[VXC] V.Cash (Was: [VNL] Vanillacoin), a quiet word of warning.

[iCEBREAKER]

@iCEBREAKER

That "code thief" single handedly coded more and with a higher quality than your beloved XMR developers, who couldn't put down anything on the table since the moment they forked bytecoin.

Must hurt to baghold something that will never get real world use or adoption with those "developers".

Your scam coin is based on provably stolen code.  Even worse, your scam-dev denies stealing the code despite being caught red-handed, dead to rights.  Worst of all, your scam-community uses Scientology style 'attack-the-attackers' tactics to deflect criticism with logical fallacies and flat out lies about whatever projects the 'attackers' happen to be involved in.  It's basically the low rent version of the DashHole cargo cult.   

Gmaxwell proves 'VNL stole code?'  Attack Bitcoin! 
Smooth proves 'VNL stole code?'  Attack Monero!
gjhiggins proves 'VNL stole code?'  Quick, attack C-CEX like anyone knows or cares WTF a C-CEX is/was!

All your scam-dev can do is steal code and hide the theft using the advanced technique of 'variable renaming.'

OTOH, XMR devs are doing great things to salvage, improve, and perfect their inherited Cryptonote codebase.

[solid12345]

OTOH, XMR devs are doing great things to salvage, improve, and perfect their inherited Cryptonote codebase.

Inherited? You mean the cryptonote team died and passed the code on in their will to the XMR team 

[YarkoL]

Well maybe shady isn't the best word. What I meant
is a little bit mysterious and reticent when it comes to
exposition.

I can understand that 'image' for ppl who follow him only on bct, for ppl following him on irc its quite the contrary..

Call me old-fashioned but hanging on irc
is no substitute for a solid and detailed whitepaper...

[iCEBREAKER]

OTOH, XMR devs are doing great things to salvage, improve, and perfect their inherited Cryptonote codebase.

Inherited? You mean the cryptonote team died and passed the code on in their will to the XMR team 

The XMR team simply reused, WITH PROPER ATTRIBUTION, the CN code base to launch their own fork.  Then they vastly improved upon it.

Do you even WITH PROPER ATTRIBUTION bro?   

Changing the subject to another coin to distract people from VNL's stolen code isn't going to work.  Your scam = busted.   

[solid12345]

Your scam = busted.   

It's not "my scam", hell I sold off my meagerly 10k VNL holdings the other day because it wasn't going anywhere, but that is a pretty ballsy thing to say that they "inherited" the codebase as if they are anointed its successor or something.

This is all business, not a holy war.

[smooth]

they "inherited" the codebase as if they are anointed its successor or something.

That is exactly the case in a sense. As with any fork the community has a choice which to support. In doing so the community annoints the successor. Would be the same with Bitcoin/Bitcoin-XT, etc., etc.

[pseudonymdude]

@iCEBREAKER

That "code thief" single handedly coded more and with a higher quality than your beloved XMR developers, who couldn't put down anything on the table since the moment they forked bytecoin.

Must hurt to baghold something that will never get real world use or adoption with those "developers".

gjhiggins proves 'VNL stole code?'  Quick, attack C-CEX like anyone knows or cares WTF a C-CEX is/was!

You're completely ignoring John's post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151160.msg12509082#msg12509082

Here is the openssl code in 2005 that gjhiggins claim was stolen from Bitcoin:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L233

[smooth]

@iCEBREAKER

That "code thief" single handedly coded more and with a higher quality than your beloved XMR developers, who couldn't put down anything on the table since the moment they forked bytecoin.

Must hurt to baghold something that will never get real world use or adoption with those "developers".

gjhiggins proves 'VNL stole code?'  Quick, attack C-CEX like anyone knows or cares WTF a C-CEX is/was!

You're completely ignoring John's post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151160.msg12509082#msg12509082

Here is the openssl code in 2005 that gjhiggins claim was stolen from Bitcoin:

https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L233

His post did not address the issue and furthermore, while irrelevant, was incorrect about Bitcoin, as I explained here (emphasis added since it seems to have been missed by the reading-challenged VNL shills):

False. The OpenSSL attribution is retained in the Bitcoin distribution.

This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit.

Where is the attribution in vanilla coin along with your retraction of the false claim that vanillacoin was written entirely from scratch?

Whether the code was originally from Bitcoin or OpenSSL, you have now admitted that your marketing claim about vanillacoin was false.

In any case the code in VNL is structurally much more similar to the version in Bitcoin and was obviously copied from that one, not the OpenSSL variant (which is also a reasonable inference since there are other sections of Bitcoin code which are obviously copied/renamed and don't come from OpenSSL)

[coralreefer]

You're completely ignoring John's post...

All that post says is that it's okay to steal the code because bitcoin stole the code. 

