Ah I see my mistake - I forgot to change my candlesticks scale to 1-day, thanks for catching that.


They could be done with a significant degree of randomness, I have no idea how easy it would be to tell if it was statistically random or had a patter in it. Worth some investigating at some stage, no doubt.

No, you're "restoring" the wallet, as in restoring it from a backup. If you have the file you wouldn't need to "restore" it, you'd just open it. But the point of creating a cold wallet is that you don't have the file. If you have the file, that's not a cold wallet, and then you should just use it normally (with a reasonably secure password).

I don't really care if he uses a laser or not. I've already posted at length to indicate that OP is:

1. deceitful

2. selling his wares at several thousand % profit

I strongly suggest everyone take the time to review my post on the matter: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=864472.msg10237658#msg10237658

I hope you'll forgive my candour, but you are lying to us.

Your account was only registered on September 11, 2014, and we have no evidence that it wasn't sold in the meantime.

You are a completely unknown person in cryptocurrency and cryptography circles.

You have no foothold in the Bitcoin-OTC Web of Trust, nor do I suspect you are in the GPG Web of Trust.

You have done nothing noteworthy or notable that anyone can say "oh yes, rough, he's the guy that created Facebucks, I trust him".

You are a pointless illusion trying to convince us that a completely fictitious story is true, but for what? So that a handful of morons too stupid to see through your ruse go and spend the 3 bitcents they haven't lost on some harebrained get-rich-quick scheme buying an ill-named cryptocurrency? You're no better than a Nigerian 419 scammer, hoping that someone will be dumb enough to believe you.

Stop with the lies.

The problem is that we don't know what the Bytecoin code looked like prior to March 2014, and there's no trust-chain for us to verify the story.

Given that the Bytecoin code publicly released in March had a purposely crippled slow_hash function (recalculating the value of a constant in every iteration of the loop is not accidental, and I hope we are not so foolish to believe that in 2 years nobody noticed such a simple optimisation) we cannot take the blockchain data at face value.

Using ChainRadar's charts we can get an overview of Bytecoin's difficulty change over the alleged period (July 2012 to April 2014) we see that difficulty averaged around the 145 000 mark -



From difficulty we normally estimate the network hashrate by dividing by 120 (BCN has 120 second block times), so we can estimate an average network hash rate of 1 208h/s. This is backed up by ChainRadar's network hashrate chart, where you can see the average is a little below my hover -



If we are terribly generous and round it off to 1 350h/s we can ascertain that if we wanted to fake the whole 21 months of blockchain data in, say, 3 months, we would need 1 350h/s x 7 = 9 450h/s.

Is that achievable in practical terms? Well, my MacBook Pro solo mines at an average hashrate of around 46h/s. ClayMore's GPU miner will comfortably do 400h/s on an entry-level GPU. An Amazon EC2 c3.8xlarge instance does 1 000h/s. So we could reach our target of 9 450h/s with 206 MacBook Pros, a 24-GPU mining farm, or a mere 10 EC2 instances. A c3.8xlarge instance has a regular price of $1.68/hour, but a typical spot price of $0.45/hour. Spot instances are great, because it would have created seemingly "natural" fluctuations in difficulty if you spread them out across regions, as spot instances come on and offline when your spot price is outbid. Presenting fake dates/times to the miner is trivial, and reducing the block time to 17 (actual) seconds within a closed network of 10 AWS instances is equally trivial.

So bottom line is the entire blockchain could easily have been faked in a 3 month period at a total cost of $9 720.

The one thing that is often missed with Bytecoin is that, by implication, a very small group of people own at least 82% of the utxoset (in fact, since Bytecoin emission isn't approaching 100% just yet they own significantly more than 82% of the utxoset). There simply hasn't been enough ongoing volume for that situation to have changed (eg. via them selling their stash). Even if there was enough volume, the fact that they have that much on tap means that they can cycle coins to continue to own the utxoset.

Why is this important? Well, if you've ever had a chance to read the Monero Research Lab's research bulletin MRL-0002 you'll know about the chain reaction attack we discovered that affects all CryptoNote-derived coins. Basically, it doesn't matter what mixin a Bytecoin user sets for their transaction, this small group of people (or maybe even an individual) can completely deanonymise the transaction by revealing which signatures in the ring signature set are controlled by the preminers, thus revealing which signature(s) are "real". This basically means that ring signatures in Bytecoin are pointless due to the vast majority of the utxoset being owned by unknown individuals.

