Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[Spoetnik]

diversion tactics won't work guys  

classic.. YOU get caught so you attempt to discredit the guy that caught you.
Oh internet your so creative ahahha
Do you guys think you just invented the cover up technique or something ?

yeah.. bam.... puuuuuhleeeeze lol

I'm not affiliated with SUPER in any way and have never bought or mined SUPER, I just thought people should know how completely and utterly wrong Poloniex is here.

but he's not.. what you just said is not true.
for one thing the exchange can pick and choose what ever coins they want to add.. they are not obligated to add any of them.
so how can he be wrong on that point ?
and on the other major point.. what he said is verified .. i checked it myself and he is 100% dead on about it.
It's been explained..
so i have no choice but to believe you and others are lying and playing games now to cover up the truth.
And the truth is he found a contradiction that looks fishy.
And that IS the truth.

if i have to choose one or the other to believe i believe Poloniex staff not the anon cloner..
and i can tell you all i too have no Super coins etc and if i did i would still say the same thing anyway.. truth is truth .
Suck it up..
for the good of our scene please lol
Quit being lying manipulative game playing scammers invested scam coins defending them.. you make ALL of us look bad  

[provenceday]

busoni

Please add Supercoin on Poloniex.

thank you very much.

[feina24h]

People who hold supercoin are crying like babies, grow up and accept the truth. No one knows intetions of Supercoin dev but he did something wrong and all should accept that.

[sussex]

You know Spoetnik, every time I read one of your posts I wonder if you are compensating for something you dare not admit to yourself in your private life.......

[Swag]

I like how busoni got called out on all of his points and ridiculed, then stopped responding completely.

[jakiman]

Here is the updated specs after hard fork.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.msg7273647#msg7273647

Here is the dev stating that it's now 1/3 of the old plan.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.msg7266883#msg7266883

To me, it's just them forgetting to change it. Code checked out by multiple people now.

@busoni, you should have consulted with the dev first as you obviously didn't even know about the hard fork.

Can you explain how he can claim something while the running code tells different ?

That piece of running code is harmless and didn't/doesn't cause any extra coins. (even busoni said so)
It's something that actually doesn't make any difference to the actual coin supply by itself.
Everyone can make a mistake and supercoin dev most likely forgot to update it.

We'll see. AFAIK,. the supercoin dev is asleep right now.

[cyberhacker]

@busoni,

did you review codes for all those scam coins listed on Poloniex?

[busoni]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

[ISAWHIM]

In any event, the code/daemon was not ready for the exchange.

Fix the code, submit it again, then it may make it. Obviously, it didn't have any actual support if it dumped. Obviously, that supporting price was a false illusion. Does that when people buy and sell their own coins to make it look like volume is high. Sell the same coin 100 times, it looks like 100 units of volume. Reality was, it was 1 unit of volume, which cost a small fraction in trade-fees, to make it look 100x bigger than it actually was.

Seems we need to have a "Formula", which is locked within the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED, so it can't be altered and can easily be identified. Even if only a representation, like hard-coding the MAX-BLOCK-COINS and MAX-STAKE-COINS, or other limits. (Even if unlimited. For those coins without limits.)

Then it will not matter what code is used, as long as it fits within the hard-coded limits, which have to check against the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED. (That only requires "digging for a genesis block seed", with a corresponding value.)

However, the old trick of just generating a "valid" seed, would no-longer be acceptable, since it has to be valid, and with a specific corresponding output comparison.

In any event, that code is essentially useless, if it is beyond the range of possible coins. Like 0.00000000 isn't even possible anyways. While checking to see if it is below 150,000,000 when the max total will only be 50,000,000 is equally as redundantly stupid. The only reason for it, would be so someone can do a massive double-spend attack, or other block-altering, which will not harm the network as a whole, just those who are on the same altered chain as them. Which, the program we ALL USE would say... Sure, a spend of 100,000,000 is OK, it's under 150,000,000.

However, I would review some of the other coins now, for that same issue. Time for someone to update their instant-auto-coin-maker programs.

P.S. The price of SUPER was falling before they said anything. You are getting mad because the crash just happened to continue, after the news. (News which few people read. Not that moving a coin to another exchange actually adds value, it decreases it anyways. You expose it to more people who want to dump.) Don't get your causality construed.

