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

EDIT: We are not defending Supercoin (had never heard of them until this post) nor have we done the exact math in their code. We simply wanted to point out a common misconception to avoid future issues for everyone.

[gts476]

tl dr;

PoloniEx owner can't read code.

lol.

[chesthing]

You idiot Supercoin bagholders.
This has nothing to do with the 150m max coins. Since there are way too many people too stupid to understand the dangers of a centralized trust based anon system, Busoni feels the need to step in and do something about it. Holy shit, this community holds some of the dumbest bastards on earth.

fucktard.

can you tell us which saint coin you are holding?

So original, wonder where you got that name from?

A centralized trust based anon system contradicts the whole point of bitcoin and cryptos. It is the blockchain and not people that ensure transactions. It is this that makes it what it is, safe from human greed.
I'm just blown away by how blind, deaf and dumb people here are. To miss that just tells me what I already knew, just a bunch of assholes trying to profit fiat off others. They could care less about what's happening here, all they see is fiat in their eyes.
Just go to a casino or play poker since you see nothing else here.

This thread is about discrimination of coins due to max coin code as stated in first post. Go make another thread, you're talking about other bullshit wtf... Who's dumb again ?

Either you are too fucking stupid to see what's really going on or you are a Supercoin bagholder trying to keep the coins value up.
Either way, you are a waste of space.

Watching your comment history, all you do is spread fud on every coin you deem a "shitcoin". Even if 99% of the coins are trash, you seriously waste your time and life to spread negativity on an online forum?

How pathetic.

This whole scene has turned into scam city. Coins like Smartcoin have become so blatant as to be absurd, yet people will still pump them in the hopes of dumping on those too late. Instead of trying to profit on these ripoffs I try to point truths out.
Unfortunately this scene has attracted the dregs of the earth. Leeches, vultures, con artists, you name it. It's very sad to see such a great concept turned into a bunch of criminal activity. The harshest critics of bitcoin always point to the fact it is unregulated and not to be trusted. The altcoin scene is proving their case more and more as time goes by.
I believe Busoni is trying to keep crypto on the right course by rejecting coins like Cloak and Supercoin which take away the decentralized aspect of transactions and the safety that the blockchain provides. Humans will always to try to rip off each other, that goes 10 fold for this scene, where ethics and morals are far lower than the gen pop of society. You can believe what you want, I frankly don't give a shit about the opinions of 95% here, as they are usually based upon either greed or stupidity.

[gts476]

I think cyberhacker was over @ c2 for a while. I recall him being a total cunt.

[Cohle]

Code:

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

There is a huge misconception out there that MAX_MONEY sets the total coin count for a coin. This is false. MAX_MONEY sets the maximum amount of coins that can be sent in a single transaction over a network. It is customary to typically set this to the maximum coins that will be created but it is not necessary.

We have played around and tested this to verify on the DigiByte testnet before just to make sure this was the case.

The actual reward is determined here between lines 1033 & 1082: https://github.com/supercoinproject/supercoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp

Code:

// miner's coin base reward
int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)
{
	int64_t nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;

	if(nHeight == 1)
		nSubsidy = INITIAL_OFFERING_PERCENTAGE * POW_MAX_MONEY;

	if(nHeight > LAST_POW_BLOCK)
		return 0;

	int nPoWHeight = GetPowHeight(pindex) + 1;
	printf(">> nHeight = %d, nPoWHeight = %d\n", nHeight, nPoWHeight);

	int nReduceFactor = 0;
	if(nPoWHeight < SWITCHOVER_POW_BLOCK)
	{
		nReduceFactor = nPoWHeight / 43200;

		if(nReduceFactor > 9)		
			nSubsidy = nMinSubsidy;
		else
			nSubsidy >>= nReduceFactor;
	}
	else
	{
		if(nPoWHeight < 19200)
			nSubsidy = 512 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 28800)
			nSubsidy = 256 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 38400)
			nSubsidy = 128 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 48000)
			nSubsidy = 64 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 57600)
			nSubsidy = 32 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 67200)
			nSubsidy = 16 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 76800)
			nSubsidy = 8 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 86400)
			nSubsidy = 4 * COIN;
		else if(nPoWHeight < 96000)
			nSubsidy = 2 * COIN;
		else
			nSubsidy = 1 * COIN;
	}

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

To find the exact coin coin count you would need to do the math and add everything up in there.

For a comparison this is where Bitcoins maximum coin supply is determined. Once again you have to calculate it out to prove it is 21 million.

Code:

int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
    int64_t nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
    int halvings = nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval();

    // Force block reward to zero when right shift is undefined.
    if (halvings >= 64)
        return nFees;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
    nSubsidy >>= halvings;

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

EDIT: We are not defending Supercoin (had never heard of them until this post) nor have we done the exact math in their code. We simply wanted to point out a common misconception to avoid future issues for everyone.

Thanks for your post. The way the DGB team conducts itself is exemplary.