Topic: Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - page 27. (Read 132873 times)
August 22, 2014, 08:08:23 AM
August 22, 2014, 08:05:55 AM
Unfortunately, there is only one "shill crew" on this Forum that has showed up here. It's XMR.
That's a great theory. Except for the fact that the Bytecoin shill crew was active long before XMR was even a gleam in TFT's eye. It was just me (having nothing to do with XMR since it didn't exist) and maybe one or two people calling you out on your fake Cicada 3301 references and other bullshit on the BCN thread months ago.
Quote
I think that something has to be explained to all of us. Has XMR team/supporters/whales anyhow influenced
the situation around the whitepaper or were they just in the right place to spot the vandalization and take it as a fact to discredit the whole technology?
the situation around the whitepaper or were they just in the right place to spot the vandalization and take it as a fact to discredit the whole technology?
No. But nice try on the FUD though. I'd say "you can do better" but given the past few months of attempts, I'd guess you probably can't.
August 22, 2014, 08:03:27 AM
I know who is it:
I doubt it, I just checked my logs and I was the first person to link to it in #monero-dev (at 12:59:02+0200). Quanttek only posted about it at 17:10:45+0200. Jojatekok is roughly in my time zone (he's in the EU) so he would have read it before Quanttek posted about it.
Also Jojatekok's a 16 year old kid (and I say that with the utmost fondness, Jo, not as an insult:) and I wouldn't expect such anger and hatred from him.
August 22, 2014, 08:02:06 AM
Unfortunately, there is only one "shill crew" on this Forum that has showed up here. It's XMR. Trolling Bytecoin and me in particular is one thing. But verifying your false accusation is another one. And you fail at it.
UPD: I have checked the new article on whitepaper v.1 Awesome job, act now!
I think that something has to be explained to all of us. Has XMR team/supporters/whales anyhow influenced
the situation around the whitepaper or were they just in the right place to spot the vandalization and take it as a fact to discredit the whole technology?
Yeah, somebody was right. This thread is much more interesting then the Game of Thrones.
UPD: I have checked the new article on whitepaper v.1 Awesome job, act now!
I think that something has to be explained to all of us. Has XMR team/supporters/whales anyhow influenced
the situation around the whitepaper or were they just in the right place to spot the vandalization and take it as a fact to discredit the whole technology?
Yeah, somebody was right. This thread is much more interesting then the Game of Thrones.
August 22, 2014, 07:54:03 AM
I think I have to agree agree with bitcoinbear. Apparently, the story behind the whitepapers has a lot of inconsistences. Why would an incorrect whitepaper be on the CryptoNote website especially if it cannot be validated by the published public key of its author? However, the most important issue is not the whitepaper v2 but the v1, which has the irrelevant references that are not even used in the text. And those particular references create "Time Machine" effect the OP is blaming CN for.
I’ve decided to follow the steps of the previous researchers to try and find the original CryptoNote whitepaper v1. Originally, it was found on the Tor website that apparently had been previously used by CryptoNote: http://ol346fucnsjru223.onion/.
TL;DR
It is likely that both CN whitepapers on CryptoNote website are forged. It is likely that the genuine v.2 is on bytecoin.org, while the genuine v.1 is on Tor CryptoNote website (ol346fucnsjru223.onion). It is possible that the whitepapers have been copied line by line with a couple of extra mistakes as in the v.1 case. The references that are inconsistent with the v.1 content are not used in the text and might have been inserted to confuse the potential researchers.
This TOR website has already been discussed . It contains CryptoNote whitepaper v.1 dated back December 2012. What I don't understand is that why nobody has attempted to check the whitepaper on this dark web website before. Let's take a thorough look at what TOR conceals.
This is a one-page website that briefly explains CryptoNote technology. It also hosts whitepaper v.1 along with the signature and Saberhagen's public key. Firstly, you can validate the whitepaper on this website with the published public key.
Moreover, the public keys on bytecoin.org, cryptonote.org, and ol346fucnsjru223.onion, are all the same.
