Topic: Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - page 37. (Read 132873 times)

It's amazing they were able to create the technology and manage to fail so hard at their scam attempt.

I'd suspect one or more people behind CN fall within the autistic spectrum. The clear disconnect from how others would receive their attempts yet still being able to produce novel tech shows a clear imbalance in their mental faculties.

I'm glad you reminded me of that interview because it was one of the most damning bits of evidence against the legitimacy of this so-called cryptonote and unfortunately the OP seems to have missed it:


Really?!

1. A "large number of influential people" knew about this and none of them has ever mentioned it?

2. A "large number of influential people" knew about this and not a single one can be identified now and confirm that to be the case?

3. "It is not in the nature or business of these participants to post on the Web."' In what universe do people in the educational and scientific industries not post on the web? They invented the damn web you idiots.

4. "Mining teams" We know from the analysis of reputable and credible experts (including on this thread) that the mining algorithm was deliberately deoptimized to simulate a fake two-year blockchain. If (and I doubt it, as in I'm virtually 100% sure it didn't happen) the mining actually happened over two years, only a handful of computers (<10) were involved. There were no "mining teams."

After that interview I was certain that cryptonote was a scam. Before that I only suspected. As I posted a few months ago, the more these people keep talking the more they will out their own scam. And they did.

Did you even read a fucking word I wrote? The v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper have bullshit dates. Here and here. If the v1 whitepaper was lost why not just publish it and say "we lost the original, but this is what it looked like"? Why take the v2 whitepaper and strip parts out of it and then wind your system date back to fake signatures on both of the fucking whitepapers?

If it was just the v1 whitepaper it would be one thing. But the v1 and the v2 whitepaper have fake dates. This is purposeful and deceitful fuckery, and there is absofuckinglutely no reason for the CryptoNote developers to have done this except to try and lend support to the Bytecoin premine scam. How can you even try and explain it as anything else?

So they claim that they're not Bytecoin but they also corroborate Bytecoin's lies regarding launch?

They never denied it: http://bitcoinbarbie.com/cryptonote-open-source-technology-concept/


So PDF v.1 that is on the website could have been created after PDF v.2. Considering that the timespan between the two papers is almost 1 year, the first version could have been lost and then re-created from the second one, with potential mistakes of course. Who can tell! After all, it's the world with human factor in charge.

This fact is disturbing per se. However, my point is you're trying too hard to take noise for signals and identify the patterns that don't exist...

The claim is that Bytecoin either tricked or somehow deceived CryptoNote, created at least 6 forks (including Monero), promoted them, built a community around them. Some of the mentioned coins (Boolberry, duckNote, Fantomcoin) are so far from Bytecoin, you'd have to hire a separate dev team just to keep it going. If this is true what else are those "guys" can be responsible for?

I'm sorry I'm not buying it. It's just a common sense underpinned by Hanlon's razor:


It's more likely that these guys are just not really from within the forum community and that is pretty much it.

This may as well be CryptoNote's PR. Such an attention to all the coins and the mysteries around them...

Agreed, but some of info here was new. And also it's complied into one post, instead of an ongoing battle in the threads.

I thought people already new Bytecoin had a shady history and that is why it hasn't bee getting attention like other similar coins.  I appreciate the work and info but I think it would have been more helpful atleast a month ago.  Doesn't make it not valuable just bad timing I guess.  Thanks for the info and work you putting into making us all aware.

It is fascinating to see all these puzzle pieces laid out so clearly. You did good detective work.

rethink-your-strategy

Before publishing your research, bytecoin diff was about 72,000,000, then has increased 25% (about 90.000.000).

This is-your-strategy?

Even if it is just a linear reduction, I see it as movement in the right direction. Boolberry has a weird name and a smaller team, but I think it makes sense to hold some.

Good thread.  Bump.  Thx for the efforts OP.

Not really. He provided pretty strong evidence that the CN people and the BCN people are connected. Even after the CN people explicitly denied it.

