Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[daywalkerneo]

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.

so pretty much all three of these coins are just the same with small differences and are all a scam

I would say remove Silkcoin cinni and super asap as these are basically pyramid schemes and very obvious ones at that with code manipulation...changing the wallet before a PnD so ppl lose their coins in transactions if they did not upgrade.  I bet they are wormholing the lost coins as well.

[1715061584]

1715061584

[provenceday]

Max money isn't really what you are saying it is but its good to not list it due to lies

hi iGotSpots

it's not a lie, Poloniex missed the Supercoin hard fork.

but it seems supercoin dev also make a mistake.

ps: Supercoin has released their Anon Wallet.

check it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=618552.0

 

[fancy2973]

OK, let me tell (or teach, for some) you how the total coin is calculated:

1st, look at this function

int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)

and this

int64_t GetProofOfWorkBonusRewardFactor(CBlockIndex* pindex)

1st function calculates the regular pow payout, and the 2nd calculates the superblocks.

Now, block 1 = 2.5 mil coins (was a mini IPO I think)
block 2 - block 19200: 512 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 256 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 128 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 64 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 32 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 16 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 8 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 4 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 2 coins/block
afterwards: 1 coins/block

now the pow will be cut off at 1-2 coins/block.

Next, look at the superblocks: superblock
   - Every 3 hours there will be a block with 4X normal payment (initial 2048 coins)
   - Every day there will be a block with 16X normal payment (initial 8192 coins)
   - Every 5 days there will be a block with 128X normal payment (initial 65536 coins)

So at initial phase, the 1 block day average coin is:
1 day = 960 * 512 + 8 * (2,048 - 512) + (8,192 - 512) + 1/5 * (65,536 - 512)
   = 491,520 + 12,288 + 7,680 + 13,004.8
   = 524,492.8 coins

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))
   = 524,492.8 * 10 * (2 + 1) = 15,734,784 coins

This adds 2.5 mil mini IPO, total PoW = 18.2 millions.

On top of this, you can calculate the PoS, PoS is difficult to calculate precisely, but you can estimate max possible value. My estimate is that it is under 50 millions as devs of Supercoin said.

Simple math, isn't it?

Questions? I can explain each and every number if needed

maybe a dumb question ...

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))

why there's a 0.5 there? I got all the rest.

[bitrap]

If the amount of coins to be mined could be adjusted with a simple code update, why would any coin be considered secure?

The key here is majority of the network (51%) needs to agree and adopt the changes. P2p coin follows simple majority rules.

Whoops, deleted my comment thinking it didn't express my point well, but good point.

[bitcoinwonders010]

busoni should have first spoken to dev. he could have waited to add super coin or not once spoken to him many have lost money over this

[maryvale]

OK, let me tell (or teach, for some) you how the total coin is calculated:

1st, look at this function

int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)

and this

int64_t GetProofOfWorkBonusRewardFactor(CBlockIndex* pindex)

1st function calculates the regular pow payout, and the 2nd calculates the superblocks.

Now, block 1 = 2.5 mil coins (was a mini IPO I think)
block 2 - block 19200: 512 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 256 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 128 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 64 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 32 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 16 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 8 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 4 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 2 coins/block
afterwards: 1 coins/block

now the pow will be cut off at 1-2 coins/block.

Next, look at the superblocks: superblock
   - Every 3 hours there will be a block with 4X normal payment (initial 2048 coins)
   - Every day there will be a block with 16X normal payment (initial 8192 coins)
   - Every 5 days there will be a block with 128X normal payment (initial 65536 coins)

So at initial phase, the 1 block day average coin is:
1 day = 960 * 512 + 8 * (2,048 - 512) + (8,192 - 512) + 1/5 * (65,536 - 512)
   = 491,520 + 12,288 + 7,680 + 13,004.8
   = 524,492.8 coins

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))
   = 524,492.8 * 10 * (2 + 1) = 15,734,784 coins

This adds 2.5 mil mini IPO, total PoW = 18.2 millions.

On top of this, you can calculate the PoS, PoS is difficult to calculate precisely, but you can estimate max possible value. My estimate is that it is under 50 millions as devs of Supercoin said.

Simple math, isn't it?

Questions? I can explain each and every number if needed

maybe a dumb question ...

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))

why there's a 0.5 there? I got all the rest.

