Topic: 10 months on... About the Bytecoin (BCN) ninjamine (Read 3741 times)

At least have some sense of responsibility when replying is it only Nigeria that have scammers . Why should you bring the entire country into your argument now i see why people call you fool.

Ah I see my mistake - I forgot to change my candlesticks scale to 1-day, thanks for catching that.


They could be done with a significant degree of randomness, I have no idea how easy it would be to tell if it was statistically random or had a patter in it. Worth some investigating at some stage, no doubt.

Yes, or less than ten for high end desktop/servers, possibly far less than 10. Fluffypony showed that 10 servers could mine the whole thing in three months. Spread that out over two years and its just one or two servers. A reasonable hash rate for a desktop is 200-300 H/s so that's 4-5 computers. With a mix of smaller computers it might be as much as 10.

So these alleged "mining teams" all over the world had a grand total of <10 computers?

Sorry but no.

The story is a complete fabrication.

I think you misinterpret slightly. The real issue is that there is no basis for trust. Nobody knows the guy, he can't prove anything he has said. Scammers and liars will always claim to not be scammers and liars so that means nothing. To have any value, you need verifiable sources to authenticate these types of claims, preferably multiple ones that can be cross checked for discrepancies and contradictions. Instead there are none at all.

It's a shame though, that many people are naturally trusting and if some anonymous account on a forum says that he mined bytecoin in 2012, a few people will probably believe it, and throw a a little money at a "good" project. That's why these scams persist.


There was no hijack here. THE THREAD WAS ABOUT THE BCN NINJAMINE.

Kudos for the cryptonote design is due for sure. The problem is there has been so much blatant deception, shilling, and scamming that went on with the bytecoin launch and the launch of the scam clones that it is almost impossible to know who in particular deserves it and who is a thieving scumbag.

Not sure where those numbers came from. A lot of BCN traded on polo in the first month. Here's is the daily graph. The first scale line on the vertical axis is 20 BTC.



There were several days above that (most notably the first two days), and many more days in the 10-20 BTC range. You also have to consider the OTC trading, and the pre-poloniex trading on cryptonote.exchange.to.

My guess based on this data is a few hundred BTC of the premine was likely dumped (BTC was worth around 600 USD at the time) in the first month or two, but obviously nowhere near all of it. 300 BTC at 8 satoshi is still under 4 billion BCN. I have no idea how much was dumped in the later months, but once the volume dried up your numbers are pretty much right so no more than a few more billion.

There is a significant discussion on the Bytecoin (BCN) ninjamine issue in this thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0;all

Rough claims that Bytecoin existed before 2014, but Rough didn't exist before 2014.

So I think that was the point.  

I bought a few million BCN at 1 satoshi, and I still have some of them.  Is there any reason why I shouldn't sell them now for 4 satoshis?  Any reason that existed before 2014?  

If there was any other evidence that Bytecoin existed before 2014, then Rough's join date wouldn't matter.  But is there anyone in the world who mined Bytecoin in 2012 and was also a member of bitcointalk in 2012?  I can show you people who posted on bitcointalk in 2012 - can you show me people who mined Bytecoin in 2012?  Not just tell me about them and expect me to trust you, but show me?

Rough says he got Bytecoin from a Tor onion.  Of all the people in the world who used both Tor and Bitcoin in 2012, I think a significant percentage of them were aware of bitcointalk.  So how is it that no Bytecoin users were aware of Bitcointalk, and vice versa?  

Every other coin in the world has people hyping it and fudding it vigorously, but all those Bytecoin miners kept it a secret?  Why?  What were they doing with their Bytecoins, if nobody in the world accepted them, traded them, or even mentioned it once on the internet?  If it was a better-kept secret than Silk Road, for some unknown reasons that even the people using Bytecoin were completely silent about it for so long, then why did they all suddenly change their minds and come to bitcointalk?  Did they have some blockchain consensus protocol and take a vote on it?    

What good are ring signatures and trustless networking, if the entire concept requires us to be so trusting that we have to swallow heaps of blatant lies?  

Have you read anything in this thread? No one is hurt at all. Feelings on the internet? How naive you must be. Dont just hop into a conversation you know nothing about. Take a moment and look at what is posted and who has posted and who has responded to posts. You are embarrassing yourself kid.

