Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 04:40:54 PM

Quote from: SebSebastian on February 13, 2016, 04:33:56 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: SebSebastian on February 13, 2016, 04:17:47 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 04:10:37 PM

Quote from: SebSebastian on February 13, 2016, 03:46:02 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 03:44:13 PM

Quote from: SebSebastian on February 13, 2016, 03:43:09 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 03:39:37 PM

Quote from: SebSebastian on February 13, 2016, 03:36:32 PM

Quote from: sidhujag on February 13, 2016, 03:21:42 PM

Great work, Glad that anon was broken so noone will lose money. I suspected it based on the qualify of code that was coming from this team, thus didnt realy expect it to be of commercial quality anyways.. I doubt they will be able to fix it, so id just remove the fteature altogether if i were you.

I suspect based on the number of misspelled words in your post that your ability to judge the quality of code probably isn't too spectacular. Still, you wouldn't be sidhujag if you didn't use this as an opportunity to shill for syscoin (as you have done with the majority of your posts in this thread).

It will be fixed.

You are wrong, you may read the code of sys offers and judge for yourself.. Infact there is a bounty to try to break it or find major bugs.

Then prove me wrong and show me exactly which portions of Shadow's code you think are of poor quality (the part Shen's bug report relates to obviously excluded) and explain how you would improve upon then. Otherwise it just looks like you're here dishonestly casting aspersions on another project in the hope of promoting your own.

Point me out to your unit tests as a starter.. Can you do that?

You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. I'll be waiting.

Oh i forgot you code is closed source lol.. Again point me out to your unit tests and I will start from there.. No tests? There rests my casse.

the burden is NOT on me because you asked me, now if i dont have access to your code (tests) then i cant really answer your q and my original claim stands..

Do you realise how stupid you sound now?

Quote

I suspected it based on the qualify of code that was coming from this team

Now you're claiming you can't read it because it's closed source (guess I'm imagining this github repo). So you made your claim without having looked at the code.

You should probably stop before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

The original core code is up and was based on that.. With private code develipment who knows what the heck ypu updated? There are no tests on the github one i saw.. Again your not a coder you dont get it.. noone has time to dicipher whats private whats public and what possibly changed in your private repos. You can nitpick all you want but its not doing you or your coin any good, maybe you should stop and just give me the information i asked for instead of trying to make this a he said she said argument? Theres an idea

You claimed SDC's code to be of poor quality.

As you're obviously not familiar with the concept:

Quote

Burden of proof (or onus probandi in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant).

Took me about 15 seconds: https://github.com/shadowproject/shadow/tree/master/src/test Roll Eyes

I think the fact that you couldn't find it yourself says about all that needs to be said about your credibility.

Why did the ring sig tests not pick up this attack vector of defficiency in the implementation?

Not really getting the whole burden of proof thing are you? You're the great coder, you should be able to tell me that.

SebSebastian

Posts

Merits