[doch]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

If your whole reasoning is "they could possibly change the way the coin works in the future", then why list any coin at all? Every coin can hard fork to a completely new algo/PoW system/stake %/total # of coins/whatever at any time, and if you're afraid of that possibility you might as well de-list every coin right now and shut down your exchange.

[SushiChef]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

Thank you for your respons! I like the fact that you are trying to proffesionalize your exchange and encourage you to raise these standards in retrospective. Much appreciated

[jakiman]

In any event, the code/daemon was not ready for the exchange.

Fix the code, submit it again, then it may make it. Obviously, it didn't have any actual support if it dumped. Obviously, that supporting price was a false illusion. Does that when people buy and sell their own coins to make it look like volume is high. Sell the same coin 100 times, it looks like 100 units of volume. Reality was, it was 1 unit of volume, which cost a small fraction in trade-fees, to make it look 100x bigger than it actually was.

Seems we need to have a "Formula", which is locked within the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED, so it can't be altered and can easily be identified. Even if only a representation, like hard-coding the MAX-BLOCK-COINS and MAX-STAKE-COINS, or other limits. (Even if unlimited. For those coins without limits.)

Then it will not matter what code is used, as long as it fits within the hard-coded limits, which have to check against the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED. (That only requires "digging for a genesis block seed", with a corresponding value.)

However, the old trick of just generating a "valid" seed, would no-longer be acceptable, since it has to be valid, and with a specific corresponding output comparison.

In any event, that code is essentially useless, if it is beyond the range of possible coins. Like 0.00000000 isn't even possible anyways. While checking to see if it is below 150,000,000 when the max total will only be 50,000,000 is equally as redundantly stupid. The only reason for it, would be so someone can do a massive double-spend attack, or other block-altering, which will not harm the network as a whole, just those who are on the same altered chain as them. Which, the program we ALL USE would say... Sure, a spend of 100,000,000 is OK, it's under 150,000,000.

However, I would review some of the other coins now, for that same issue. Time for someone to update their instant-auto-coin-maker programs.

P.S. The price of SUPER was falling before they said anything. You are getting mad because the crash just happened to continue, after the news. (News which few people read. Not that moving a coin to another exchange actually adds value, it decreases it anyways. You expose it to more people who want to dump.) Don't get your causality construed.

Not it wasn't. Dev released the testnet anon wallet few hours ago and it was clearly on ts way up as it rose nearly 50% before this thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.msg7311847#msg7311847

I do agree that it's good that busoni is checking the code thoroughly. That's is actually reassuring.
But he shouldn't publicly call out a coin as a scam when it's currently harmless and without speaking to the dev first.
His initial reasoning was also debunked as 150 million was valid before the recent hard fork. So it wasn't new.

[fireinyourhole]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

Stfu noob

[damiano]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

Time to delist 60% of your coins

[timerland]

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.

Is this an amateur or a 10-years-old? The max coin limits the maximum coin, but does it mean the maximum coin will be generated?? Not at all. The generated coin depends on the formula in 3functions:
- GetProofOfWorkReward()
- GetProofOfStakeReward()
and
- GetProofOfWorkBonusRewardFactor()

These functions define how many coins will be generated. Moreover, even the system generates more coins than the MAX_MONEY defined above, there will be no problem at all, go look at the code. If Poloniex tech staff is that dumb, I feel very sorry for them, it is a joke!

[provenceday]

In any event, the code/daemon was not ready for the exchange.

Fix the code, submit it again, then it may make it. Obviously, it didn't have any actual support if it dumped. Obviously, that supporting price was a false illusion. Does that when people buy and sell their own coins to make it look like volume is high. Sell the same coin 100 times, it looks like 100 units of volume. Reality was, it was 1 unit of volume, which cost a small fraction in trade-fees, to make it look 100x bigger than it actually was.

Seems we need to have a "Formula", which is locked within the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED, so it can't be altered and can easily be identified. Even if only a representation, like hard-coding the MAX-BLOCK-COINS and MAX-STAKE-COINS, or other limits. (Even if unlimited. For those coins without limits.)

Then it will not matter what code is used, as long as it fits within the hard-coded limits, which have to check against the GENESIS-BLOCK-SEED. (That only requires "digging for a genesis block seed", with a corresponding value.)

However, the old trick of just generating a "valid" seed, would no-longer be acceptable, since it has to be valid, and with a specific corresponding output comparison.

