Quote from: Chang Hum on July 25, 2014, 11:11:05 AM

Quote from: cityglut on July 25, 2014, 10:33:55 AM

Quote from: Chang Hum on July 25, 2014, 10:31:33 AM

Quote from: cityglut on July 25, 2014, 10:26:15 AM

Quote from: Chang Hum on July 25, 2014, 10:21:19 AM

Isn't Porqupine the person behind XCPfeeds.info?

Yes.

Wow unless I'm missing something isn't it extremely arrogant of the XCP team to dismiss an intelligent senior member of Bitcointalk like this, He's clearly invested a lot of time and thought into this project and you seem to be deleting all his posts and branding him a troll.

The way PhantomPhreak dealt with porcupine's criticisms was inappropriate. However, I do recommend that you read further about the issue and try to understand where the disagreements lie.

I did try before posting, however Porqupine's post history and linking off the reddit thread only link to one interaction between the two.

"There is no security vulnerability. There is a bug in the current CFD implementation (open for discussion as GitHub Issue #191), which we are working on fixing now. User porcupine does not understand how the protocol works, and he is spamming and trolling, that's all. Please just ignore him."

As in Porqupine's post history he lays down logical and mathematical reasoning to why he believes theirs fault with the CFD implementation, I'm confused why that isn't tackled on head on to explain why he's mistaken.

If I'm missing something please can you link me to where I can read further about the issue and try to understand where the disagreements lie.

The bug *is* acknowledged by PhantomPhreak; it's a disagreement in terminology: PhantomPhreak's point is that it is not a "security vulnerability" in the sense that the multi-sig bug in February was.

Beyond that, there is disagreement as to how it can be fixed. Please see: https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd/pull/190 and https://github.com/CounterpartyXCP/counterpartyd/issues/191.

cityglut

Posts

Merits