Based on the uniformity across the public keys, I assume that it is likely that the whitepaper from the Tor website is genuine. Let's have a look inside. The internal PDF signatures of the Tor whitepaper and of the one found on the CryptoNote website are almost the same. They differ slightly in size just like two conflicting whitepapers v2.
The interesting part is that the serial numbers on both certificates are the same.
However, the SHA1 digest shows that there is something fishy about these two signatures and they were not created with the same certificate which in turn may indicate an attempt at forgery.
Let's compare the references of the two whitepapers. As we can see, the reference lists differ significantly. The CN deep web whitepaper is on the left, while the CN whitepaper from the official web site is on the right:
A brief analysis shows that the two lists differ by 7 links. The CryptoNote website version has those links, but they are not used in the text. The Tor whitepaper doesn't have those references. One of the unused references in CryptoNote whitepaper points to a public discussion that took place in 2013 while the original whitepaper was published in 2012. One possible explanation is that somebody might have inserted those references so that the whitepaper looked non-legit.
A quick text comparison shows that the two texts do differ from one another. Expectedly, the reference numbers are almost completely different everywhere in the text.
However, there are a few more inconsistencies. On the next screenshot you see the difference in "difficulty" spelling in the same passage of the two whitepapers. The "new text" stands for CryptoNote official web site whitepaper, while the "old text" is the way it appears on Tor website.
On a side note: if you copy the word "difficulty" from the Tor whitepaper and paste it into a text editor you'll get the "di_culty" as a result. As far as I understand, "fi" letters combination is badly interpreted by latex compiler and is replaced in PDF by a special character that looks almost the same as these two letters but can't be copied.
You can find the same mistake on other pages.
The only possible explanation for this discrepancy is that somebody has copied the text line by line and failed to correct certain words. Apparently, the "author" of one of the texts did not have the .tex source of the genuine version of the whitepaper. Which whitepaper has these mistakes while the other doesn't? The one found on CryptoNote website, which leads me to a conclusion that it was forged.
Let's check the XMP properties. They are exactly as they should be (TOR — first, clear web — second)
Tor website whitepaper has the correct dates and the used version of latex compiler existed in 2012. The one found on the CryptoNote official website contains improper XMP tags.
And, finally, if the internal watermark is Saberhagen's actual signature, there should be one in whitepaper v.1. There is no watermark on whitepaper v.1 from the CryptoNote official website, but the one on Tor contains the same watermark as the Bytecoin's whitepaper v.2. Here it is, in the very same place.
It exactly corresponds with the three van Saberhagen's public keys (on all the websites), and the watermark in the whitepaper v.2 from bytecoin.org, which is likely to be genuine.
All of the facts mentioned above lead me to the conclusion that the genuine whitepaper v.1 is on the Tor CryptoNote website and not on the official web site as was largely discussed above.
Results
1. In line with [ur=https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8409063]the previous research on inconsistencies in whitepaper v.2[/url], there is the whitepaper "CryptoNote v.1" that differs from the one published on the CryptoNote official website.
2. The genuine whitepaper v.1 is likely to be on the Tor website. Taking into account all the mistakes in the compromised version of v.1, I assume that this whitepaper has been copied line by line with the exception of the watermark.
3. The genuine whitepaper v.2 is likely to be on Bytecoin.org
4. Since both versions of the genuine whitepaper are consistent with the declared timelines and hold van Saberhagen's public key as the watermark, one can guess that both whitepapers on the CryptoNote official web site are likely to be forged and do not correspond to the actual CryptoNote whitepaper.
5. The public keys on Bytecoin.org, CryptoNote.org, and Tor CN website are the same. This may indicate that the genuine public key is published there.
Implications
This evidence indicates that both whitepapers on CN official website are likely to be fake. It might explain why we find so many inconsistencies with the dates. Apparently, the whitepaper v.1 have been copied line by line with a few mistakes accidentally missed. What's more, someone inserted extra unused links to the references list. The wrong XMP dates may indicate the time when both whitepapers were forged and are likely the artifact that the authors failed to pay attention to (or intentionally left wrong).