Nope, Monero is a fork of the CryptoNote reference code. Yes, this was originally done under the "Bytecoin" name, but if you take a look at the files in the very earliest Monero commit by thankful_for_today (eg. https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/1a8f5ce89a990e54ec757affff01f27d449640bc/src/cryptonote_config.h) you will see that it says "Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers" and not "Copyright the Bytecoin developers". Unsurprisingly, the official repo of the CryptoNote reference code isn't particularly diverged from that first commit.

The code isn't the issue with this, multisig isn't very complex from a code perspective. The issue is figuring out how to implement multisig in a way that neither conflicts with the signatures in ring signatures nor leaks user information. It's on the MRL table, but frankly I don't see us even starting with the academic side of it for a few months. There are flaws and bugs we have to fix first:)

I hope so!

Just a little addition to my previous post. I've been told that the piece was 9" x 12", and I'm thumb-sucking that its around 1.5" thick.

Based on those assumptions we can figure out the actual cost of the wood, based off the Rare Woods SA price list. We're going to forego calculating shipping on the whole cubic meter, as for a piece that small it can be shipped relatively cheaply via courier. So for $8 605 we get a fat cubic meter of pink ivory. If we get 38mm boards (which is around 1.5") then that cubic meter would contain 26 of them, so $331 a board.

This is what 9x12 looks like when taken out of the 1m² board:


That's 6.97% of the board, which is $23.07. Of course you need a buffer for the wood you're "carving" off, so let's be super generous and double that up to $46 for good measure.

Add in shipping, import duties, labour, amortisation of equipment, local shipping, liability insurance, and a very large quantity of cheap wood varnish, and I can't imagine this having a raw cost of more than $400 (if quite a few hours was spent carving it by hand, but I suspect that was not the case). Add in a fair margin for it being artistic in nature (plus creative work is typically harder to produce consistently), and a fair selling price would have been $1000 - $1500. And you know, if it looked good and was well made I might have thought about spending that amount of money on it. But at $14k? No...that's scam-level profit margins.

I've been staying out of this, as I don't really care, but now that I've taken the time to read through the thread...wow. What a load of hogwash.

Let me start by saying that I live in South Africa, and in particular I live 30 minutes drive from the Rare Woods SA facility in Knysna. So I'm going to concentrate on the South African wood used in this piece of "art". I have discussed this at length with an associate from Rare Woods and from two other local timber companies that specialise in unique woods.

First, lets take a choice quote from WoodCollector:


Firstly, it is not a protected wood species. Per Wood-Database - "Sustainability: This wood species is not listed in the CITES Appendices or on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." The Wikipedia article on pink ivory mistakenly lists it as being protected in South Africa, as it was on the preliminary list for examination back in 2002 due to its cultural significance. That awareness has lead to it being sustainably logged, but it is not protected. The 2014 list of protected trees is published on the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries website, and there is no mention of Berchemia zeyheri on it.

Secondly, watermelon ivory does not exist. Nobody has ever heard of it, and I spoke to several people who have been in the industry for decades.

Thirdly, even if it was protected (which it isn't) the permits required for logging protected trees are not difficult to get, and they are completely free to apply for. They do not cost "a few thousand dollars", what rubbish. To quote from a blog post on the Wild Card Blog - "You need to apply for a license to cut any tree/s, but these licenses are generally easily granted as long as you have sufficient grounds for felling. In brief, the process begins with requesting the license application forms from the regional offices, which are situated all over South Africa in each province. These are provided electronically via e-mail, faxed or posted through to the applicant, or taken off the DAFF (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) web-site. Once the applicant has filled out and signed the form, it needs to go back to the regional office, where an assessment will be made of the application. The license will then be either granted or not, based on this assessment."

Fourthly, I have no idea about the "4 different duties, 3 different taxes, half a dozen permits" as it applies to the USA, but in South Africa there are no export duties or taxes levied against wood, nor does it require any special permits beyond what was detailed when applying for a (completely free) importers/exporters code.

Finally, pink ivory is an expensive wood, that much is true. Rare Woods SA has their pricelist available online, and they have pink ivory listed there. For a cubic meter (which is massive - imagine 1m x 1m / 3.28ft x 3.28ft slabs, 76mm / 3" thick, a cubic meter would contain 13 of those) of pink ivory you'd pay R86 050 + 14% VAT, so R98 097, which is $8 605. For 13 massive slabs. Even with shipping (you'd want something that heavy to go seafreight) and import duties on the other side of the pond...well, you do the math.