Lol, wuut? "Blaming CryptoNote for all things in the world". Are you trolling now?

There claims are out of proportion how? They fit perfect in line with what we know about Bytecoin.

Thank you for your time and effort.
 
Large scandals always stack around a prominent technology. However, before you start blaming Bytecoin, CryptoNote, or any other party for all the things you do not like in this world, I suggest you also read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

It explains perfectly why it is so tempting to believe in villains being responsible for all humanity's problems. Be critical, think yourself. To my taste, your claim is way out of all propotions...

My initial impression is that the crypto_zoidberg association with CN pretty hazy. I'm not really seeing it. But it's possible of course.

Other than that this was really interesting.

It boggles my mind why the CN developers would develop this technology and then do such stupid things. Really, really, dumb of them.

Well the entire Bytecoin thing has been exposed again and again. The OP has done it himself several times. The difference this time is he is now attacking the only other CN coin of significance which is Boolberry. It was announced in the BBR thread that it was soon going to be rebranded, which is a good idea.

But let's track this down a bit more.



Yah that doesn't make it monero truthing at all because you know they are "core devs or whatever they are called", you know because he doesn't keep track of them as there aren't enough threads to keep track of what they are called.

And that fake fight stuff between amjuarez and zoidberg, genius stuff   it spilled over to the cryptonote forum. Very nice  


Monero is hands down the best CN coin, no doubt. But excessive fucking shilling and arrogance will kill it. Arrogance and fucktardness killed Litecoin. Everything that happened in Litecoin can be traced to the arrogance of the community. The short sightedness to think that they can be Bitcoin, and everything they did revolved around it.

I see similar characteristics building in Monero. Remember, it is about consensus and comes with congeniality amongst various other factors. You cannot simply repel others with short sightedness of shitting everything and everyone else into oblivion by force. Do NOT overshill and don't try hard to come off as only subtly trying to sell Monero. There is little to no subtlety left. It is coming off as desperation day by day.

Both comments seem pretty far off topic for this thread, which has some really important things to say about the extreme shadiness of this whole family of coins, and in a sense the altcoin scene generally (where scams like this can get as far as this one has). Let's not loose sight of that. There are plenty of other places this bloat thing has been covered (for and against).

I don't understand this obsession with bloat. We've discussed this - at length. A linear improvement doesn't solve the underlying problem, it only delays its effect by a very short period of time. BBR's changes do not prune the blockchain, they provide a (relatively) meaningless linear reduction. It won't help mobile phones run BBR clients, so from our perspective it is a change that we are not willing to make. That does not deflect from BBR's change, I have the greatest respect for the work they've done, it is just that the change they've made is like me trying to use a cup as a bilge pump on a capsizing boat - it's not a solution to bloat on any level, and is not only ineffectual but may put users at risk (supposition, don't take this as anything more than a hunch).

There are two types of devices when it comes to cryptocurrency: those that can run a full node (20gb, 120gb, makes no difference), and those that can't (mobile phones, tablets). There is no middle ground. It's pointless catering to the "I'm happy with 20gb, but woah buddy, 120gb is crazy" crowd, because there are only 100 of them in the world and they're all on this forum:) So we're ignoring blockchain bloat as a non-issue for full nodes (as it is with Bitcoin) and we're addressing the matter of extremely-lightweight-clients in a completely different manner. That we choose not to use some half-measure as an intermediary should not be indicative of anything except that we don't do half measures;)

The only thing Monero has going for is its name. I would not be surprised at all if it lost out to Boolberry in the long run. They've made some really impressive changes over Monero. It also seems like they are more committed to addressing bloat.

OP - Thanks for doing this.

You've tied together a lot of thoughts I've been having bang around in my head but had not taken the time to piece together.  And a lot of it fits pretty well.

I had been suspicious and uncomfortable with some of the players in this whole scene for a while.  TFTs entire persona etc has never made sense to me.  And some or the shills share some very similar grammatical flags that would, frankly put them all in a fairly small geographical area.

Its fun to watch this unfold.