SquidsIn
|
|
September 23, 2015, 07:17:51 AM |
|
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.comSo, 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.
|
Since getting into Cryptocurrency I've had many bags, all but two have varied over time. Those are the two I see in the mirror where my eyes once shone.
|
|
|
Nexious
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
Nexious.com Admin
|
|
September 23, 2015, 07:27:19 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1090
=== NODE IS OK! ==
|
|
September 23, 2015, 08:05:55 AM |
|
{ "walletaddress": VjKqEbKnAciBH9qGEWb75vUUgdQfXtMrNh, "collateralrequired": 0, "collateralbalance": 0, "networkstatus": ok, "votecandidate": true, "votescore": -27761 }
now let's see if I get some coins
|
|
|
|
SquidsIn
|
|
September 23, 2015, 08:27:37 AM |
|
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.
|
Since getting into Cryptocurrency I've had many bags, all but two have varied over time. Those are the two I see in the mirror where my eyes once shone.
|
|
|
fmz89
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1762
Merit: 1002
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:41:33 AM |
|
wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER
|
|
|
|
bigfryguy
|
|
September 24, 2015, 01:59:03 AM |
|
wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER Im pretty sure that word doesnt mean what he thinks it means....
|
|
|
|
maccaspacca
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 278
Merit: 258
Twitter: @maccaspacca1
|
|
September 24, 2015, 06:24:34 AM |
|
wow vnl is a scam according ICEBREAKER Heh - ironic isn't it !
|
|
|
|
wildduck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1001
|
|
September 24, 2015, 06:25:19 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
September 24, 2015, 06:47:39 AM |
|
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 Thanks for that. Adding “#L34” to the vnl URI nails it for me: 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!
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
hughbt
|
|
September 24, 2015, 07:58:55 AM Last edit: September 24, 2015, 08:13:08 AM by 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?
|
|
|
|
|
wildduck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1001
|
|
September 24, 2015, 10:12:56 AM |
|
John answer is excellent
|
|
|
|
dygus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1193
Merit: 1000
Peaky Blinder
|
|
September 24, 2015, 11:05:20 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
September 24, 2015, 11:25:04 AM |
|
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#msg12499004I warned you ;-)
|
|
|
|
EmilioMann
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1028
#mitandopelomundo
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:09:53 PM |
|
WOW, gjhiggins the famous scammer behind several C-CEX ico scams also saying that VNL is a scam. This is very worrying.
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:15:37 PM |
|
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#msg12499004I 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:22:56 PM |
|
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#msg12499004I 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1131
Merit: 1007
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:43:00 PM |
|
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#msg12499004I 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
|
September 24, 2015, 12:59:01 PM |
|
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#msg12499004I 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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 24, 2015, 03:03:13 PM |
|
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#msg12499004I 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=919373.0edit: 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
|
|
|
|
|