Quote from: provenceday on June 15, 2014, 06:25:58 AM

Quote from: busoni on June 15, 2014, 06:06:28 AM

I would like to point out that I did not personally review the code, as many people seem to think. The person who did has very high standards and was not thrilled with what he saw, and he was overzealous in his criticisms. When I made this post, I firmly believed that the maximum supply was inflated. My intention with going public before contacting the devs was to make sure they did not have a chance to cover up the mistake or take advantage of the issue.

It is my responsibility to ensure that these issues are addressed correctly, so no fingers should be pointed anywhere but at me. I see now that I should have had another reviewer confirm the findings, and investigated sufficiently to make sure I understood all of the code myself before proceeding. I apologize for this misstep. There are still some parts of the code we're concerned about, so our investigations will continue, and I will talk to the devs privately about the anon feature.

This whole raising the standards for coins thing is in an early stage, and we are constantly improving our process. We believe strongly in integrity and transparency, and it has always been my intention to use Poloniex's position to improve the quality of crypto.

. it seems that's the real busoni . This one is who I will respect.

It is better to be safe than sorry. The truth will out and there is NO harm in a false alarm. If youre pissed because the coin dipped in price due to the Poloniex announcement then you are pissed because YOU lost a quick buck and you think YOUR easy money is more important than the long term integrity of the crypto world. Speculators are a much bigger problem than (and cause of) of scamcoins being made. Get it right, even if it hurts a little... And that goes for the know-it-alls challenging Poloniex's initiative too: humble yourselves and be not proud, even if it hurts a little