On the PoS vs. PoW question a spin-off version should do whatever the original does (the Ethereum project's stated plan is something like switch to PoS if it can be made to work, which it seems likely they will claim to be the case).

The purpose of the spin-off experiment is to test the hypothesis that starting with Bitcoin's allocation of wealth (as opposed to a brand new distribution/ledger) is a superior approach and will succeed in defeating the original in the market, not to make a new coin of whatever design you happen to think is best.

Anyway, it seems to be the case that no one is particularly interested in doing the work to actually implement it, so it looks like this idea is going nowhere at the moment.

That's not relevant in the slightest to whether Bitcoin code has been misappropriated without attribution, and misrepresented as "from scratch in it's entirety", which it has.

You're basically conceding the question when you can only respond to it by changing the subject, spamming, thread bombing, etc.

If your argument is, "Yes, we're lying thieving scumbags. Too bad, our coin is so damn good it's going to take over the world anyway" then I guess you're entitled to take that approach. 100% for sure there are people who will buy in on such a coin.


Oh I agree with you there. Free speech really is an ugly vile thing in a lot of ways (though I still support it)

IMO the usefulness of this thread ended with post #2.

Also, don't forget the last project before this latest one (documenting the code) also got fully funded really fast. About 24 hours IIRC.

So yes I agree:

Other errors earlier?

Yeah I was thinking that, or using it himself. But I really wonder if the state of GPU mining is so poor that it makes sense to use all those GPUs to aggressively mine a $50/day coin. Maybe it is though, I'm pretty out of touch with that scene at this point.

Right here (emphasis added)


Are you going to keep asking stupid questions to try to obscure reality with a bunch of confusion and doubt over the (well documented) accusations against him, or are you going to quit digging a deeper hole?

It's not that massive. It could be a GPU farm or a few hundred computers, or smaller number (probably <50) of servers (sysadmin, small botnet, etc.). I get right around 1000 h/s on one old i7.

As the network grows, relatively small (on a global scale) resources like this will become less individually significant. Beyond that and what moneromooo did to cap his pool's hashrate at a responsible level I don't see that a whole lot more can be done. The upcoming GUI will have built in mining but how many users of this coin are there, if they even all mined? We have to continue to grow to make a real difference.

I doubt there is an exploit since the modifications to the hashing code from regular cryptonight are quite small and none of the other cryptnight coins (including the more valuable ones; Monero is 100x more mined value) show evidence of such an exploit. Total mining on AEON is only about 50 USD/day! Hard to imagine that's the place you want to use your fancy new cryptonight exploit, but I guess you never know.

Uh, no. The cryptonote code also grants permission under the exact same MIT license. So no difference.

The difference is that Monero retained the original attribution, as required by the license, and as do most of the 1000+ coins that use or adapt code from Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc. (I posted proof of this above.) Vanillacoin did not.

It's exactly half the speed (literally divided by two in the code). I not saying that you're being misleading but somehow when I personally read "much slower" I think of like 1/10 the speed or something, but that may just be my own odd interpretation of it.

I was personally in favor of Monero running at something like half speed so I'm not criticizing here at all.

Better to have your attorney look into the situation with your reformatting of the Bitcoin code, redistributing with attributions removed (in violation of its license), and then passing it off as built from scratch

But who are we kidding here. If you actually had a qualified attorney and paid any attention to the advice from said attorney, you wouldn't be doing that in the first place.

Since you seem to have missed this the first time, I'll bold it for you:

Or can you point to some source documenting you were given permission to reformat the Bitcoin code and redistribute it without the attribution? If you can do that I will remove the negative trust and add positive trust correcting my earlier error.

Nah. You're suggesting that bytecoin might not have had the right to distribute it under those terms. But that doesn't fly because same code was also posted directly by cryptonote as well, on their own repo https://github.com/cryptonotefoundation/cryptonote with the same attribution and license. For example:


But to get back on topic here, Vanillacoin apparently violating Bitcoin's license on substantial portions of the code (as documented in the Reference link and gmaxwells post and elsewhere) is another matter entirely.

Or can you point to some source documenting you were given permission to reformat the Bitcoin code and redistribute it without the attribution? If you can do that I will remove the negative trust and add positive trust correcting my earlier error.

Copyright attributions from the Bytecoin->Monero fork were retained, are still there, and appear in virtually every file (a few files that are brand new work don't have it, but even some that are brand new work probably do, since it is easier to just include the same copyright notices everywhere). For example:


Those copyright notices in the Bytecoin code attributed authorship to "the Cryptonote developers" not "Bytecoin" even well after Monero had already been forked, and that is easily verified in github.


As for why Bytecoin had authorship attributed that way can't say. I imagine some sort of internal decision within their group might be responsible but that is just a guess.

Open source licenses have conditions. Bitcoin's license has very few conditions indeed -- you can do almost any damn thing you want with it legitimately -- but one of few it does have is retaining the attribution.

Maybe it has something to do with name being mentioned in the thread title?

Other than that I have no recent involvement or interest in any of this.

If you are wondering why this is being brought up again now, ask the thread starter.

Anybody who mined would have seen the excess block reward payments as "immature" just by doing listtransactions (although actually given the high block rate they'd probably mature really fast and just be "received" "generate")


Likewise getinfo and current height.

There is no credibility to the argument you need a block explorer to see what is being mined. None, sorry.

gmaxwell's post was from January. Mine was over a month ago. None of this has to do with anything "getting" hot or getting anything else but sure you can try to twist it to shill your favorite coin. Wouldn't expect anything less from shillmyfavcointalk.org.

And now the usual Monero-hater suspects from Dash. Welcome.

Didn't he (or at least his business) play a large role in inventing and developing NASDAQ? I'm not even kidding.

Accomplishments and ability have no particular negative correlation with scamming. If anything the correlation might be positive because it makes the scams more convincing.

I can't speak for gmaxwell but I'm not debating anything with j-c. I saw someone else's allegations (not gmaxwell's, someone else's on an alt thread) of misappropriation of the code, looked into it and found it to be a correct accusation. That is the sole extent of my "involvement" here.

I updated the OP with a reformat from myagui. Thanks for the help!

To me it looks a lot better, but feedback is welcome. Also I didn't double check the content of the edits so if there are any errors, please let me know and I'll fix them.