TL;DR
It is likely that both CN whitepapers on CryptoNote website are forged. It is likely that the genuine v.2 is on bytecoin.org, while the genuine v.1 is on Tor CryptoNote website (ol346fucnsjru223.onion). It is possible that the whitepapers have been copied line by line with a couple of extra mistakes as in the v.1 case. The references that are inconsistent with the v.1 content are not used in the text and might have been inserted to confuse the potential researchers.
I’ve decided to follow the steps of the previous researchers to try and find the original CryptoNote whitepaper v1. Originally, it was found on the Tor website that apparently had been previously used by CryptoNote: http://ol346fucnsjru223.onion/.
TL;DR
It is likely that both CN whitepapers on CryptoNote website are forged. It is likely that the genuine v.2 is on bytecoin.org, while the genuine v.1 is on Tor CryptoNote website (ol346fucnsjru223.onion). It is possible that the whitepapers have been copied line by line with a couple of extra mistakes as in the v.1 case. The references that are inconsistent with the v.1 content are not used in the text and might have been inserted to confuse the potential researchers.
This TOR website has already been discussed . It contains CryptoNote whitepaper v.1 dated back December 2012. What I don't understand is that why nobody has attempted to check the whitepaper on this dark web website before. Let's take a thorough look at what TOR conceals.
This is a one-page website that briefly explains CryptoNote technology. It also hosts whitepaper v.1 along with the signature and Saberhagen's public key. Firstly, you can validate the whitepaper on this website with the published public key.
Moreover, the public keys on bytecoin.org, cryptonote.org, and ol346fucnsjru223.onion, are all the same.
Based on the uniformity across the public keys, I assume that it is likely that the whitepaper from the Tor website is genuine. Let's have a look inside. The internal PDF signatures of the Tor whitepaper and of the one found on the CryptoNote website are almost the same. They differ slightly in size just like two conflicting whitepapers v2.
The interesting part is that the serial numbers on both certificates are the same.
However, the SHA1 digest shows that there is something fishy about these two signatures and they were not created with the same certificate which in turn may indicate an attempt at forgery.
Let's compare the references of the two whitepapers. As we can see, the reference lists differ significantly. The CN deep web whitepaper is on the left, while the CN whitepaper from the official web site is on the right:
A brief analysis shows that the two lists differ by 7 links. The CryptoNote website version has those links, but they are not used in the text. The Tor whitepaper doesn't have those references. One of the unused references in CryptoNote whitepaper points to a public discussion that took place in 2013 while the original whitepaper was published in 2012. One possible explanation is that somebody might have inserted those references so that the whitepaper looked non-legit.
A quick text comparison shows that the two texts do differ from one another. Expectedly, the reference numbers are almost completely different everywhere in the text.
However, there are a few more inconsistencies. On the next screenshot you see the difference in "difficulty" spelling in the same passage of the two whitepapers. The "new text" stands for CryptoNote official web site whitepaper, while the "old text" is the way it appears on Tor website.
On a side note: if you copy the word "difficulty" from the Tor whitepaper and paste it into a text editor you'll get the "di_culty" as a result. As far as I understand, "fi" letters combination is badly interpreted by latex compiler and is replaced in PDF by a special character that looks almost the same as these two letters but can't be copied.
You can find the same mistake on other pages.
The only possible explanation for this discrepancy is that somebody has copied the text line by line and failed to correct certain words. Apparently, the "author" of one of the texts did not have the .tex source of the genuine version of the whitepaper. Which whitepaper has these mistakes while the other doesn't? The one found on CryptoNote website, which leads me to a conclusion that it was forged.
Let's check the XMP properties. They are exactly as they should be (TOR — first, clear web — second)
Tor website whitepaper has the correct dates and the used version of latex compiler existed in 2012. The one found on the CryptoNote official website contains improper XMP tags.
And, finally, if the internal watermark is Saberhagen's actual signature, there should be one in whitepaper v.1. There is no watermark on whitepaper v.1 from the CryptoNote official website, but the one on Tor contains the same watermark as the Bytecoin's whitepaper v.2. Here it is, in the very same place.
