... even now creating new zero-activity sock puppets ...
I have created a new account just because you Monero guys give negative reputation of all who supports Bytecoin in any way.instead of a fake blockchain
If you are so sure about the fake blockchain - I am giving you a challenge.Create a similar fake blockchain to the point of time you say it is fake. I am adding 500 XMR as a bounty, if you succeed within 2 weeks. You have at least 10x the resources Bytecoin's devs supposed to have. Let's see do you really think there is 82% premine, do you really think it's so easy, or you are just FUDing users so they can bite the hook and go to Monero.
I don't know why you think I have 10x the resources they are supposed to have. I have no idea what resources they have and you have no idea what resources I have.
But since you threw out this challenge, let's look at whether 500 XMR is a reasonable budget for it, and more importantly, what was a reasonable budget to have pulled off the premine in the first place.
The average difficulty (eyeballing it here) was around 150000. That's a hash rate slightly more than 1000, so one decent server, five desktops, or 10 laptops. To mine two years worth in two weeks means you need 50x that (50 servers, 250 desktops, or 500 laptops). On AWS servers of this class, cost around $10 per day. 50x for two weeks means the budget is around $7500. If you stretch that out to two months instead of two weeks, you only need around 12 servers. If you are a sysadmin of even such a small network, or have access to resources from a research cluster, or to botnets, you might not really need to spend anything, but might take a bit longer if you are limited to idle time.
Add to that some programming to create fake transactions, modify the timestamps, etc. Still not very much.
Rough numbers, but fairly close.
So your argument here is basically that the BCN devs couldn't have possibly constructed a fake blockchain because it would cost maybe $7500 of premium priced cloud computing to do it (or less if done with a cheaper resource)?
Alternatively you have the theory of the mining being real, but done over the course of two years by a grand total of about one server or five desktops. Take your pick.
My argument is that faking the blockchain is so time and resource consuming that it is more likely a group/organisation to spend the time/resources for actual development.
Don't forget you have more optimised mining software.
Don't forget you had year and a half to play with a working code.
Those 2 things give you at least 10x advantage.
What you are actually saying is - they developed and tested the code, then not used it to mine. Instead, they decided to take time to build an optimised miner. Then they took time to build a software to generate a fake blockchain. Then they took time to actually generate the blockchain.
On top of that, they had a time to probably build a pool, an exchange and a merge mining coin (fantomcoin).
The small number of miners scenario is the more likely option, at least for me. But we all can see that from the blockchain.
Aren't the dividends of proofing fake blockchain can be real scenario worth more than $7500 for Monero?