Look, I get that your feelings are hurt and you're clearly offended.

Nobody cares.

Not one single part of what you've said addressed any of the tough to answer questions that were laid flat out in front of your face.

You don't want to debate facts, it seems that you just want some tissues.

Stop crying about 'oh well poor me got picked on on the internet'

Nobody cares.

You deserve it if all you come back with are tears instead of cold hard facts.

Not a day goes by that you, or anyone you're seemingly defending, don't deserve to be asked these questions.

The questions are much more important than the tears.

This isn't some asshole picking on you. This is some asshole asking you for the cold hard truth in front of the entire audience of bitcointalk, or at least those who still get strung along by this insanity.

The fact that people are being assholes to you and these people won't ever eclipse the massive amount of readily apparent lack of information.

This lack has caused a gap so wide.

Nobody cares that asking these questions damage their reputation, make them look like asses, turn people off to cryptonote .. or whatever social nonsense is shoved in their faces when they're asking what started out as very simple questions.

This shit has a history.

Someone knows it, and someone can prove it, but damn if I have to uningore you for one more post of nothing but sobbing I'm just gonna put every single mention of cryptonote on ignore for a few weeks.

Nobody wants to get fucked here, and all the whining and crying in front of the audience in the world isn't going to make right what's clearly wrong.

Facts will.

Only facts.

It's been almost an entire year, and this isn't fucken scooby doo and a band of goofy go-getters hunting for a ghost in some imaginary world.

This is a cryptocurrency, with real people owning it right here in real life, vying for many millions of real-world dollars.

If you think you deserve even a penny for any amount of tears because someone's asking really tough questions, or making accusations based on the best story that he can possibly put together after 8 months of searching, you're waaaaay off base here.

Now facts, those are gladly traded for pennies.

So where are they?

Seeing as how so many are apathetic to the entire story, logically because they don't have facts .. I'm left only to surmise that you do have facts, because you're far from apathetic.

So tell us, what is it that you know and can prove that we don't? What is the source of your frustration and tears?

Certainly it isn't some random angry developer who's spent entirely too much time trying to get shit done.

So, what do you know that we don't?

I fail to see the point of this post fluffy? This is absolutely un-called for and really low for someone like yourself. You base a date on someones account as a symbol of knowledge or trust? What really are you here to imply and assume that someone will see you a hero member and think that you have something to offer? Well to be honest I have had plenty of conversation with smooth but never yourself and from what I see, you are no person I would ever put my faith into.

You hijack a thread for what reason? To spread the truth? Or what you consider to be true? Right now from what I see, you and your shills are no different that what can be observed over at hashtalk.

And who are you call anyone a moron, regardless of how silly a decision they choose to make, this decision is their own and you have no right to alter it. But you are a hero member with an aged account, so I suppose that this must be true?

An expert in what is best to buy on exchange? You have failed to bring anything of use to the table when it comes to Monero. Boolberry and Darknote have rose to become something different and do something new with the code and right now you have done nothing but take and take from a blinded community or what you call morons too stupid to see through a ruse. I have been in the mix of all this crap for sometime now and remember the early days of Monero and its sad to see this is how the devs and followers have turned into. You bring a little money to the table and suddenly you open a new door to madness.

Can you prove unequivocally that Satoshi hasn't sold his coin. I saw a thread in 2013 which did hard statistical analysis on the Blockchain and estimated that Satoshi had indeed sold at least 38% of his holdings. That is at least a whole year ago now so who is to say he hasn't sold more. I think more analysis in this field has to be done before claims such as Satoshi hasn't sold his coins are made.   

I am not a liar and your weasel words do not make me so.
I am not, nor ever was, into Bitcoin.
I have forgotten about 'more notworthy' things that I have done than you have done in a lifetime.

Once again, Monero devs jump on a non-Monero thread and attempt to pervert a perfectly reasonable discussion.
Btw - selling my Monero pot - I wouldn't want to have any association with your type whatsoever. You are a real piece of work.

I hope you'll forgive my candour, but you are lying to us.

Your account was only registered on September 11, 2014, and we have no evidence that it wasn't sold in the meantime.

You are a completely unknown person in cryptocurrency and cryptography circles.

You have no foothold in the Bitcoin-OTC Web of Trust, nor do I suspect you are in the GPG Web of Trust.

You have done nothing noteworthy or notable that anyone can say "oh yes, rough, he's the guy that created Facebucks, I trust him".

You are a pointless illusion trying to convince us that a completely fictitious story is true, but for what? So that a handful of morons too stupid to see through your ruse go and spend the 3 bitcents they haven't lost on some harebrained get-rich-quick scheme buying an ill-named cryptocurrency? You're no better than a Nigerian 419 scammer, hoping that someone will be dumb enough to believe you.

Stop with the lies.

But from my experience it wasn't. My coins were (eventually) validated on all the subsequent daemons and wallets.

The market has decided otherwise. Nothing you can say in your self-moderated threads will change that.

The problem is that we don't know what the Bytecoin code looked like prior to March 2014, and there's no trust-chain for us to verify the story.

Given that the Bytecoin code publicly released in March had a purposely crippled slow_hash function (recalculating the value of a constant in every iteration of the loop is not accidental, and I hope we are not so foolish to believe that in 2 years nobody noticed such a simple optimisation) we cannot take the blockchain data at face value.

Using ChainRadar's charts we can get an overview of Bytecoin's difficulty change over the alleged period (July 2012 to April 2014) we see that difficulty averaged around the 145 000 mark -



From difficulty we normally estimate the network hashrate by dividing by 120 (BCN has 120 second block times), so we can estimate an average network hash rate of 1 208h/s. This is backed up by ChainRadar's network hashrate chart, where you can see the average is a little below my hover -



If we are terribly generous and round it off to 1 350h/s we can ascertain that if we wanted to fake the whole 21 months of blockchain data in, say, 3 months, we would need 1 350h/s x 7 = 9 450h/s.

Is that achievable in practical terms? Well, my MacBook Pro solo mines at an average hashrate of around 46h/s. ClayMore's GPU miner will comfortably do 400h/s on an entry-level GPU. An Amazon EC2 c3.8xlarge instance does 1 000h/s. So we could reach our target of 9 450h/s with 206 MacBook Pros, a 24-GPU mining farm, or a mere 10 EC2 instances. A c3.8xlarge instance has a regular price of $1.68/hour, but a typical spot price of $0.45/hour. Spot instances are great, because it would have created seemingly "natural" fluctuations in difficulty if you spread them out across regions, as spot instances come on and offline when your spot price is outbid. Presenting fake dates/times to the miner is trivial, and reducing the block time to 17 (actual) seconds within a closed network of 10 AWS instances is equally trivial.

So bottom line is the entire blockchain could easily have been faked in a 3 month period at a total cost of $9 720.

how, when and why has this become a Monero thread?

The issue is not knowing who owns 80% of all Bytecoins. It could be 10 people or just 1 person who owns all of them. We don't know since they've purposely hid all that information. This isn't a NXT style situation, and frankly it wouldn't matter. Bytecoin has long been forgotten as a contender in the anonymity market. Just Darkcoin and Monero are the ones left standing now.

The original premise of my thread proposed the possibility that those coins may never be dumped at all. Perhaps those who mined them did so while testing the coin and never bothered to save the private keys. Or perhaps they wanted to "do a Satoshi" and mine a ton of coins and then leave them permanently untouched as a keepsake or for reasons unknown. Satoshi initially mined to keep the network running when there were very few other miners and nodes. From reading his earliest posts, the potential for profit seems to have been more of an afterthought.

Yes, the BCN distribution is horrible and a huge impediment to its success. 10 percent? Fine. 50 percent? OK if it's innovative then sure. But like you, the fact that it's 82 percent does leave me wondering if it is a fatal flaw. Then again, NXT was able to survive despite 73 people owning 100 percent of the currency in its early days. If BCN has just 50 people owning 82 percent then it could survive too. However, I suspect the bulk of this 82 percent is owned by the devs. While a mass-scale dumping of the coin would be disastrous, if they had chosen to follow Satoshi's example then it also means that we'd be missing out on a good, high-quality coin.

A third and IMO better long-term scenario would be if the early adopters who control the 82 percent sold off their coins slowly to the market. The demand for BCN would have to rise significantly for the market to absorb this and it would probably take many months or even years for the distribution to improve but at least it would remove the permanent uncertainty of a massive and catastrophic dev-initiated dump that's currently hanging over the community.