Why Poloniex Has Rejected SuperCoin

[gjhiggins]

From a business perspective, in order to have any success in attempting to impose quality standards, the first task you must undertake is to produce operational definitions of your criteria. Otherwise your decisions are vulnerable to being challenged as arbitrary - as in this instance - and, without a clear definition of your terms of reference, you will struggle to gain the authority to support your assessments.

Acknowledging that the OP was unfortunately an informal post (being precise with language has its merits), I would nevertheless press you to supply definitions for the following (italicised) words and phrases from your post:

disturbing

code review

evidence of an existing hidden premine

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.

other concerns

the proposed method of anonymity

shenanigans with the maximum supply

sufficient

Any business has the right to choose not to trade with specific parties. If something smells fishy to you or your staff, simply do what everyone else does and privately assess whether it meets the criteria you set for your business standards and act accordingly.

I suggest that what Poloniex does not need to do is to take it upon itself to be a crusading public arbiter of software engineering quality (please believe me on this*).

Cheers,

Graham

* http://cs.hbg.psu.edu/cmpsc487/IEEEStds_List.htm

[dearbesz]

Great find!

Poloniex has just jumped to the top of my favorite exchange list.  Dont let the lack of bells and whistles on the user interface dissuade you.  Poloniex is on top of the industry.

great job!!!

[bitcoinwonders010]

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?

then how did BUSONI miss this

[traumschiff]

Love how every account that is agreeing with polo in the form of a single sentence (no argument for pro or con) is under 50 activities or is a newb account. That makes it fully legit.

[eltonking3000]

BUSONI MUST CHANGE POST ONE. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE 

[andreibi]

This issue has been discussed back in February.

Introduction

With a market capitalization ranking of 61[1], the coin "42"[2] is advertised as the "Highest Priced Crypto Coin Ever"[3]. This high price is attributed to the coin's rarity, which is advertised to be limited to 42 total coins. Unfortunately, it looks like 42 coin and descendents thereof (like 8 coin) do not cap the money supply at the advertised number of coin. In fact, unlike most cryptocoins, the money supply of 42 appears to be unlimited.

Money Generation

In bitcoin and most descendents the money supply is capped algorithmically in the function that calculates the mining subsidy. This function is called GetBlockValue() in the source file "main.cpp". In the bitcoin code base, the source for this function is:

Code:

int64_t GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64_t nFees)
{
    int64_t nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;

    // Subsidy is cut in half every 210,000 blocks which will occur approximately every 4 years.
    nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval());

    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

Here, the subsidy is halved for each "halving interval", measured in blocks (although the calculation is obfuscated somewhat for the sake of computational efficiency). It can be proven[4] that if all halving intervals are the same length (210,000), then the maximum amount of bitcoin ever produced will be

    21,000,000 = 2 * 50 * 210,000

42 (and probably several descendants, such as uses a GetBlockValue() function like the following, taken from the 42 code base:

Code:

int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
    int64 nSubsidy = 0.000042 * COIN;
    if(nHeight < 419)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.0000001 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 1)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.42 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 420) // yay its 420 :) Time for a smoke
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.00042 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 4242)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.00042 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 42424)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.00042 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 424242)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.00042 * COIN;
}
    if(nHeight == 4242424)
    {
       nSubsidy = 0.00042 * COIN;
}
    return nSubsidy + nFees;
}

Except in a few cases (blocks 1-420, 4242, 42424, ...) all blocks will have the same reward of 0.000042 coin (ignoring fees). Notice that the 42 version of GetBlockValue() has no halving interval and makes no attempt to curtail coin generation at the advertised maximum of 42 coin. Without a geometrically decreasing reward value, the money supply will grow indefinitely.

For 42, the advertised coin maximum of 42 coin will be produced before block 1,000,000 (42 / 0.000042), or in about 1.33 years. But the existing 42 code makes no provision to stop coin production at that time.

MAX_MONEY

One part of the code for most cryptocoins that may be confusing to developers is the MAX_MONEY constant in the source file called "main.h". MAX_MONEY has two uses in the 42 code: (1) as a sentinel return value (which won't be discussed) and (2) to check some transaction values to ensure that they make sense. For the latter purpose, MAX_MONEY is used in the inline function called MoneyRange() in the "main.h" file:

Code:

inline bool MoneyRange(int64 nValue) { return (nValue >= 0 && nValue <= MAX_MONEY); }

This function simply checks to ensure that a value is not negative and does not exceed MAX_MONEY. Nowhere in the 42 codebase is MAX_MONEY checked against a sum of the balances of all accounts, which would require the computationally expensive task of either (1) calculating every account balance in the block chain and then adding them up, or (2) summing the coinbase (money generating) transactions over all blocks. The running total of money supply is not explicitly kept in the block chain.