Oh and I'd like to just add that properly treated pink ivory doesn't look like it has a layer of goopy acrylic on top. It looks like this:

If you're not too familiar with it, then our year-end report is a good start.


An excellent question. Let's take a look at our respective github summaries:





Our first blockchainDB LMDB implementation is in testing, and that cements the picture:



I think it's safe to say that most of the development is being done by Monero, Bytecoin hasn't had a commit since September 15. If anything, Bytecoin would have to merge our work to their code, but practically speaking our codebases have diverged way too much.


You've read our research bulletin, MRL-0003, "Monero is Not That Mysterious", right? Not only do we go into detail explaining the Monero cryptography in layman's terms, but we also released a reimplementation in Python: http://github.com/monero-project/mininero

Whilst you're at it, why don't you check out MyMonero, the Monero web wallet. It reimplements a lot of functionality in Javascript, which also points to our very deep understanding of the CryptoNote code.


This is an excellent question. So let me ask you this: since the Bitcoin core devs didn't actually write the original Bitcoin code, do you think the their task of maintaining Bitcoin is beyond their technical capabilities? Not only have they "maintained" it since Satoshi's departure, but they have improved on it.

The question remains: are the Monero devs similarly capable? Well, if you checkout git commit 1a8f5ce (the initial Monero fork) and you do a cloc (count lines of code) of the src folder (so excluding external libraries or copy-paste code), you get a total of 20 305 lines of code. Step up to the current commit, and that folder jumps to 32 322 lines of code written by the Monero core team and contributors. With our blockchainDB implementation that count jumps even further to 35 829. That means that the we've written 15 524 lines of code beyond the initial 20 305, and that completely ignores changes to existing lines of code (of which there have been many), as well as comments (of which there have been many), as well as external projects. We've done way, way more work than the initial project.


It's a little insulting to call all 23 contributors to Monero (that's besides amjuarez, Bytecoin's sole developer) "inexperienced". Most notable among that esteemed group are Ben Boeckel, a Fedora and KDE contributor as well as a CMake core developer, and Dave Andersen, an associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University. Many of the other contributors, myself included, have many, many years of experience. You'd do well to choose your words more carefully next time.

Thanks, captain obvious. That's precisely what I said. But more importantly, I said that Monero wouldn't benefit from massive liquidity at present. If it was consistently doing 1000 BTC in volume a day, what would be the benefit to Monero itself? Some traders would profit, some would lose, and the only place consistently winning would be the exchange.


The lack of liquidity is directly tied to the lack of utility. The bulk of the buyers are speculators, who are easily bored, and day traders, who are far more interested in pump-and-dump coins.


It absolutely does not effect Monero's success or failure as a project. The Monero project already has the great distinction of being the only cryptocurrency to have successfully squared Zooko's Triangle when we released the OpenAlias standard. Not only that, but we created it in a way that benefits all cryptocurrencies (including Bitcoin), not just Monero.

So, really, Monero has already left a lasting mark on cryptocurrency development. Tell me, BCX, what have you done besides posting rubbish on a forum whilst hiding like a coward behind a pseudonym?

There's no propaganda in the facts above. They are not skewed nor twisted, and replicating my searches of the Silk Road 1 forum or of the various 4chan archive sites is a trivial exercise for the reader.

You'll note that in what I wrote I never mentioned CryptoNote nor did I mention Monero. I spoke only of Bytecoin.

We absolutely do give kudos to the mathematician(s) behind the CryptoNote cryptography (and who we'd love to have on the Monero Research Lab panel), and credit does also have to go to the developer(s) who produces the CryptoNote reference code in the 7 months at the end of 2013 / beginning of 2014. If the original Bytecoin developers were involved in the creation of the reference code, then those kudos and credit extend to them up to that point, but we absolutely do not give credit for their attempt to fleece the cryptocurrency community.

On a more personal note, I think we've already demonstrated that there have been big flaws in both the cryptography (see: MRL-0001) and in the code (see: MRL-0002), so how about YOU stop trying to push the agenda of a failed scam and give credit where credit is due? I thought as much.

