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

[TruthSeeker101]

It should be noted that he posted that in January. 
 
I am looking over both whitepapers now. 
 
https://github.com/john-connor/papers/blob/708f488c8c17e08a12bc4bdb4fc5ac1e2aaf6e24/zerotime.pdf 
http://vanillacoin.net/papers/vanillacoin.pdf   
 
The papers talk about how whenever a transaction is sent, that node will check a hiearchy of nodes (including a masternode?) to see if the majority of them have accepted it; if they have, then it will accept it too with no questions.  I have some serious mathematical issues with how this will work in real life. 
 
In any case, this currency is getting pretty big and if there's something behind this, then great: I will be a massive supporter.  But if something's fucky, it's time to find out.

i am trying to find out if vnl is real deal or not 

this is what i find so far

More nodes staking does help secure the nPoS channel yes, so thank you for helping

As to Trust Key expiration if you don't stake for 1 day your key will expire requiring you to get another genesis transaction and create a new trust key starting at 0.5% interest. Most likely going to increase the expiration time to 1 week or month, depending on what you guys would like so if you have suggestions to how long you would like the expiration time to be, let me know

Vanilla has had a lot of attention, but under false pretense such as: The Angel Investor was actually John Conner.
There are also some false claims such as their staking being more energy efficient, when it is an exact line for line clone of Peercoin, just rewritten in C++ 11.

Another thing for you VNL holders, don't trust Zero Time. I found some flaws in it that would allow successful double spends at zero confirmations without 51% of network power, I'm writing a report for a friend about it and other positives / negatives with its claims / actual results.

But on another note, I'd like to extend my appreciation to everyone for helping make Nexus what it is, don't forget: By the People, for the People. To me, Nexus isn't just about profit, it's about freeing ourselves from a system designed to keep us enslaved, the more everyone works together, the more chances we have at this Freedom.

Cooperation, not Competition
We Are Nexus

[gmaxwell]

Everyone should read this article (especially the under the hood part):

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114794/miners-lost-over-50000-from-the-bitcoin-hardfork-last-weekend

John Connor warned the BTC devs about this issue:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69481908

Who are the idiots?

I'm afraid you failed to actually understand the discussion.  First, there has been no Bitcoin hard fork; the article you're linking to is simply flat out wrong.

Secondly, John Connor didn't warn about anything there-- in fact, he copied the code he was complaining about into his own codebase, after reformatting and with incorrect attribution in violation of the very minimal software license, and then lied about the functionality being in his forware all along. (See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.msg10122209#msg10122209).

I find it remarkable that people will continue to use software written by someone who has been caught outright lying about the content of the binaries they distribute.  It reduces my faith in the potential for the success of cryptocurrency at all. What greater warning sign could you ask for?

[YAdaminer]

Everyone should read this article (especially the under the hood part):

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114794/miners-lost-over-50000-from-the-bitcoin-hardfork-last-weekend

John Connor warned the BTC devs about this issue:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69481908

Who are the idiots?

I'm afraid you failed to actually understand the discussion.  First, there has been no Bitcoin hard fork; the article you're linking to is simply flat out wrong.

Secondly, John Connor didn't warn about anything there-- in fact, he copied the code he was complaining about into his own codebase, after reformatting and with incorrect attribution in violation of the very minimal software license, and then lied about the functionality being in his forware all along. (See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.msg10122209#msg10122209).

I find it remarkable that people will continue to use software written by someone who has been caught outright lying about the content of the binaries they distribute.  It reduces my faith in the potential for the success of cryptocurrency at all. What greater warning sign could you ask for?

Hmm, hmm, You were discussing over a problem yet john-connor didnt warn you, khmm
Yea, right and I heard that earth is actually flat.
Makes you wonder how stuff member can go out with opinions and discuss on any topic here which strongly reduces my faith in service quality and competence of this forum.
edit
Oh, mr. Maxwell you even started this thread, isn't this some kind of conflict of interest?
Does this forum have some or any kind of code of conduct?

[jimlite]

Hmm, this Vanilla coin is getting more and more interesting by the day.  I obviously hold gmaxwell's position in crypto history as high.  I also hold John's 20 years of P2P and crypto history as high.  It seems to me these two are in a little beef, but I would guess they know each other or have worked on a project together long ago.  In either case you've got two brilliant people debating bitcoin and vanillacoin with each other. That's all I need to know.  Kind of reminds me of the war between Bill Gates and Steven Jobs. You can guess who is who, lol.

[rnicoll]

I also hold John's 20 years of P2P and crypto history as high.

Where's that from?

Edit: I'm trying not to say [citation needed], I'm curious about the details of what he was doing for 20 years.

[nextgencoin]

Hmm, this Vanilla coin is getting more and more interesting by the day.  I obviously hold gmaxwell's position in crypto history as high.  I also hold John's 20 years of P2P and crypto history as high.  It seems to me these two are in a little beef, but I would guess they know each other or have worked on a project together long ago.  In either case you've got two brilliant people debating bitcoin and vanillacoin with each other. That's all I need to know.  Kind of reminds me of the war between Bill Gates and Steven Jobs. You can guess who is who, lol.

Proble is it's not a debate is people claiming johns work won't work.....even of course while it is running on test eat without a double spend I might add.

Anyway the challenge has been set, those involved need to point the questions and debate the actual person not here where it's a cesspool of FUD and hype. IRC is the place for debate. If they don't then I guess they are not worth listening to here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1152106.40

[Este Nuno]

Everyone should read this article (especially the under the hood part):

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114794/miners-lost-over-50000-from-the-bitcoin-hardfork-last-weekend

John Connor warned the BTC devs about this issue:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69481908

Who are the idiots?

I'm afraid you failed to actually understand the discussion.  First, there has been no Bitcoin hard fork; the article you're linking to is simply flat out wrong.

Secondly, John Connor didn't warn about anything there-- in fact, he copied the code he was complaining about into his own codebase, after reformatting and with incorrect attribution in violation of the very minimal software license, and then lied about the functionality being in his forware all along. (See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.msg10122209#msg10122209).

I find it remarkable that people will continue to use software written by someone who has been caught outright lying about the content of the binaries they distribute.  It reduces my faith in the potential for the success of cryptocurrency at all. What greater warning sign could you ask for?

Hmm, hmm, You were discussing over a problem yet john-connor didnt warn you, khmm
Yea, right and I heard that earth is actually flat.
Makes you wonder how stuff member can go out with opinions and discuss on any topic here which strongly reduces my faith in service quality and competence of this forum.
edit
Oh, mr. Maxwell you even started this thread, isn't this some kind of conflict of interest?
Does this forum have some or any kind of code of conduct?

This has nothing at all to do with the forum. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. He's a mod in some of the forums here, but not this one.

And you realize he's one of the five Bitcoin Core developers who have commit access on Bitcoin Core itself, right?

[YAdaminer]

Everyone should read this article (especially the under the hood part):

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114794/miners-lost-over-50000-from-the-bitcoin-hardfork-last-weekend

John Connor warned the BTC devs about this issue:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69481908

Who are the idiots?

I'm afraid you failed to actually understand the discussion.  First, there has been no Bitcoin hard fork; the article you're linking to is simply flat out wrong.

Secondly, John Connor didn't warn about anything there-- in fact, he copied the code he was complaining about into his own codebase, after reformatting and with incorrect attribution in violation of the very minimal software license, and then lied about the functionality being in his forware all along. (See also: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.msg10122209#msg10122209).

I find it remarkable that people will continue to use software written by someone who has been caught outright lying about the content of the binaries they distribute.  It reduces my faith in the potential for the success of cryptocurrency at all. What greater warning sign could you ask for?

Hmm, hmm, You were discussing over a problem yet john-connor didnt warn you, khmm
Yea, right and I heard that earth is actually flat.
Makes you wonder how stuff member can go out with opinions and discuss on any topic here which strongly reduces my faith in service quality and competence of this forum.
edit
Oh, mr. Maxwell you even started this thread, isn't this some kind of conflict of interest?
Does this forum have some or any kind of code of conduct?

This has nothing at all to do with the forum. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. He's a mod in some of the forums here, but not this one.

And you realize he's one of the five Bitcoin Core developers who have commit access on Bitcoin Core itself, right?

The fact that he is one of 5 Bitcoin core developers makes this thread even worse in all possible aspects.
Known thing is that john-connor will not debate here not with mr. Maxwell nor with anyone else cause this is mr. Maxwell playground and he as part of the staff and mod have all advantages.
As mr. Maxwell is allowed to go with his opinions than it is certainly ok for anyone to bring questions about his work and anything he is doing which includes his role in this forum.
Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.
And for the end I’ll say this, VNL didn’t have not one double spend problem not on livenet nor on testnet and we all know we can’t say that for BTC.