It exactly corresponds with the three van Saberhagen's public keys (on all the websites), and the watermark in the whitepaper v.2 from bytecoin.org, which is likely to be genuine.
All of the facts mentioned above lead me to the conclusion that the genuine whitepaper v.1 is on the Tor CryptoNote website and not on the official web site as was largely discussed above.
Results
1. In line with [ur=https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8409063]the previous research on inconsistencies in whitepaper v.2[/url], there is the whitepaper "CryptoNote v.1" that differs from the one published on the CryptoNote official website.
2. The genuine whitepaper v.1 is likely to be on the Tor website. Taking into account all the mistakes in the compromised version of v.1, I assume that this whitepaper has been copied line by line with the exception of the watermark.
3. The genuine whitepaper v.2 is likely to be on Bytecoin.org
4. Since both versions of the genuine whitepaper are consistent with the declared timelines and hold van Saberhagen's public key as the watermark, one can guess that both whitepapers on the CryptoNote official web site are likely to be forged and do not correspond to the actual CryptoNote whitepaper.
5. The public keys on Bytecoin.org, CryptoNote.org, and Tor CN website are the same. This may indicate that the genuine public key is published there.
Implications
This evidence indicates that both whitepapers on CN official website are likely to be fake. It might explain why we find so many inconsistencies with the dates. Apparently, the whitepaper v.1 have been copied line by line with a few mistakes accidentally missed. What's more, someone inserted extra unused links to the references list. The wrong XMP dates may indicate the time when both whitepapers were forged and are likely the artifact that the authors failed to pay attention to (or intentionally left wrong).
TL;DR
It is likely that both CN whitepapers on CryptoNote website are forged. It is likely that the genuine v.2 is on bytecoin.org, while the genuine v.1 is on Tor CryptoNote website (ol346fucnsjru223.onion). It is possible that the whitepapers have been copied line by line with a couple of extra mistakes as in the v.1 case. The references that are inconsistent with the v.1 content are not used in the text and might have been inserted to confuse the potential researchers.
August 22, 2014, 07:47:19 AM
Maybe it’s an inside job or some kind of revenge attempt. There are so many possibilities for this type of behaviour, maybe in the end somebody is trying to earn some money crushing the exchange rate of all CN coins. While we’re talking somebody is making $$$
Let me explain what really happened.
And since I engaged with most of you guys (as in exact same shill crew that has showed up here now -- you know who you are) early on in the BCN thread about the 80% hidden premine, etc., and nearly all of what I wrote turned out to be exactly correct, you might want to pay attention. You guys tried this "there are so many possibilities" line back then. It was silly and bogus back then and it is silly and bogus now.
The cryptonote site did not get hacked. They swapped out the paper because this lame "We got hacked!" defense was the best the coin mill crew behind BCN/Cryptonote/BMR/QCN/FCN/etc. could come up with to futilely try to explain away being exposed as frauds and scammers.
Open your eyes man.
August 22, 2014, 07:43:35 AM
August 22, 2014, 07:25:12 AM
August 22, 2014, 06:54:03 AM
What is going on here is called 'Reverse Psychology Marketing ' http://slymarketing.com/have-you-tried-reverse-psychology-your-marketing-strategy/
August 22, 2014, 06:53:05 AM
August 22, 2014, 06:50:28 AM
August 22, 2014, 06:44:18 AM
Seems to me that someone’s blowing his gaskets trying to smear the CN tech up and down. Hexah deserves some credit on this one, even Monero has gotten its share of the shit pie here. Making it look like a pinnacle of the CN technology ready to take on Bitcoin is just outright ridiculous.
Heh - I keep saying that Monero is alpha-grade and has a VERY long way to go before it's even widely usable, so I agree that it is ridiculous:)
It all smells like the competition is playing out its tricky scheme on us. I don’t want to engage in the finger-pointing here (enough has been done so far) but isn’t it like Darkcoin hates us all. Those guys have never been particularly picky about their methods.