A good question, because 524,492.8 is calculated based on 512 coins/block, the next term is 256 coins/block = 0.5 * 512 coins/block, and starting 256 coins/block it is 10 days halve period. That's why it is 10 * 0.5.

[provenceday]

busoni should have first spoken to dev. he could have waited to add super coin or not once spoken to him many have lost money over this

+1

[PiOfCube]

I think this is where lines must be drawn and standards set.

There has been much hype and excitement about the next best thing to hit crypto but, looking at the code, it's obvious that basics are being forgotten about.

Whether this is deliberate acts such as Lytecoin which was launched shortly after LiteCoin and its sole purpose was to search, copy and forward all "wallet.dat" files to a dead email drop to just getting bad code into the source by cloning code from another clone, which was also cloned from another clone, ad infinitum. Each time, the dev of that particular coin not removing coin specific code from what they are working with.

We've seen coins that includes code to generate and send coins to a "foundation" donation address but the developer of the next coin either ignores it, doesn't know it's there or hasn't got the required skills to attach importance to it.

We are also seeing more and more "developers" portraying themselves as the coders, when this is not true and they pay some freelancer to provide the code. Yet the dev stands behind the code 150% even though they don't even know the basics.

(So it's not tl;dr) we even have developers working on their own clone coin but don't even know how to generate their own genesis blocks (or can't be bothered to spend time doing so).

So, we have people shouting at exchanges to list code that is either just simply bugged out due to a mass of code which only applies to a previous coin, would severely put the exchange at risk of being investigated for money laundering due to them having to be the party to make transactions anonymous or to list code which contains trojans (DaFuq). I was watching the Poloniex trollbox when some users were saying that the malicious code didn't affect them because they don't run the daemon as root... so list it and "think of the profit".

For SuperCoin. The Devs state repeatedly that the coin can and will be exploited. The nodes can cheat. By stating this, they are saying they are aware of this threat and it is real, yet they use copy honorcoin and make some strange changes. At the very least they did not review their own code correctly, nor did they try to increase checking and security of the code. They even left in the code for IRC peer discovery for a coin they claim to be anonymous.

If I were running an exchange today, I would draw the line immediately.

Check code for a complete disregard of standards.
Check the devs for claims that are just illegal and fraudulent (such as claims to be a Charity but are not. Seriously? Once upon a time a lynch-mob would have been rounded up for that alone).
Make sure the development "TEAM" is a team and not just some "ideas man" paying 0.5BTC for some code. How can you expect fixes to happen soon when the dev has to track down the freelancer?).

Crypto may be lots of fun but it isn't a game. If this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue, there will be very serious consequences for those crypto service providers that do not fully comply with the law.
As much as the law is an ass, it can not be ignored and cast aside with comments like "Hey, man. It's virtual so it doesn't need to comply with the law."

That mind-set is just going to continue to slam doors in everyone's faces, it's been happening for some time now but not many realise it. I guess they thought all that banging was the balloons popping after the last major hype campaign.

So, supercoin. created by devs that repeatedly state they are working on a new system for crypto that can and will be exploited but don't take extra care over their code.

If it were me, there is no way I would list or even mine it.

A personal request to Poloniex: Please continue to raise the expected standards. Re-review all the coins listed on the exchange now and see which developers are willing to work with you to attain greater reliability and security. We must start to be seen to keep our own backyards in order. It's about time we did.

[Spoetnik]

he should have let them push the next update out and not said a word so he could catch them looking even worse.
the mistake was catching him mid-scam lol

you don't go and do something like this by accident.. guy had a plan and he got caught, but caught too early.

next time give these guys a little more rope.. and more slack to hang themselves with it lol

enjoying the spin on this after the fact..
Crypto excuses when caught are always entertaining, these guys have money invested and they will say ANYTHING to sweep dirt under the rug.

Next time the dev (coin cloner) can verify his public statements and code BEFORE he publicly posts them.
If they are caught in a contradiction then this is not the person who found the problems fault its the person who posted the coin.

only thing i see here is a guy from an exchange found some fishy code etc etc
and since some fishy activity is more than enough to ban a coin then why not ?
they (exchanges) can add what ever coins they want.. it's their right !
at least he was trying to do the right thing unlike many of you making poor attempts at bad excuses.. for $$$

[fancy2973]

OK, let me tell (or teach, for some) you how the total coin is calculated:

1st, look at this function

int64_t GetProofOfWorkReward(int nHeight, int64_t nFees, const CBlockIndex* pindex)

and this

int64_t GetProofOfWorkBonusRewardFactor(CBlockIndex* pindex)

1st function calculates the regular pow payout, and the 2nd calculates the superblocks.