[Este Nuno]

Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.

Yes, I believe they knew about a specific problem that if publicized could lead to a damaging attack on Bitcoin. They only let us know the full scope of the issue recently after the BIP 66 soft fork was completed as doing anything other than that would be foolish. Gmaxwell or anyone else who knows more specifics can correct me if I'm wrong.

Notice how sipa says the discovered the issue in September 2014: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html

The fact that some people are trying to pass this off as vindication for John Connor, or as some situation where he was the one who alerted everyone about a problem seems very deceptive.

[YAdaminer]

Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.

Yes, I believe they knew about a specific problem that if publicized could lead to a damaging attack on Bitcoin. They only let us know the full scope of the issue recently after the BIP 66 soft fork was completed as doing anything other than that would be foolish. Gmaxwell or anyone else who knows more specifics can correct me if I'm wrong.

Notice how sipa says the discovered the issue in September 2014: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html

The fact that some people are trying to pass this off as vindication for John Connor, or as some situation where he was the one who alerted everyone about a problem seems very deceptive.

So let assume they knew about problem, so why didn’t they fix it on the first place?
You believe what you think is right, I believe what I think is right.
As this thread is about VNL and 'quiet words of warning' created by BTC core dev and not quiet words about BTC flaws created by john-connor I believe that this thread, as you say, actually is some kind of vindication.

[Este Nuno]

Also if claim from mr.Maxwell that john-connor didn’t warn them about anything are actually true that means that they (bitcoin core devs) already knew about the problem but they done nothing to fix them which is even worse. So going out with quiet warnings is nothing but perfidious way to undermine john-connor work.

Yes, I believe they knew about a specific problem that if publicized could lead to a damaging attack on Bitcoin. They only let us know the full scope of the issue recently after the BIP 66 soft fork was completed as doing anything other than that would be foolish. Gmaxwell or anyone else who knows more specifics can correct me if I'm wrong.

Notice how sipa says the discovered the issue in September 2014: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009697.html

The fact that some people are trying to pass this off as vindication for John Connor, or as some situation where he was the one who alerted everyone about a problem seems very deceptive.

So let assume they knew about problem, so why didn’t they fix it on the first place?
You believe what you think is right, I believe what I think is right.
As this thread is about VNL and 'quiet words of warning' created by BTC core dev and not quiet words about BTC flaws created by john-connor I believe that this thread, as you say, actually is some kind of vindication.

They did fix it with BIP 66. Notice how BIP 66 is dated Jan 10th. Bitcoin is not easy to update though and they set it to need 95% consensus to take effect which can take a while.

There's no vindication, gmaxwell created this thread after seeing some fundamental misunderstandings from John Connor, as well as noticing that he had ripped off Bitcoin Core code without the proper attributions as per the MIT licence. More than enough reason to make a thread. If people still choose to ignore these red flags then there's nothing else he can do. But I for one appreciate the fact that he made the post, as people often get away with a lot of BS in the altcoin scene.

[rnicoll]

So let assume they knew about problem, so why didn’t they fix it on the first place?
You believe what you think is right, I believe what I think is right.
As this thread is about VNL and 'quiet words of warning' created by BTC core dev and not quiet words about BTC flaws created by john-connor I believe that this thread, as you say, actually is some kind of vindication.

They did fix it with BIP 66. Notice how BIP 66 is dated Jan 10th. Bitcoin is not easy to update though and they set it to need 95% consensus to take effect which can take a while.

There's no vindication, gmaxwell created this thread after seeing some fundamental misunderstandings from John Connor, as well as noticing that he had ripped off Bitcoin Core code without the proper attributions as per the MIT licence. More than enough reason to make a thread. If people still choose to ignore these red flags then there's nothing else he can do. But I for one appreciate the fact that he made the post, as people often get away with a lot of BS in the altcoin scene.

In fact, the first specification for trying to fix it was BIP 62, back in March 2014: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawiki

However that specification tried bringing in incompatible changes (I think it was something to do with P2SH addresses, but don't quote me on that), which lead to BIP 66 replacing it.

[YAdaminer]

Yea guys, nothing is easy with BTC.

Flaws correction, updating, mining, transfering,... everything is so slow to the point of uselessness.

hmm

VNL on the other hand is totaly oposit, fast and easy so any merchant can accept it


When use of gold as payment has become problem people turned to cash.