Shall we do some ass-kicking on their thread in retaliation?
Shall we do some ass-kicking on their thread in retaliation?
We'd prefer not to get involved in any retaliatory or smear campaigns. We don't have a problem talking and engaging where people ask for our individual or collective opinions or say something that is factually incorrect, but we are trying to keep our focus inward more than outward.
August 22, 2014, 06:42:59 AM
August 22, 2014, 06:42:33 AM
Regarding the website mysteries... my bet is on that CN didn’t make their own website themselves - did you ever see a nice, design-ish site from a hardcore developers of pretty much any technology? I sure as hell didn’t, simply because bearded, covered in sweaters guys don’t do this kind of stuff.
I mean, look at XMR - they got tons of websites and all of them look like shit.
I think CN ordered a website to someone. It’s just doesn’t add up - what’s the point for hardcore developers to spend so much time designing and coding this website. There probably should be the guy who admins website, actually, maybe he is the guy that replaced those files. Would love to ask him a few questions if he exists.
I mean, look at XMR - they got tons of websites and all of them look like shit.
I think CN ordered a website to someone. It’s just doesn’t add up - what’s the point for hardcore developers to spend so much time designing and coding this website. There probably should be the guy who admins website, actually, maybe he is the guy that replaced those files. Would love to ask him a few questions if he exists.
August 22, 2014, 06:41:42 AM
Why? Did I miss something important skimming?
You missed just about everything. Take your time re-reading and reading every reply before you make a nonsense post. Bytecoin is dying and nothing is going to stop that.
August 22, 2014, 06:35:38 AM
...
I didn't read
...
I didn't read
...
You should try it out sometime.
August 22, 2014, 06:34:44 AM
CryptoNote team has published official statement yesterday https://cryptonote.org/news/archive
Quote
Moreover, the CryptoNote website has recently been exposed to illegal access by malicious users, which is absolutely unacceptable. Some data stored on cryptonote.org have been vandalized and is now temporary unavailable until the internal investigation is completed.
The "we got hacked" defense. Wow, that will totally work!
August 22, 2014, 06:32:12 AM
...
I didn't read
...
I didn't read
...
You should try it out sometime.
August 22, 2014, 06:25:15 AM
August 22, 2014, 06:24:07 AM
Sorry, Monero is just another copy/pasta pump & dump scamcoin.
ByteCoin was at least innovative somewhat, although that alone doesn't escape from functioning as a scam.
I didn't read the whole post, nor any of the replies here, but from what I saw, there really isn't a solid argument being made here against ByteCoin.
Yes, they forged false whitepaper dates to "justify" a premine - but the problem is that someone thinks they have to justify it at all.
Premining is not what makes scamcoins scams - the premine is probably the most reasonable part of an innovative scamcoin, really.
People deserve to be paid for their work, and premining is a decent way to accomplish that (ignoring the pump & dump scam nature that is problematic with or without premining).
(FWIW, the reason ByteCoin does not escape being a pump & dump scamcoin is because all of its actual improvements can be adopted by Bitcoin, thus making it irrelevant when that occurs, and everyone left with ByteCoins suddenly losing all value in them)
ByteCoin was at least innovative somewhat, although that alone doesn't escape from functioning as a scam.
I didn't read the whole post, nor any of the replies here, but from what I saw, there really isn't a solid argument being made here against ByteCoin.
Yes, they forged false whitepaper dates to "justify" a premine - but the problem is that someone thinks they have to justify it at all.
Premining is not what makes scamcoins scams - the premine is probably the most reasonable part of an innovative scamcoin, really.
People deserve to be paid for their work, and premining is a decent way to accomplish that (ignoring the pump & dump scam nature that is problematic with or without premining).
(FWIW, the reason ByteCoin does not escape being a pump & dump scamcoin is because all of its actual improvements can be adopted by Bitcoin, thus making it irrelevant when that occurs, and everyone left with ByteCoins suddenly losing all value in them)
Jump to: