Topic: [BCN] Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012 - page 187. (Read 1070344 times)

Without a whistleblower that'd mean he'd written cryptonote, launched bytecoin and its clones and the rest. What a dude. (ps unlikely)



that's about sums up my experience of crypto



Not me. Sufficed to say mining XMR (or BCN) is substantially less anonymous than sending it.



No Im not. Are you?



ALL my money? I wouldnt put all my money in any one crypto. How's it working out? Well I bought mostly between 10 -14 sats and its now around 20 so OK thanks.

For all you know it could be one person. No conspiring necessary.


I certainly wouldn't. But then it doesn't matter because hardly anyone will ever use it, since there are better cryptonote alternatives without massive (likely/apparent) fraudulent premines.


You aren't qualified to judge that. As I suggested earlier, you should employ the services of someone who actually understands the code. Given an independent review of what has been delivered in this "racing ahead" over the past 18 months, I suspect you would be quite surprised.

Go ahead though, put all your money in Bytecoin please. See how that works out for you.

Im assuming the devs and early miners will not conspire to de-anon the tx's, mostly since they created this open-souce crypto-currency in the first place (which you then forked). In the same way I assume that the Monero devs, reptila and the 10 largest XMR holders dont conspire (or are coerced) to do the same thing. If you use bytecoin you'll mix with all the coins.

As I explain I prefer BCN becuae they're racing ahead with development and know the code and the CN crypto better than anybody else in here.

Once again you contradict yourself by calling them "scammers". The devs cannot very well dump their coins and de-anon. Scammers would run away with the money which these guys havent. Perhaps you think theyre gov agents who build a crypto only to de-anon it? a honey-pot? No need to answer smooth - it's a rhetorical question.

No it's totally wrong as I explained a few weeks ago. If people do start using BCN, they won't mix with anything in the first 80% because they know it is compromised by design. Therefore other attackers have an easier job getting a disproportionately large share of the remaining 80%

In reality the most secure cryptonote coin is going to be the most used and most widely used. The repetitional damage of being a (likely/apparent/probable) premine scam will prevent BCN from ever being that.

There is simply no reason not to prefer another cyrptonote with the same (or in some cases better) technology and no premine. Pick whichever one you like.

Fuck it… past 20 sats…why the hell not?

Hocus Pocus Focus Anonymous!
https://youtu.be/4Zkir2MMhIM?t=6m38s

If you allow govs and 3 letter orgs to buy/mine your coins then vulnerability is guaranteed.

What you're saying is that the bytecoin devs and miners would de-anon their own crypto? And you also say they're scammers? They cannot not BOTH dump and de-anon. It would have to be one or the other. Besides you're describing the collusion of several parties, a collusion or coercion which could occur in Monero. Given the public identities of Monero devs and community members Id have thought coercion would be much easier.

You will also notice the many many transactions on the network. Any "stashes" would be well dispersed (presumably).

What I say is true though. Only by making a certain portion of the currency "untouchable" can you guarantee against the vulnerability. This you cannot deny.

Having said all that the distro in BCN improves with time.

From a security perspective this argument is nonsense. All the premine does is replace a potential vulnerability with a guaranteed vulnerability. Not only to the Bytecoin promoters themselves, but to anyone who could compromise them or their stash.

No CN coin can be proven "clearly not compromised" in this way. The vast majority of coin in any CN currency are bought and mined by unknown parties and since transactions are obfuscated we cant be sure where the coins are all going..

Im not saying large amounts of bytecoin have been reserved to prevent de-anonymization, merely pointing out it is a method (maybe the only one) to prevent such an attack.

Nobody would be surprised if the bytecoin devs produce more crypto innovations. I could use a CN clone but BCN will lead the the pack in terms of development for the forseeable future.

So what you're seeing is, "Even if there is an 80% premine, don't worry it only breaks half of the privacy features"?

Why should anyone take that risk when they can get an exact mirror of the code with definitely no premine with dashcoin? Or use a very similar codebase with additional features (and no risk of ring signature breaking premine) from any of the other available cryptonotes?

Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse, I just don't understand why anyone would use a coin where one of the main selling points may be compromised, when there are alternatives that are clearly not compromised available.

Removing untraceability does not remove the privacy of a CryptoNote coin. The anonymity is achieved through both untraceability (ringsig) and unlinkability (stealth addresses). Even if all txouts are deanonymized, it doesn't reduce that much. From this perspective, CryptoNote without ringsig is much more private and secure than Bitcoin, as nodoby will ever be able to link to particular transactions (and even outputs) to one wallet. The ambiguity level is reduced to zero, but all it reveals is what txouts have been spent.

