Topic: Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - page 26. (Read 132857 times)

The "special character" you are trying to name is called "ligature" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature .

TeX certainly has the capability to take certain letter strings, e.g. "ffi" and replace them with the traditional-typography ligatures "ffi". The native TeX fonts (Computer Modern) all have ligatures, but the tools that post-process them to other fonts (like Adobe Type 1) for PDF formatting may be missing or mishandling the ligatures.

In my browser and in my text font the single character "ffi" "ffi" ligature displays just fine. So this maybe something to do with your configuration if you can't see the "special characters".

Wow.

As an impartial observer let me just say one thing:

You CN/Bytecoin whoever you are posters coming out of the woodwork like this is incredibly transparent.

Just stop. You're doing more harm to yourselves then good.

I own no CryptoNote coins whatsoever at the moment. I've traded some BBR and XMR on short time frames , trying to get in and out in time when they bubble.

Also,

Lukejr, if you're reading this. Do you really think it's possible for Bitcoin to integrate ring signatures? I assumed this was impossible.

Does anyone know if it's possbile to do such a thing? This is exciting news if it's plausable. My current view is that it's probably "possible" but completely unfeasable for a Bitcoin based technology to under go such a change.

Sure it does, because:

1. Brilliant cryptography and okay programming (the BCN code is not brilliant, just okay) do not necessarily correlate with integrity and understanding of other's reactions to your approach to, ahem, "marketing" as pointed out by someone earlier. Autistic spectrum is quite plausible.

2. We don't know who created the original cryptography and/or implementation and, no, I am not impressed by the recent Bytecoin releases. Multisig was already designed in from the start (see white paper), someone just did the fairly straightforward (and incomplete) implementation of it. So I'm not convinced that the managers of the ongoing scamming (more fake papers with bogus signatures, etc.) are necessarily the inventors. I lean against, but I'm not sure.

Your version with "just a fairly amateurish coin mill" doesn't match the fact that the someone has created CryptoNote technology, which is totally new. Based on recent releases by Bytecoin (e.g. multisigs) I assume that they initially coded the protocol and are still contributing to its development. Why would amateurish coin mill do so?

Actually all original whitepapers were done by Satoshi.

The only basis there is to believe that actually happened are these new posts with more fake documents falsely (or at best unverifiably, but from a trust point of view, that is identical) dated from 2012, as I showed above.

My belief is that it didn't happen at all, and is just an attempt to use the tired "We got hacked!" defense. It doesn't strike me as the brightest strategy to align yourself (not you in particular) with Mark Karpels, et al.

I also believe (as I have said before -- i.e. before this thread) that the more these scammers try to post new stuff to back up their fabtricated story, the more evidence they create that refutes it. That might not be true for a truly skilled fraudsters, but they are not in say, Bernie Madoff's league. They are just a fairly amateurish coin mill, and their efforts reflect that.

That's from the darknet paper though, not the CryptoNote website. The fact that the date is based on the host computer basically means it can't be trusted because someone can easily change their system clock. Since we have no historical record of the darknet site, it's possible someone could have gone back and 'fixed' the dates using a correct version of latex after this thread was posted. If a hacker really did manage to gain access to the Cryptonote site they could have planted much more 'conclusive' false evidence than a messed up whitepaper.

Seems that way. OP said this:

"Now normally you would use a Timestamp Authority (TSA) to validate your system time. There are enough public, free, RFC 3161 compatible TSAs that this is not a difficult thing."

So failing that you can just change your system time.

You (well, not you in particular of course) better try again at breaking CryptoNote website to provide false evidence.

Oh... Ok so the signing time on the darknet paper could easily have been faked too. All you'd need to do is set your system clock.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

Registered within 4 minutes of each other. What a coincidence.

Why does this not surprise me? Let me think....hmm. Umm.

Oh yeah, that's right! Because you are both BCN shills?

I've just been rechecking genuine whitepaper v.2 and found another watermark.



This is pretty amusing. Note, I couldn't find this watermark in whitepaper v.1.

I thought about that... And I agree with @Cheesus


This casts doubt that CN web site was developed by CryptoNote's team itself.  Someone else has attempt to it.

This page kills my computer!

It also might be the case. Someone replaced the files. It's either themselves, either a traitor inside, or an outsider attacking the website.

All three variants seem bullshit though. I'd like to hear more from CN team first before lynching them.

The only motivation I can imagine for this would be to discredit CryptoNote/CN coins as Hexah suggested. Maybe I'm not seeing every angle to the situation but it's hard to envision what else a nefarious actor would have to gain from illegitimately controlling the CryptoNote.org domain. Spread dissent from within and the whole community destroys itself.

act now, thank you for doing this analysis. Certainly raises some questions regarding the 'forged dates' basis of a large part of this discussion, and suggests that the (original) v.1 may indeed have been created in late 2012.

What I now don't understand is why bother doing a line-by-line copy to 'forge' the whitepapers when you could just download and rehost the original PDFs?  The only conclusion that I can come to is someone trying to discredit the CN team. Does anyone else have any possible theories? What I would really like is for one of the original Cryptonote developers to identify themselves and speak out publicly on this issue.

I don't really want to weigh in on the whole BCN/BBR/DCN/etc conspiracy and I feel that the developers of those coins are free to do whatever they want, provided they're not trying to scam people. I also feel it's best for everyone if we keep this civil and don't attack each other/each other's coin of preference, but as is always the case with discussions on the internet, it's not possible to stop everyone from doing this as people get emotionally invested. Live and let live is my attitude.

Disclosure: I hold (a relatively small) amount of XMR, but I want to see the Cryptonote technology flourish. It's hard to see how anyone could come out on top after a 'scorched earth' situation that this could easily result in.

Edit:


So yeah seems the 'real' v1 could just as easily have been backdated.

Just throwing this out there, but if the correct whitepaper was on the Bytecoin domain all along and on the TOR Cryptonote site, how can we trust that CryptoNote.org is genuine? What if they falsified the whitepapers on purpose?