Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[dan_and_shan]

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

why would he ?

you posted false information and you knew it and your behavior backs his point.
you are playing the angle that what you did (which you are admitting to) was a part of a bigger plan.. EXCUSE = AFTER THE FACT
i suspect you had no plan and coincidentally made this up as an excuse because you were caught red handed mid-scam.
What i am pointing out here is real world common sense and very real plausibility.
It's simply ridiculous bullshit in my eyes he catches you screwing around and you decide to cover it up and say oh well well well.. with excuses
and then try and shift the blame squarely on him and only him..
when the blame is yours and yours alone coin cloner.
he was just doing his job.. and you were not doing yours !

keep up the spin.. but bear in mind only so many of us here are your gullible patsy's
and people have you not noticed how ballsy these cloners have gotten with coding in cheats ?
we have already caught a lot of these guys pulling scammy stunts with code
and this new random coin named coin cloner is saying.. oh well i'm different..
LOL sure you are.. if you were different you would not have gotten caught period.
And you wouldn't be involved in any other coins wrapped up in scams now would ya ?
For example the very coin your coin was cloned from that i couldn't even get the get the GitHub code too (deleted Github Repo / because of drama)
Honorcoin.. i don't suppose you were behind that drama too were you ?
Hmm kinda funny you chose that Altcoin of ALL altcoins out there to clone for your new "honest" coin lol
hmm i guess it's just a coincidence huh ? all them conspiracy guys are picking on me boo hoooooooooo

Coin cloner and no i will not call you "dev" you didn't earn the title as far as i am concerned.
You can man up and accept blame FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
And stop trying to blame busoni for your dumb bs you got caught pulling..
You have lost even more respect from many us by trying to pin the blame on him.
Take your shitty doomed and destroyed anonymous scam coin and fuck off please.

If it walks like a duck.. sounds like a duck.. then quit flying south for winter saying it's a coincidence..
Quuuuaaaaaaaaaaaacccccckkkkkkkkk

Your response while everyone insisted you were "sleeping" here makes me sick !

Now that is what you call both barrels, you summed that up so eloquently, I could help but quote it Thank you

[Cohle]

 

[cyberhacker]

ALMOST 70% OF TRADING COIN ON POLONIEX will be delisted according to BUSONI's new standard!


applaud to that!!!

bump.

[mistersushi]

The stupid in this thread is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

[jakiman]

What's done is done.

Busoni posted false information leading to poloniex losing a lot of respect and potential income today.
I'm sure he had good intentions. It just wasn't correct in this instance.

I just hope he admits his mistake. That's all.
Once he does,  we can all move along.

[kidyubyub]

 

I don't see this tweet on his page.

[cyberhacker]

if polo raise the bar and do retro review. 80% will be delisted, and most new will not be added.

[jakiman]

 

I don't see this tweet on his page.

Check out @BryceWeiner's Tweet: https://twitter.com/BryceWeiner/status/477935417137065984

[mistersushi]

if polo raise the bar and do retro review. 80% will be delisted, and most new will not be added.

And the crypto world would move on without polo.

[mistersushi]

 

I don't see this tweet on his page.

Check out @BryceWeiner's Tweet: https://twitter.com/BryceWeiner/status/477935417137065984

Which is funny, because this is the guy who tweeted that LibertyCoin had hidden coins due to MAX_MONEY just a few weeks ago.  Then he started backpedaling.  I wanted to thank him because it lead to a certain douchenozzle named IconicExpert making even more of a liar and fool out of himself.

[kidyubyub]

 

I don't see this tweet on his page.

Check out @BryceWeiner's Tweet: https://twitter.com/BryceWeiner/status/477935417137065984

Which is funny, because this is the guy who tweeted that LibertyCoin had hidden coins due to MAX_MONEY just a few weeks ago.  Then he started backpedaling.  I wanted to thank him because it lead to a certain douchenozzle named IconicExpert making even more of a liar and fool out of himself.

Really? I don't keep up on such things. I'm just a noob in crypto, but this is very interesting.

[busoni]

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.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

[Collegestudent]

Please recheck Cloakcoin. You did a mistake there as well

[Spoetnik]

oh please your going to TRY and lecture me on the code ?

should i quote myself when i commneted earlier on bitcoinprc.cpp on line 100 previous pages back ?

i know more about it than 99% of you so stfu noobs.

i AM a coder in c/c++ so sit down and shut the fuck up and let the coders talk about code kids.
my programming resume is longer than many little shits here commenting have been alive i am sure.

all you guys are doing is using the bury the truth method and to harp and push false info to cover up bad behavior.
a classic and very formulaic response..
one that wears people down so they give up and you win public opinion by pushing propaganda until he other side gives up.

don't you dare *try and lecture me on the code kids ..that is hilarious !

[mistersushi]

oh please your going to TRY and lecture me on the code ?

should i quote myself when i commneted earlier on bitcoinprc.cpp on line 100 previous pages back ?

i know more about it than 99% of you so stfu noobs.

i AM a coder in c/c++ so sit down and shut the fuck up and let the coders talk about code kids.
my programming resume is longer than many little shits here commenting have been alive i am sure.

all you guys are doing is using the bury the truth method and to harp and push false info to cover up bad behavior.
a classic and very formulaic response..
one that wears people down so they give up and you win public opinion by pushing propaganda until he other side gives up.

don't you dare *try and lecture me on the code kids ..that is hilarious !

Just in case you're talking to me, I've been programming since the early '80s, and I don't give a fuck about SuperCoin, or who you think you are or how long you've been on the forums.  You're wrong.

[Spoetnik]

i don't care.. i don't need lectures from idiots with zero programming skills..

i got this in grade 5
http://oldcomputers.net/trs80i.html

i don't need lip thx

go for it flop it on the table and spout off but don't cry when mines bigger though lol
i was playing PC games on Cassette tapes on my Trs80 in the 80's 

can we get back to the topic at hand or are we going to keep playing games ?

[provenceday]

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.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

.  it seems that's the real busoni . This one is who I will respect.

[maryvale]

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.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

lmao, it is not the problem of standard, it is also not the problem to ensure good quality of coin code, it is the problem whoever reviewed the code, have no basic idea how the coin code works - this is a serious problem.

Please, I used Poloniex a lot and I liked it (I traded a lot there), but I am surprised at what has happened. It certainly degraded Poloniex. Next time please use a qualified person to do review, not a high school kid who have no idea what he's talking about.

In my previous posts, I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315515#msg7315515

and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315840#msg7315840

and as a staff of Poloniex, please make responsible claims. Whoever made that claim, apparently have no idea of the coin code.

[jorrr]

boycot poloniex! first cloak coin not listing and now this huge mistake.

How can you trust them with your precious BTC???

[landslide]

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.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

lmao, it is not the problem of standard, it is also not the problem to ensure good quality of coin code, it is the problem whoever reviewed the code, have no basic idea how the coin code works - this is a serious problem.

Please, I used Poloniex a lot and I liked it (I traded a lot there), but I am surprised at what has happened. It certainly degraded Poloniex. Next time please use a qualified person to do review, not a high school kid who have no idea what he's talking about.

In my previous posts, I showed how the MAX_MONEY is used in the code:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315515#msg7315515

and how total coin is calculated:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652351.msg7315840#msg7315840

and as a staff of Poloniex, please make responsible claims. Whoever made that claim, apparently have no idea of the coin code.

Exactly, the above comments are right on the spot! Busoni, your irresponsible and wrong claim damaged SuperCoin's reputation (and yours of course), you should publicly appologize to the community!