This is probably true, but in their case, they could launch the scam, and then launch several other cryptos based on the same source code (bitmonero, quazarcoin, phantomcoin?, ducknote, monetaverde, aeon, etc.) and kind of hedge their bets. If it was truly to prevent this type of attack described in the paper linked above, why wouldn't they just send the 80% premine to a burn address and release the viewkey?

The "broken anon" problem is a theoretical vulnerability in ALL cryptonote coins wherein an individual/group/entity has a certain probability of de-anoning transactions which increases with the more coins they own. Curiously there is only one way to protect a CN coin from this kind of vulnerability - by ensuring a large amount of coin never gets traded. Govts and 3-letter orgs have more than enough resources to accumulate large stakes in any CN coin save those they cannot buy or mine enough of (like bytecoin). Of course coercion of developers and large stakeholders by govs could also lead to de-anoning transactions, that is assuming these stakeholderrs and developers are known entities and maybe even if they're not.

Scams are not usually associated with true innovation. Bytecoin is a groundbreaking anonymous crypto-currency and the first of its kind. Radically different to Bitcoin, Bytecoin is arguably the most significant crypto-currency advancement since Bitcoin itself. I wanna see what anon tech they develop next for the betterment of man. You dont have to invest in bytecoin to reap its rewards. Just ask monero. People study the history of bytecoin when its history is still being written.

Whether you believe it's a case of perals to swine or pearls from swine they are pearls nonetheless.

I refer you below to my more detailed piece posted in the monero thread yesterday:

---

---

The problem is for Bytecoin that the anon may be broken. You have been posing many questions about Bytecoin's/Cryptonote's history for the last several weeks/months. Although you seem to come down on the side of believing they Bytecoin dev(s) story about mining on the deepdarkscarynet for two years, many others are skeptical, such as myself, acdc, and NASdaq. If you think there's a possibility that one person/entity controls ~80% of the coins/UTXOs, then the anonymity afforded by ring signatures is broken; see here for gory math details:
https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0001.pdf

Invest or don't. Or just stick around to see what the innovators/cypherpunks who brought the world the very first crytonote coin (and maybe cryptonote itself) have for us next in 1.0.6 (multi-addressing for RPC Wallet to get rid of payment IDs and crypto improvements)

It was always about the anon. And it always will be.

haha, that made me laugh, if the bytecoin devs were in the habit of rushing they wouldn't have had time to 80% mine the coin before anyone else heard of it lol

how do you guys see this ending? the scam wash-up I mean

If I know something about bytcoin devs, is that they don't rush things. You can learn how they test everything in their blog.

Keep calm, because they gonna deliver...

Today (Sunday) is the last day of the mentioned week, right? Curiously waiting for the details about Bytecoin v1.0.6.

That's not my intention. I am as interested in the future of bytecoin as I am the past.

Whatever you think or don't think about bytecoin many of us in this forum are interested in digital cash. The bytecoin code stands on its own and I look forward to seeing the next tech innovation(s) esp multi-addressing (no payment ID's) and the "substantial crypto improvement".





"next week".

I am quietly reading this material.

Mark

@child_harold, I respect your attempt to get to the bottom of the BCN & CN backstory, and I suspect you might be genuine. What you mention above became the issue that swayed me towards believing BCN is indeed a well thought out but botched mega scam, and that's what made me sell all my BCN and buy XMR.

The reason is simple. Do a thought experiment; imagine someone accuses you of committing a horrible crime (pedophile, rapist, murderer) and they're doing it publicly. If you were innocent you would want to defend yourself, and you would counter the accusations against you with evidence that proved, or at least suggested strongly, that you didn't commit the crime. You have all the resources available as your accuser (i.e. it's not like Rupert Murdoch vs Jo Six-pack played out unfairly in the mass media, but two equally matched opponents on a forum). If you had evidence to clear yourself would you produce it? Of course you would!!!

I waited for a good number of months thinking the XMR conspiracy theory sounded too far fetched, and while I didn't exactly dig into the details like you have, I did appreciate the basic accusation immediately - BCN was launched a lot later than 2012 and was ninja mined to 80% dishonestly with a fabricated blockchain. At first I assumed BCN would produce some evidence that indicated the coin was launched when they said it was. When that didn't come I was truly shocked, but not straight away, and that's part of the scam. BCN people are hoping that eventually we'll all stop talking about it, and new crypto users wont know the full story. Human history is full of such 'rehabilitation' events (how did the famous philosopher , Martin Heidegger, ever get rehabilitated in the 1950's after his blatant Nazi past during the 1930's? - answer, he never spoke of it publicly himself, and later generations of people focused on his work, which was top-notch, just like the CN and BCN scammers).

The BCN devs are doing the same thing as martin heidegger, avoiding the topic, because the scam is true, and there's a good chance people will forget in 2-5 years time and they might get away with it still. That's why I support your efforts - keep it up!!