The MoneyRange() function is used a few times in the 42 code. An arbitrary example is checking the the sanity of a transaction, as in the CTransaction::CheckTransaction() function within "main.cpp":

Code:

if (!MoneyRange(nValueOut))
            return DoS(100, error("CTransaction::CheckTransaction() : txout total out of range"));

Nowhere in the code for 42 does is MoneyRange() used to validate the total money supply of 42.


Notes:

[1] http://coinmarketcap.com/
[2] My screen name, tx42, is unrelated to 42 coin.
[3] http://www.42coin.org/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/2_%2B_1/4_%2B_1/8_%2B_1/16_%2B_%E2%8B%AF

[Vlizzjeffrey]

poloniex lost their last bit of credibility, losing btc volume everyday, being 2nd with adding coins because bittrex adds em quiker, they are getting pissed i think.

poloniex is going down i think, just like their server being down lots of times lately, this cant last long for poloniex, exchange gangsters

[dan_and_shan]

poloniex lost their last bit of credibility, losing btc volume everyday, being 2nd with adding coins because bittrex adds em quiker, they are getting pissed i think.

poloniex is going down i think, just like their server being down lots of times lately, this cant last long for poloniex, exchange gangsters

Lol, that's why he misses out on all that volume and trading fees,not adding coins like cloak and super is like financial sadism.
 He has some ethics in a arena that has lower than low standards.
 whether you love it or hate it, the gauntlet is down. cloners will actually have a look at what the fuck they are peddling.
 I personally have been raped on several P&D coins, It takes balls to stand up and speak out, Good on you!
 

[cyberhacker]

poloniex lost their last bit of credibility, losing btc volume everyday, being 2nd with adding coins because bittrex adds em quiker, they are getting pissed i think.

poloniex is going down i think, just like their server being down lots of times lately, this cant last long for poloniex, exchange gangsters

Lol, that's why he misses out on all that volume and trading fees,not adding coins like cloak and super is like financial sadism.
 He has some ethics in a arena that has lower than low standards.
 whether you love it or hate it, the gauntlet is down. cloners will actually have a look at what the fuck they are peddling.
 I personally have been raped on several P&D coins, It takes balls to stand up and speak out, Good on you!
 

my suggestion!

buy btc and never look at any alt coins1

[mctaino]

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.

You do realize what you have caused, it was reckless. I believed you had looked at the code. WTF  13BTC down the drain on your bullshit, FU and POLO

[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.

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'd be good to update the OP with this message or something similar.

[fusi0n]

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 !

oh snap! LOL 

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 ?

oh snap snap! LOL

[mistress]

Ei busoni, you are a gangster, aka mafia, ah? you tried to destroy a honest coin and now u have not anything to say? You know, from today we should update our signature saying how shit is your exchange. Do you want this? You made a big mistake with super coin and we are waiting for your official apologies. Thank u

[feina24h]

Ei busoni, you are a gangster, aka mafia, ah? you tried to destroy a honest coin and now u have not anything to say? You know, from today we should update our signature saying how shit is your exchange. Do you want this? You made a big mistake with super coin and we are waiting for your official apologies. Thank u

Honest coin LOL  not much honest.

[DjstarX]

Watch how Mintpal & Crypsty add this coin in less then a week .'There's no such thing as bad publicity'  and jumping the gun was a Big mistake , I am gonna buy some Super just because of this .

[From Above]

Ei busoni, you are a gangster, aka mafia, ah? you tried to destroy a honest coin and now u have not anything to say? You know, from today we should update our signature saying how shit is your exchange. Do you want this? You made a big mistake with super coin and we are waiting for your official apologies. Thank u

Honest coin LOL  not much honest.

this is nothing. last time Busoni stole a shitload of Btc and NEVER PAID BACK. including mine.

hes a downright Criminal.

[funsponge]

Hi there,

Just curious why you delisted ultracoin? It's not a scam and had a big development team behind it and are focused on developing the coin rather than pumpin and dumping meme garbage

[Cohle]

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'd be good to update the OP with this message or something similar.

His mods are still parroting the "unsafe code" innuendo in their trollbox. busoni needs to issue this "apology" on his site and twitter.

[18602981897]

respect owner of exchange

[From Above]

respect owner of exchange

no way. hes a criminal who stole lots of Btc of users and never paid back.