In any event, that code is essentially useless, if it is beyond the range of possible coins. Like 0.00000000 isn't even possible anyways. While checking to see if it is below 150,000,000 when the max total will only be 50,000,000 is equally as redundantly stupid. The only reason for it, would be so someone can do a massive double-spend attack, or other block-altering, which will not harm the network as a whole, just those who are on the same altered chain as them. Which, the program we ALL USE would say... Sure, a spend of 100,000,000 is OK, it's under 150,000,000.

However, I would review some of the other coins now, for that same issue. Time for someone to update their instant-auto-coin-maker programs.

P.S. The price of SUPER was falling before they said anything. You are getting mad because the crash just happened to continue, after the news. (News which few people read. Not that moving a coin to another exchange actually adds value, it decreases it anyways. You expose it to more people who want to dump.) Don't get your causality construed.

Not it wasn't. Dev released the testnet anon wallet few hours ago and it was clearly on ts way up as it rose nearly 50% before this thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.msg7311847#msg7311847

I do agree that it's good that busoni is checking the code thoroughly. That's is actually reassuring.
But he shouldn't publicly call out a coin as a scam when it's currently harmless and without speaking to the dev first.
His initial reasoning was also debunked as 150 million was valid before the recent hard fork. So it wasn't new.

+1

[HardwarePal]

Let's take a look at some other popular coins on Poloniex:

Silkcoin
Maximum POW supply: ~45 million

Great, let's check the code:

Code:

static const int64_t MAX_MONEY = 2000000000 * COIN;

Uh oh, 2 billion is a lot more than 45 million! Better de-list SC right away!

Cinni
Total Coins: 15,000,000

Hmm...

Code:

static const int64 MAX_MONEY = 100000000 * COIN;

I'm not very good at math but I think 100 million may be slightly more than 15 million.

Strange that you never gave a shit about things like this before?

Arent Cinni and Silkcoin supposed to be unlimited POS with 15 million and 45 million POW coins respectively ?

While SuperCoin 50million total POW-POS coins ?

[jakiman]

We have recently raised our reviewing standards to look for more than just trojans and security exploits. SC and CINNI were not subjected to that kind of scrutiny. We will investigate them, though. And if it turns out that they are like SuperCoin and deliberately inserted those values, then we might have a problem. I cannot comment on them at this point, since we have not looked over the code yet for things like this.

We are attempting to raise the bar on the quality of the coins we list. We are well aware that this stance will be met with some opposition, particularly when a popular coin is rejected, but we are willing to take the heat for that. The idle pursuit of volume was never the intention behind Poloniex.

Why don't you create a new thread first saying you will de-list CINNI & SILKCOIN also before doing a full investigation like you did with supercoin?
I actually find it good to know that you guys check the code. That's great. But at least admit that maybe you jumped the gun a little for this one.

[Spoetnik]

You know Spoetnik, every time I read one of your posts I wonder if you are compensating for something you dare not admit to yourself in your private life.......

I tried.. i really tried to understand your gibberish but sorry i don't get it lol
was that some kind of insult ?

you have a vendetta against me or something ? or are you just mad and trying to attack me because i agreed with the OP ?
Am i not allowed ? Who is ? show me the list of forum user names allowed to agree with Busoni please.

oh and by the way, if you have any questions for me about my personal life then go for it.. i have always been far more transparent than most guys
what is it you want to know ?
although in this specific context i will have to request people keep their personal inquiries about my private life to Crypto-Related questions.
simply because i think it's obvious i would be opening the door to a lot of trolling.
I may be willing to divulge more detailed personal info if some of you want to start creating topics about Spoetnik's private life.
I'd feel more comfortable releasing my private information on other topics than i do on this one considering i seem to be a target here with attacks for defending Poloniex staff.

I love all my fans and i appreciate your all clamoring for more info about me and my fantastic private life.
Sorry but being a legend in Crypto is time consuming and i have a lot of elite superior work to do in the scene daily so i am a busy Spoetnik

I always knew i was a white hot comet of awesome but wow looks like i might seriously have to start charging people for autographs.
i think my fans would like more than just personal info but some memento's of their time here with the living Legend Spoetnik.
Been thinking of setting up a clinic too.. a Pro Spoetnik Traders Clinic.. where i can school all the noobs on how it's done right.

HEY, pimpin' ain't easy but i make it look that way  

Poloniex = Spoetnik Approved™

[cyberhacker]

POLO is going to review CINNI and SC.