[smooth]

You're completely ignoring John's post...

All that post says is that it's okay to steal the code because bitcoin stole the code. 

Which it didn't. See 2 posts back.

[coralreefer]

Smooth, I agree.  I was just saying that the argument that they are using doesn't make sense.

[pseudonymdude]

You're completely ignoring John's post...

All that post says is that it's okay to steal the code because bitcoin stole the code.  

John didn't steal the code.  You don't know what projects he was a part of.

gjhiggins and by extension icebreaker were implying (outright saying) that john stole the code from Bitcoin, which I showed was from 2005 or earlier.

[smooth]

gjhiggins and by extension icebreaker were implying (outright saying) that john stole the code from Bitcoin, which I showed was from 2005 or earlier.

No, what you showed was that a different version of the code, from which Bitcoin was aparently adapted with the required attribution was from 2005 or earlier. The version in Vanillacoin is clearly very structurally similar to the Bitcoin version (as gjhiggins and others have observed) and was copied from it (with variable renames and other obfuscation) without attribution, along with other portions of Bitcoins code which do not appear to come from OpenSSL.

Furthermore this all shows that Vanillacoin was not entirely written from scratch (unless you claim that Vanillacoin was written before 2005 -- good luck with that) and john fraudulently misrepresented it when he solicited investors on that basis (and continues to do so now).

[iCEBREAKER]

Your scam = busted.   

It's not "my scam", hell I sold off my meagerly 10k VNL holdings the other day because it wasn't going anywhere, but that is a pretty ballsy thing to say that they "inherited" the codebase as if they are anointed its successor or something.

This is all business, not a holy war.

You've never heard the common phrase "inherit a codebase" before?  You must be new here.   

Try googling the phrase, and you will quickly learn there is zero implied anointment.

Code is inherited in the sense that little brother gets older brother's ratty old coat, not like when The Prince is given the keys to The King's prosperous Kingdom.

You probably already knew that, but couldn't resist making an ass of yourself just to get in a tiny little cheap shot at Monero.  I wonder why you would strain so hard, for so little result?

In any case, good job dumping those VNL scam coins on a greater fool.   

[pseudonymdude]

gjhiggins and by extension icebreaker were implying (outright saying) that john stole the code from Bitcoin, which I showed was from 2005 or earlier.

No, what you showed was that a different version of the code, from which Bitcoin was aparently adapted with the required attribution was from 2005 or earlier. The version in Vanillacoin is clearly very structurally similar to the Bitcoin version (as gjhiggins and others have observed) and was copied from it (with variable renames and other obfuscation) without attribution, along with other portions of Bitcoins code which do not appear to come from OpenSSL.

Furthermore this all shows that Vanillacoin was not entirely written from scratch (unless you claim that Vanillacoin was written before 2005 -- good luck with that) and john fraudulently misrepresented it when he solicited investors on that basis (and continues to do so now).

You don't know when and what code John contributed to various projects.


You're seriously claiming gjhiggins knew that int EC_KEY_generate_key was part of openssl?

Here, let me take you line by line with the Bitcoin code and openssl from 2005:

int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY * eckey, BIGNUM * priv_key)
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L233
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L237

    int ok = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L235

    BN_CTX * ctx = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L236

    EC_POINT * pub_key = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L238

    const EC_GROUP * group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L376

    if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L247

    pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);

    if (pub_key == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L268


You can admit gjhiggins did not know where that code came from and that icebreaker doesn't know what he's talking about now.  Thank you and good night.

[bigfryguy]

gjhiggins and by extension icebreaker were implying (outright saying) that john stole the code from Bitcoin, which I showed was from 2005 or earlier.

No, what you showed was that a different version of the code, from which Bitcoin was aparently adapted with the required attribution was from 2005 or earlier. The version in Vanillacoin is clearly very structurally similar to the Bitcoin version (as gjhiggins and others have observed) and was copied from it (with variable renames and other obfuscation) without attribution, along with other portions of Bitcoins code which do not appear to come from OpenSSL.

Furthermore this all shows that Vanillacoin was not entirely written from scratch (unless you claim that Vanillacoin was written before 2005 -- good luck with that) and john fraudulently misrepresented it when he solicited investors on that basis (and continues to do so now).

You don't know when and what code John contributed to various projects.


You're seriously claiming gjhiggins knew that int EC_KEY_generate_key was part of openssl?

Here, let me take you line by line with the Bitcoin code and openssl from 2005:

int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY * eckey, BIGNUM * priv_key)
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L233
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L237

    int ok = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L235

    BN_CTX * ctx = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L236

    EC_POINT * pub_key = 0;
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L238

    const EC_GROUP * group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L376

    if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L247

    pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);

    if (pub_key == 0)
    {
        goto err;
    }
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/8712009778af8430150401d5bee4e94d547f1f2d/crypto/ec/ec_key.c#L268


You can admit gjhiggins did not know where that code came from and that icebreaker doesn't know what he's talking about now.  Thank you and good night.

also John was part of the openssl project, if he helped write it originally, than using it no matter where it was adapted to is still legally within his rights..

by the way Vanilla coin is Great, new things keep coming out, and your repeating yourself daily is getting really boring.