When use of BTC has become problem john-connor made VNL.

carpe diem

[iCEBREAKER]

Vanillacoin was previously discussed on this forum, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890388.0 but he locked the threads in order to shuffle the users (victims?) off to someplace out of the light of day-- never a good sign, (nor is his BCT newbie account, for that matter).  The "vanillacoin" software has no source code available, it is binaries only (very much not a good sign, and usually severe malware concern; and an ultimate form of centralization), there are source links but they go to a basically empty github repository. There is a whitepaper, which like the comments on github show some general software development background they show no real sign of sophisticated understanding around decenteralized systems for adversarial networks or cryptocurrencies.

I don't know anything more about it, but I figure sunlight tends to be a good disinfectant; and with the threads locked it probably wasn't fair of me to say nothing while I was privately thinking "hm, that all smells pretty fishy".  Of course, the guy was a bit rude to me and also wasted my time-- so feel free to factor that bias in however you like. I'm just reporting my impression as a regular community member. You now know what I know.

[I'm the last person to play altcoin-cops... I mostly avoid this stuff except for the rare cases that are technically interesting: The drama can sink unbounded time and usually, when it comes to the more misguided altcoin cryptography, the only sane policy seems to be "If you see something,say nothing and drink to forget": there is too much crazyness and risk of being attacked for being critical of someones latest scheme. But if it shows up in my face, I can't quite stomach saying nothing at all.]
Cheers,

Ouch.  "john-conner" better put some ice on that burn!

[iCEBREAKER]

github http://vanillacoin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?id=420

Hah. Looks like poking here had some effect.

So... this code is substantially an older copy of Bitcoin Core (maybe copied from the ppcoin codebase? I see some fragments of that) with the attribution removed (in violation of the software license for Bitcoin core) and run through an ugly auto-formatter.


It also doesn't agree with the binary on the site (linux64 sha256sum b07f40515ee75b768424189942d44af8c68b816bfc3018da65f4af273a283183):

E.g. ECDSA verification in the binary on the site gives this disassembly:

000000000054bc00 <_ZN4coin3key6verifyERKNS_6sha256ERKSt6vectorIhSaIhEE>:
  54bc00:       48 89 5c 24 e8          mov    %rbx,-0x18(%rsp)
  54bc05:       48 89 6c 24 f0          mov    %rbp,-0x10(%rsp)
  54bc0a:       4c 89 64 24 f8          mov    %r12,-0x8(%rsp)
  54bc0f:       48 83 ec 18             sub    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc13:       48 8b 2a                mov    (%rdx),%rbp
  54bc16:       48 8b 5a 08             mov    0x8(%rdx),%rbx
  54bc1a:       4c 8b 27                mov    (%rdi),%r12
  54bc1d:       48 89 f7                mov    %rsi,%rdi
  54bc20:       e8 bb a1 03 00          callq  585de0 <_ZNK4coin6sha2566digestEv>
  54bc25:       48 89 e9                mov    %rbp,%rcx
  54bc28:       31 ff                   xor    %edi,%edi
  54bc2a:       ba 20 00 00 00          mov    $0x20,%edx
  54bc2f:       48 29 eb                sub    %rbp,%rbx
  54bc32:       4d 89 e1                mov    %r12,%r9
  54bc35:       48 89 c6                mov    %rax,%rsi
  54bc38:       41 89 d8                mov    %ebx,%r8d
  54bc3b:       e8 d0 59 1e 00          callq  731610 <ECDSA_verify>
  54bc40:       83 f8 01                cmp    $0x1,%eax
  54bc43:       48 8b 1c 24             mov    (%rsp),%rbx
  54bc47:       48 8b 6c 24 08          mov    0x8(%rsp),%rbp
  54bc4c:       0f 94 c0                sete   %al
  54bc4f:       4c 8b 64 24 10          mov    0x10(%rsp),%r12
  54bc54:       48 83 c4 18             add    $0x18,%rsp
  54bc58:       c3                      retq  
  54bc59:       90                      nop
  54bc5a:       66 0f 1f 44 00 00       nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)

compared to this source code:

bool key::verify(
    const sha256 & h, const std::vector<std::uint8_t> & signature
    )
{
    bool ret = false;
    
    if (signature.size() > 0)
    {
        auto ptr_signature = &signature[0];
        
