[UNOFFICIAL] [VNL] Vanillacoin 0.4.1 | Instant ▱ Incentivized ▱ Innovative

[SquidsIn]

Nexious is pleased to announce the launch of our Vanillacoin mining pool!

We are offering 0% Fees for the first 50 miners!.

Come and check us out at https://vnl.nexious.com

So, what happened to 0% fees for the first 50 miners then?  I found the first two blocks and there have been less than 10 miners at the pool in the 24 hours I've been there since shortly after launch yet I still got 1% fees deducted.

On the plus side, the dashboard reports my hash rate pretty much as I see it client-side and my lowly 1.5Gh/s has hit 2 blocks in 24 hours.  Other pools consistently report a 10-15% lower hash rate.

[1714697959]

1714697959

[1714697959]

1714697959

[1714697959]

1714697959

[1714697959]

1714697959

[Nexious]

So, what happened to 0% fees for the first 50 miners then?  I found the first two blocks and there have been less than 10 miners at the pool in the 24 hours I've been there since shortly after launch yet I still got 1% fees deducted.

On the plus side, the dashboard reports my hash rate pretty much as I see it client-side and my lowly 1.5Gh/s has hit 2 blocks in 24 hours.  Other pools consistently report a 10-15% lower hash rate.

I apologize SquidsIn, I was meant to put on the thread saying to PM me your username on the pool so I can switch it over to 0% fees. As all logins are shared with our other pools (bitcoin). I will change it over for you now.

[HCLivess]

{
    "walletaddress": VjKqEbKnAciBH9qGEWb75vUUgdQfXtMrNh,
    "collateralrequired": 0,
    "collateralbalance": 0,
    "networkstatus": ok,
    "votecandidate": true,
    "votescore": -27761
}


now let's see if I get some coins

[SquidsIn]

So, what happened to 0% fees for the first 50 miners then?  I found the first two blocks and there have been less than 10 miners at the pool in the 24 hours I've been there since shortly after launch yet I still got 1% fees deducted.

On the plus side, the dashboard reports my hash rate pretty much as I see it client-side and my lowly 1.5Gh/s has hit 2 blocks in 24 hours.  Other pools consistently report a 10-15% lower hash rate.

I apologize SquidsIn, I was meant to put on the thread saying to PM me your username on the pool so I can switch it over to 0% fees. As all logins are shared with our other pools (bitcoin). I will change it over for you now.

Many thanks, great pool btw.

[fmz89]

wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER 

[bigfryguy]

wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER 

Im pretty sure that word doesnt mean what he thinks it means....

[maccaspacca]

wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER 

Heh - ironic isn't it !

[wildduck]

wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER  

Im pretty sure that word doesnt mean what he thinks it means....

To icebreaker everything is a scam

[iCEBREAKER]

wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER 

Im pretty sure that word doesnt mean what he thinks it means....

VNL stole code, according to gmaxwell, smooth, and most recently

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.

Git REKT, mates!   

[hughbt]

Smooth and his army of sockpuppet accounts(aka ZeroCommiters) to the rescue of crypto-world. LOL

There's certainly structural similarities

Nope there is no similarities, VNL is a fricking car, not a cryptocurrency. How can there be similarities?

[YAdaminer]

...
VNL stole code, according to gmaxwell, smooth, and most recently
... blablabla

Check what john-connor have to say

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1189125.msg12507853#msg12507853

[wildduck]

John answer is excellent

[dygus]

IMO Monero guys are so pissed, because we took them a lot of potential investors (look at monero chart).
My advice for MONERO community sell part of your coins and buy Vanilla, after you earn a lot of money on VNL you can rebuy XMR at lower price.

[pallas]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

[EmilioMann]

WOW, gjhiggins the famous scammer behind several C-CEX ico scams also saying that VNL is a scam.
This is very worrying. 