[smooth]

also John was part of the openssl project

As far as I can tell from the attributions, the original code may have been contributed to openssl by Sun Microsystem, which means even if john developed it while working for Sun, he wouldn't have any authorship rights to it, Sun would. But I don't know the exact history of that portion of it, that is true.

if he helped write it originally than using it no matter where it was adapted to is still legally within his rights..

That's false, unless he was the only one to work on it, which appears unlikely given that the Bitcoin version was modified from the OpenSSL version.

Furthermore none of this addresses the other ripped off Bitcoin code which did not appear to come from OpenSSL nor the fraudulent claim of Vanillacoin being written entirely from scratch.

Example, and this code did not come from OpenSSL

Comparing a sample piece of code it is clear that at least some of it is based on Bitcoin code:

From vanillacoin - https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/address_manager.cpp#L1315

Code:

     * Try to find an entry that can be erased.
     */
    for (auto it = bucket_new.begin(); it != bucket_new.end(); ++it)
    {
        assert(address_info_map_.count(*it));
        
        auto & info = address_info_map_[*it];
        
        if (info.is_terrible())
        {
            if (--info.reference_count == 0)
            {
                std::lock_guard<std::recursive_mutex> l1(mutex_random_ids_);
                
                swap_random(
                    info.random_position,
                    static_cast<std::uint32_t> (random_ids_.size() - 1)
                );
                
                random_ids_.pop_back();
                network_address_map_.erase(info.addr);
                address_info_map_.erase(*it);
                number_new_--;
            }
            
            bucket_new.erase(it);
            
            return;

From Bitcoin 0.9.2 in addrman.cpp:

Code:

    // first look for deletable items
    for (std::set<int>::iterator it = vNew.begin(); it != vNew.end(); it++)
    {
        assert(mapInfo.count(*it));
        CAddrInfo &info = mapInfo[*it];
        if (info.IsTerrible())
        {
            if (--info.nRefCount == 0)
            {
                SwapRandom(info.nRandomPos, vRandom.size()-1);
                vRandom.pop_back();
                mapAddr.erase(info);
                mapInfo.erase(*it);
                nNew--;
            }
            vNew.erase(it);
            return 0;
        }
    }

The above code from vanillacoin is based on bitcoin, albeit renamed, refactored, reformatted and re-commented at almost every possible occasion.

The algorithm is the same line by line and even the esoteric identifier name "IsTerrible"/"is_terrible" is used in both.

My guess is John started with a old bitcoin code base and refactored, renamed and recommented the code to a huge degree.

[bigfryguy]

they "inherited" the codebase as if they are anointed its successor or something.

That is exactly the case in a sense. As with any fork the community has a choice which to support. In doing so the community annoints the successor. Would be the same with Bitcoin/Bitcoin-XT, etc., etc.

ok tin hat time....

why does smooth care so much about VNL and John-Conner

time will tell if this is true or not...
Smooth, or maybe someone who is paying him is looking greedily at the VNL code, and wants to do to VNL what Monero did to Bytecoin.

hey guys "smooth whispers to his army of cronies, lets just keep yelling scam at John-Conner, all the while we can get a our own coin built by copying his code, when we are ready lets tell everyone we did it, we arent scammers, we are honest great devs.

afterwards they will pump up their own coin and rob a bunch of people while moving on to the next project that they can scam...

Smooth actually cares about VNL because he wants its code for himself.

as I said tin hat time,
but I will ROFL if this happens because we all know John-Conner has the right stuff to keep VNL pumping out updates, and outdoing the competition.

[smooth]

why does smooth care so much about VNL and John-Conner

I don't for the most part. I was ignoring it for a month or so until someone created a new thread called something like "Smooth vs VNL"

Smooth actually cares about VNL because he wants its code for himself

As far as I can tell it is open source, so if I wanted the code I could certainly use it? https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/LICENSE

Although, anyone responsible and concerned about legal issues would likely stay the hell away given the credible questions raised about its authorship (and not by me, I just reported it--don't blame the messenger).

[solid12345]

So who is going to file the first lawsuit against John Connor, Satoshi? lol.

This is why I think this is all silly BS, it's anon people accusing other anon people of ripping each other off, in the end it all means nothing. All I care about is if the stuff works and serves a useful purpose, as far as I'm concerned anyone who is not willing to put their legal name to something and file the proper paperwork has no legal right over anything.