Now, block 1 = 2.5 mil coins (was a mini IPO I think)
block 2 - block 19200: 512 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 256 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 128 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 64 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 32 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 16 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 8 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 4 coins/block
next 9600 (10 days) blocks: 2 coins/block
afterwards: 1 coins/block

now the pow will be cut off at 1-2 coins/block.

Next, look at the superblocks: superblock
   - Every 3 hours there will be a block with 4X normal payment (initial 2048 coins)
   - Every day there will be a block with 16X normal payment (initial 8192 coins)
   - Every 5 days there will be a block with 128X normal payment (initial 65536 coins)

So at initial phase, the 1 block day average coin is:
1 day = 960 * 512 + 8 * (2,048 - 512) + (8,192 - 512) + 1/5 * (65,536 - 512)
   = 491,520 + 12,288 + 7,680 + 13,004.8
   = 524,492.8 coins

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))
   = 524,492.8 * 10 * (2 + 1) = 15,734,784 coins

This adds 2.5 mil mini IPO, total PoW = 18.2 millions.

On top of this, you can calculate the PoS, PoS is difficult to calculate precisely, but you can estimate max possible value. My estimate is that it is under 50 millions as devs of Supercoin said.

Simple math, isn't it?

Questions? I can explain each and every number if needed

maybe a dumb question ...

Total = 524,492.8 * (20 + 10 * 0.5 * ( 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... ))

why there's a 0.5 there? I got all the rest.

A good question, because 524,492.8 is calculated based on 512 coins/block, the next term is 256 coins/block = 0.5 * 512 coins/block, and starting 256 coins/block it is 10 days halve period. That's why it is 10 * 0.5.

wonderful, I got it, thanks maryvale.

BTW, SUPER is a great one, I tested anon in testnet, works fast. Unlike some coins promise and nothing done, this one is real...

[traumschiff]

I think this is where lines must be drawn and standards set.

There has been much hype and excitement about the next best thing to hit crypto but, looking at the code, it's obvious that basics are being forgotten about.

Whether this is deliberate acts such as Lytecoin which was launched shortly after LiteCoin and its sole purpose was to search, copy and forward all "wallet.dat" files to a dead email drop to just getting bad code into the source by cloning code from another clone, which was also cloned from another clone, ad infinitum. Each time, the dev of that particular coin not removing coin specific code from what they are working with.

We've seen coins that includes code to generate and send coins to a "foundation" donation address but the developer of the next coin either ignores it, doesn't know it's there or hasn't got the required skills to attach importance to it.

We are also seeing more and more "developers" portraying themselves as the coders, when this is not true and they pay some freelancer to provide the code. Yet the dev stands behind the code 150% even though they don't even know the basics.

(So it's not tl;dr) we even have developers working on their own clone coin but don't even know how to generate their own genesis blocks (or can't be bothered to spend time doing so).

So, we have people shouting at exchanges to list code that is either just simply bugged out due to a mass of code which only applies to a previous coin, would severely put the exchange at risk of being investigated for money laundering due to them having to be the party to make transactions anonymous or to list code which contains trojans (DaFuq). I was watching the Poloniex trollbox when some users were saying that the malicious code didn't affect them because they don't run the daemon as root... so list it and "think of the profit".

For SuperCoin. The Devs state repeatedly that the coin can and will be exploited. The nodes can cheat. By stating this, they are saying they are aware of this threat and it is real, yet they use copy honorcoin and make some strange changes. At the very least they did not review their own code correctly, nor did they try to increase checking and security of the code. They even left in the code for IRC peer discovery for a coin they claim to be anonymous.

If I were running an exchange today, I would draw the line immediately.

Check code for a complete disregard of standards.
Check the devs for claims that are just illegal and fraudulent (such as claims to be a Charity but are not. Seriously? Once upon a time a lynch-mob would have been rounded up for that alone).
Make sure the development "TEAM" is a team and not just some "ideas man" paying 0.5BTC for some code. How can you expect fixes to happen soon when the dev has to track down the freelancer?).

Crypto may be lots of fun but it isn't a game. If this kind of behaviour is allowed to continue, there will be very serious consequences for those crypto service providers that do not fully comply with the law.
As much as the law is an ass, it can not be ignored and cast aside with comments like "Hey, man. It's virtual so it doesn't need to comply with the law."

