You still don't seem to understand that the people capable of attacking it won't do it until there is enough value to extract out of attacking it. I already explained several times that $2100 in VNL is not a bounty because after one successfully attacks it, the VNL will very likely decline in value before the person gets paid the bounty and can convert it to BTC. And it is not high enough any way. It will require some resources, time, and skills to work out and launch such an attack. Personally I am not interested.
Sorry but I still don't get this argument. There are several companies that offer $1,000-$5,000 bug and exploit bounties for Bitcoin. However you are under the assumption any bug found in vanillacoin means the coin is permanently dead, which is like saying BTC is dead if I find an exploit. Which btw if someone DOES find a Bitcoin exploit, what incentive is there for them to come forward either when they can profit more of it then reporting it?
Because zerotime is the only feature of the VNL. The Dark-PP stuff isn't even documented so if the dev fails on the zerotime, the market won't trust him on what is not even documented.
And I am just saying that they can't claim that offering a bounty is an evidence of anything.
The only evidence that zerotime is robust and correct, is to submit to peer review and address all reasonable threat models raised. John has written nothing about Sybil and DoS attacks in the context of consensus (which is entirely different than in the context of virtual synchrony for attributes that are mappable to
invariant UDP tags such as IP address such as DHT slots). Every P2P dev knows these have to be dealt with.