        ECDSA_SIG * ecdsa_sig = 0;
        
        /**
         * Make sure that the signature looks like a valid signature before
         * sending it to OpenSSL (like in the test cases).
         */
        if (
            (ecdsa_sig = d2i_ECDSA_SIG(
            0, &ptr_signature, signature.size())) != 0
            )
        {
            std::uint8_t * pp = 0;
            
            auto len = i2d_ECDSA_SIG(ecdsa_sig, &pp);
            
            ECDSA_SIG_free(ecdsa_sig), ecdsa_sig = 0;
            
            if (pp && len > 0)
            {
                ret = ECDSA_verify(
                    0, h.digest(), sha256::digest_length, pp, len, m_EC_KEY
                ) == 1;
                
                OPENSSL_free(pp), pp = 0;
            }
        }
    }
    
    return ret;
}

Which contains a workaround for the change in OpenSSL behavior that the john-connor was so busily insulting us about. The disassembly shows no calls to d2i_ECDSA_SIG in that function-- the only one in the whole binary is the one inside OpenSSL that was there all along.  Extra fun is the fact that this change appears to have been deceptively backdated in the git repository to December 9th.

Doesn't appear to have any of the GUI code either; I wonder what other ways the source doesn't agree with the binary?

Oh my, that's going to leave a mark.

[souljah1h]

FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.

#R3KT

VNL still here, not rekt I would imagine a legendary member doesnt behave like this saying #R3KT. What is your agenda? Oh think i found out

[iCEBREAKER]

FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.

#R3KT

VNL still here, not rekt I would imagine a legendary member doesnt behave like this saying #R3KT. What is your agenda? Oh think i found out

Do you have any comment on VanillaScam's "copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed)?"

[vanillagalaxy]

FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.

#R3KT

VNL still here, not rekt I would imagine a legendary member doesnt behave like this saying #R3KT. What is your agenda? Oh think i found out

Do you have any comment on VanillaScam's "copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed)?"

nothing have to comment here for

1.there is no scam on Vanillacoin
2.there is no such thing that you so called "copyright violation" exist for what gmaxwell said not even supported with enought evidences

[generalizethis]

FWIW, I politely reported the copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed) as an issue on the github for the project and john-connor accused me of stalking him and then hid the issue tracker on that github from public view. :-/

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as it's consistent with the rest of the concerns that resulted in creating this thread-- that there is some ongoing effort to keep that work out of the sunlight.

#R3KT

VNL still here, not rekt I would imagine a legendary member doesnt behave like this saying #R3KT. What is your agenda? Oh think i found out

Do you have any comment on VanillaScam's "copyright violation (the code being a copy of Bitcoin Core run through an auto-formatter with all the attribution removed)?"

nothing have to comment here for

1.there is no scam on Vanillacoin
2.there is no such thing that you so called "copyright violation" exist for what gmaxwell said not even supported with enought evidences

TLDR: Nuh-uh

[iCEBREAKER]

1.there is no scam on Vanillacoin
2.there is no such thing that you so called "copyright violation" exist for what gmaxwell said not even supported with enought evidences

Gmax and smooth are right, the evidence VNL stole code is overwhelming:

Define "uses". There's certainly structural similarities:

https://github.com/john-connor/vanillacoin/blob/master/src/key.cpp vs
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.9/src/key.cpp#L16

Thanks for that.

Adding “#L34” to the vnl URI nails it for me:

Code:

{code}

That's a lot more than just a structural similarity.

It’s hard for me to see this as anything other than incontrovertible evidence of the author having a naively self-centred perspective on intellectual property rights, broadly translatable as “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine’s my own”.

More tellingly, it's also hard to reconcile this evident difficulty in critical thinking with any kind of work in the area of cryptography, notorious for its relentlessly stern demands of cognitive sophistication in its proponents.

Stand back a few yards and the picture becomes somewhat clearer. I've not even bothered looking at vnl, being confident that it’s just another variant of the “misunderstood but brilliant maverick outsider, wronged by a complacent community” media narrative and all the posturing is entirely consistent, even the expedient arrogation of others’ work. Given the evidence in the codebase, I'm reassured that my confidence is not misplaced, although I do have to admit that his choice of pseudonym is a bit of a give-away in and of itself.

Confirmed: VNL is a scam perpetuated by an unrepentant code thief.