That mind-set is just going to continue to slam doors in everyone's faces, it's been happening for some time now but not many realise it. I guess they thought all that banging was the balloons popping after the last major hype campaign.

So, supercoin. created by devs that repeatedly state they are working on a new system for crypto that can and will be exploited but don't take extra care over their code.

If it were me, there is no way I would list or even mine it.

A personal request to Poloniex: Please continue to raise the expected standards. Re-review all the coins listed on the exchange now and see which developers are willing to work with you to attain greater reliability and security. We must start to be seen to keep our own backyards in order. It's about time we did.

Except its not "raising the standards" when a poloniex employee spreads fud openly and thinks he has a clue about the code he reads.

Did it look professional to you?

Your standards are probably really low.

[fancy2973]

he should have let them push the next update out and not said a word so he could catch them looking even worse.
the mistake was catching him mid-scam lol

you don't go and do something like this by accident.. guy had a plan and he got caught, but caught too early.

next time give these guys a little more rope.. and more slack to hang themselves with it lol

enjoying the spin on this after the fact..
Crypto excuses when caught are always entertaining, these guys have money invested and they will say ANYTHING to sweep dirt under the rug.

Next time the dev (coin cloner) can verify his public statements and code BEFORE he publicly posts them.
If they are caught in a contradiction then this is not the person who found the problems fault its the person who posted the coin.

only thing i see here is a guy from an exchange found some fishy code etc etc
and since some fishy activity is more than enough to ban a coin then why not ?
they (exchanges) can add what ever coins they want.. it's their right !
at least he was trying to do the right thing unlike many of you making poor attempts at bad excuses.. for $$$

lmao, you are right if he were an expert, but it turned out to be a joke.

[provenceday]

to list super coin or delist sc and cinni ,that is the question ? crypto Hamlet

 

[provenceday]

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]

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

  just kidding.

busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

[busoni]

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

 
busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

[TrollboxChamp]

This coin was a scheme. Dont buy into it.

[supercoindev]

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

 
busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

I don't agree with you, these parameters are simply irrelevent. We did not miss them, we simply think there's no need. We welcome anyone to review our code, and we are happy to discuss with anyone. But blunders like this are not agreed. Your ignorance simply caused a lot unnecessary confusion. Should you contact us, we would have explained all to you.

[provenceday]

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

 
busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

i do hope supercoin dev can communicate with you directly. but he is sleep now.

i hope you can handle this correctly.

about the cheating node, it seems XC coin and Darkcoin also has similar issues, Please check this. XC coin use Xnode, in first stage it’s also have some cheating problem. dark coin use masternode which also not a 100% safeway.  Although Bitcoin survive the 51% attack several days ago.

busoni, my friend, Please think this again or wait for the Supercoin dev give your a reply later, no need to make a rush decision.

thank you very much. i will keep Support Poloniex.

[provenceday]

can i aks my BTC donation back in the Hacker event?

 
busoni you are a honest guy, i like you.

hope you can handle this tough thing correctly.

thanks

You actually can, I don't hold people to that.

It is pertinent that the coin was hard forked to change the maximum supply. We have not examined all the changes made, but this may strengthen the case for the MAX_MONEY issue being negligence rather than laying the foundation for a nefarious plan. Nevertheless, the variable could have been deliberately left unchanged for the same reasons, and in any case, it indicates sloppy coding that opens the coin up to, for example, a much larger double spend attack. We're going to look into this further, but an apology may be in order for not coming to dev privately first.

There is also the issue of the anon implementation proposed, which even by the dev's admission is highly vulnerable to "cheating." I would never list a coin that relied on the honesty of people operating a mixing pool. It would be trivial for them to steal coins and impossible to prove that they had done so.

I don't agree with you, these parameters are simply irrelevent. We did not miss them, we simply think there's no need. We welcome anyone to review our code, and we are happy to discuss with anyone. But blunders like this are not agreed. Your ignorance simply caused a lot unnecessary confusion. Should you contact us, we would have explained all to you.

oh dev, you are online now!

be patient, busoni is a very honest and respectable guy, i know him.

but it seems he has some misunderstanding on Supercoin coin.
it is understandable, everybody will make a mistake .
also it seems supercoin dev also make some mistake on the ANN thread.

thanks