[onemorexmr]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

personally i prefer static builds for security related apps, because a lib can attack its host-app.
if its just a file somewhere on the system it may get updated unnoticed (i tend to update security apps more carefully than normal libs).

that just means someone has to rebuild if a "normal" security hole is found in a lib: not a big issue IMHO

[pallas]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

personally i prefer static builds for security related apps, because a lib can attack its host-app.
if its just a file somewhere on the system it may get updated unnoticed (i tend to update security apps more carefully than normal libs).

that just means someone has to rebuild if a "normal" security hole is found in a lib: not a big issue IMHO

If a hacker has access to a lib, it has access to the host program as well, so it doesn't make a difference.
Seeing how often (for example) openssl has been updated for severe security issues recently, I think building it statically in a cryptocoin wallet is to be considered a security issue.
YMMV of course.
And before people start attacking me, I'm not bashing the coin, just saying what my concerns are.

[Jookly]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

personally i prefer static builds for security related apps, because a lib can attack its host-app.
if its just a file somewhere on the system it may get updated unnoticed (i tend to update security apps more carefully than normal libs).

that just means someone has to rebuild if a "normal" security hole is found in a lib: not a big issue IMHO

If a hacker has access to a lib, it has access to the host program as well, so it doesn't make a difference.
Seeing how often (for example) openssl has been updated for severe security issues recently, I think building it statically in a cryptocoin wallet is to be considered a security issue.
YMMV of course.
And before people start attacking me, I'm not bashing the coin, just saying what my concerns are.

Maybe your concern has a point from your perspective but as you can see the opposite is true for many others including this coins dev.  You have made your idea clear but I think you might be having trouble accepting that this is not going to change?  From my point of view you are pushing system security onto the dev rather than taking it into your own hands.  The simple solution, don't compile from source if you aren't comfortable with it.

[pallas]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

personally i prefer static builds for security related apps, because a lib can attack its host-app.
if its just a file somewhere on the system it may get updated unnoticed (i tend to update security apps more carefully than normal libs).

that just means someone has to rebuild if a "normal" security hole is found in a lib: not a big issue IMHO

If a hacker has access to a lib, it has access to the host program as well, so it doesn't make a difference.
Seeing how often (for example) openssl has been updated for severe security issues recently, I think building it statically in a cryptocoin wallet is to be considered a security issue.
YMMV of course.
And before people start attacking me, I'm not bashing the coin, just saying what my concerns are.

Maybe your concern has a point from your perspective but as you can see the opposite is true for many others including this coins dev.  You have made your idea clear but I think you might be having trouble accepting that this is not going to change?  From my point of view you are pushing system security onto the dev rather than taking it into your own hands.  The simple solution, don't compile from source if you aren't comfortable with it.

I don't agree with what you are saying but in order to avoid an offtopic and starting an endless discussion, I'll just add that the issue is not only for people compiling it, but also for people using precompiled binaries.
And if people using VNL are fine with that, then it's ok ;-)

[pseudonymdude]

The vanilla wallet is compiled with many static libraries.
Other than a build annoyance for people wanting to compile themselves, it is a security issue.
When your operating system does security updates on those libraries, the wallet will be unaffected by those updates and will keep being vulnerable.
This is pretty common for windows applications, much less on unix.

See here for the discussion:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064326.msg12499004#msg12499004

I warned you ;-)

personally i prefer static builds for security related apps, because a lib can attack its host-app.
if its just a file somewhere on the system it may get updated unnoticed (i tend to update security apps more carefully than normal libs).

that just means someone has to rebuild if a "normal" security hole is found in a lib: not a big issue IMHO

If a hacker has access to a lib, it has access to the host program as well, so it doesn't make a difference.
Seeing how often (for example) openssl has been updated for severe security issues recently, I think building it statically in a cryptocoin wallet is to be considered a security issue.
YMMV of course.
And before people start attacking me, I'm not bashing the coin, just saying what my concerns are.

Maybe your concern has a point from your perspective but as you can see the opposite is true for many others including this coins dev.  You have made your idea clear but I think you might be having trouble accepting that this is not going to change?  From my point of view you are pushing system security onto the dev rather than taking it into your own hands.  The simple solution, don't compile from source if you aren't comfortable with it.

I don't agree with what you are saying but in order to avoid an offtopic and starting an endless discussion, I'll just add that the issue is not only for people compiling it, but also for people using precompiled binaries.
And if people using VNL are fine with that, then it's ok ;-)

See here for reason:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919373.0

edit: Also, bitcoin core is still forced to make everyone update once in a while.  See April 8, 2014: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=562400.0