You're approaching this from the assumption that the story of their release date is true. Let us take a look at why we should not approach it from that perspective:

1. At this juncture there are no known entities who have stepped forward and provided any reasonable claim that Bytecoin existed prior to March, 2014. I'm not talking about purchased accounts on Bitcointalk, I'm talking about individuals who have a reputation they can stake on such a claim.

2. At the very least, one would expect (were their "deep web" release claims to be true) that there would be darknet market operators who would have been approached by users in the early days. It is inconceivable that with their claims of "mining teams", claimed usage on Tor sites, and many alleged users, that not a single one bothered to say "hey I wonder if the Silk Road will be interested in this untraceable and unlinkable cryptocurrency". By the time Bytecoin allegedly launched in July 2012, the Silk Road was very well known (at least since Gawker's article in June of 2011, and even before that when it was mentioned by altoid on Bitcointalk in January of 2011). The original Silk Road forums (the complete contents of which can be found in the StExo backup or searched via The Hub on Tor) contain absolutely no mention of Bytecoin.

3. In deference to the previous poster's claim, a search of 4chandata.org, 4chanarchive.net, or any other 4chan archive site unsurprisingly reveals no mention of Bytecoin.

As to whether or not they've dumped their premine, given the unbelievably low Bytecoin exchange volume I simply think they haven't been able to. In order to dump a premine you have to have buyers, otherwise who are you selling it to? Leaving aside HitBTC, which is known to be untrustworthy and filled with fake trades (1 2 3), Bytecoin does about $2/day in volume. The most heavily traded day was June 21 when they did around 1.5 BTC in volume at a price of around 10 satoshi per Bytecoin. In the 245 days it has been listed on Poloniex, even if they were at peak every single day they would only have been able to dump 3 675 000 000 Bytecoins of their stash of 147 882 114 539 Bytecoins, which is 2.49%. Given that they're not at peak, the best they could have achieved over the past 245 days is a couple of hundred USD.

Edit: forgot to add, the only coin "rankings" worth looking at are CoinGecko. If you're merely looking at market capitalisation then you also need to use CoinMarketCap's non-mineable/premine filter, but frankly there's not much value in market capitalisation metrics without taking other things into account (eg. market momentum, trade volume, etc.)

Monero doesn't benefit from massive liquidity at the moment, nor does a lack thereof affect Monero core development or the ongoing development of any peripheral projects. The success or failure of Monero as a project will not depend on the market capitalisation or the trade volume until Monero has achieved a significant level of utility.

Greetings, gentlemen and gentleladies of the Kingdom!

No doubt you have been waiting for an update on the online version with eager anticipation, and I must apologise that updates have not been more forthcoming. With so many moving parts and so much design and effort going into the backend (which is the very heart of the game), it is not always easy to have something visible to show or talk about. Some of the developers have also been on leave at the end of the year, and things are only now starting to return to normal.

One of the key components that gave us a bit of a runaround was IRC integration. We hope to demonstrate this within the next week, but basically we now have a multi-room capable chat engine that backs onto IRC. The advantage is that developers will be able to create interactive components (such as the completely unrelated Tippero bot), and we will still be able to provide internal functionality that is not native to IRC (such as the ability to have a drink, or to tip within Crypto Kingdom, which functionality will not be exposed externally via IRC).

Because of the nature of the game we took a step back towards the end of December and started building out an API, which initially will only be used internally, but later on can be exposed to developers. This is something we had to do at this early stage, as if we started doing it later we would end up with no separation of concerns, and a whole mess of duplicated code. The advantage is that when we do expose parts of the API, the calls that developers will use will be exactly the same API calls we use within the code, so there won't be multiple points of failure. The earliest externally accessible API functions will most likely be read-only access to the various databases, so that developers can build their own sites and webapps with live charts, summaries, logs, overviews, and whatever else.

I'll be sure to update in this thread more regularly now that things have kicked back into full-swing!

You read our year-end report, right? Not a single satoshi of the 47.58 BTC we received in donations was spent on the forum software, and only a very small portion of the 164.5 BTC the core team personally put in was spent on that.

He's setup a private group to keep contributors updated. His last activity in there was a couple of days ago.

Although I think pa was referring more to core Monero development rather than peripheral projects:)

Subah is a badly coded spaem bot.
it is too stupid to make post sense
you can't understand it 1. bit.
it is use by scammer.
its grammar BAD.
Subah have subah potato.