[BCN] Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012

[smooth]

@smooth,
I'm not here to bash you nor Monero, in fact I hold some XMR myself. But as much as I respect Monero and the efforts you're putting into defending it from FUD, quite often (just like now - out of the blue) I come across reading things about Monero that are mostly negative or fueled by hate/FUD. What the hell is up with that? Same goes for some other coins that I support (For example DASH and Shadow) but to a much smaller extent.

I can't tell you what's up with any other Monero or Dash or any other coin supporters or detractors except to say that people do get rather attached to their favorite coins and sometimes that is expressed in a negative and hateful way.

I don't believe that my posts are hateful. Skeptical and challenging of questionable or obviously doubtful (at best) claims is more the approach I tend to take when it comes to coins I feel are no being straight with the community.

[1714923345]

1714923345

[1714923345]

1714923345

[cryptrol]

- It could have been easy to prove the existence of the blockchain at some date with a News headline (like the one in the bitcoin genesis block).

That only proves that it wasn't created before a certain date, not that it was. I could easily put a news headline from 1850 in a genesis block, that doesn't mean such a coin existed in 1850.

Of course, I guess there is no easy way then (post edited).

[smooth]

- It could have been easy to prove the existence of the blockchain at some date with a News headline (like the one in the bitcoin genesis block).

That only proves that it wasn't created before a certain date, not that it was. I could easily put a news headline from 1850 in a genesis block, that doesn't mean such a coin existed in 1850.

Of course, I guess there is no easy way then (post edited).

An easy way would be to find some reference to the coin or the blockchain or the project in a third party verifiable source (such as archive.org) or find some credible identified people with valuable reputations at stake to come forward and attest to that fact.

Instead, bytecoin proceeded in precisely the opposite direction, running away from transparency by blocking archive.org from their web site after it became clear that it was being used to call them out on their self-contraditory statements and after-the-fact changes to posted files (such as white papers and css reset scripts).

User-agent: ia_archiver
Disallow: /

[child_harold]

It is entirely unfair and unacceptable that you would cherry pick the bits from the cryptonote.org site and team you like  and yet dismiss the others that do not serve you. The text emboldened below shows you do defame the CN Team. Either they can be trusted or not.

In your words:

"As I explained to you before, the fact that cryptonote repeats the implausible and essentially disproven claim of two-years-in-the-deep-web, it is clear that not all of their statements can be trusted"

Maybe they repeat it because it's true. (And archive.org wont help with deep-web matters anyway)

ps you use the phrase "essentially disproven"? nothing has been proven or disproven, except the wobbly dates on the whitepaper which the CN team are accountable for.

Scammers dont go around writing ground-breaking code.

You base that on what exactly? I fail to see any essential positive or negative connection between the two at all. One might say, Harvard graduates who go on to receive Ph.Ds. in Mathematics and become professors don't go around blowing people up, but that would be nonsense as demonstrated by the example of the unibomber.

If u wanna scam in crypto you there's a million easier ways than actually creating an anonymous Bitcoin. FFS.

You keep repeating this, yet not only isn't it even true (for similar reasons as above), but it doesn't fit even Cryptonote's claimed facts at all. Supposedly the system was designed and implemented and then some members of the group decided to launch their own coin with it. It was that last decision that was done as a scam. It had nothing to do with the designing and implementing. (Again, we don't know that this is entirely correct, but it is at least plausible, and contradicts your cloud castle of a mantra that it can't possibly be a scam because it is innovative.)

these developers (also your benefactors)

As I explained above, every Cryptonote-derived coin is a legitimate offspring of the original Cryptonote work (as explicitly invited by them when they released the cryptonote starter kit). In that sense Bytecoin and Monero are just siblings. Choose whichever you prefer, being fully informed.

The Bytecoin Team helped the Cryptonote Team implement the code. This is the version of events as described by the CN Team on crptonote.org. Monero just copied it. How the hell are you siblings? Rather Monero is more the bastard son.

A while back there was an interview posted with someone alleged to be from cryptonote who said that the bytecoin team split off from cryptonote because they wanted to implement a coin, and cryptonote was more interested in promoting the use of the technology by independent groups (which is exactly what Monero is doing, I might add). It was stated that they were still in contact but no longer working together. I'm simply going based on what they said. I can't easily find that interview now, but I'm sure its around somewhere if someone wants to dig it up.

It is also clear that cryptonote has invited other people, besides Bytecoin, to create coins using the technology they invented when they released the cryptonote starter kit. This is entirely beyond dispute, and again, this is exactly what Monero is doing.

If you prefer Bytecoin for your crypto investment needs because you believe (without any evidence I might add, and I strongly suspect incorrectly) that the people running it now and working on the code are the same ones who implemented the original reference code, and that matters a lot to you, go for it. It's your money.

(BTW, again I would suggest to you that you enlist the advice of technical experts who would tell you -- if they are competent -- from looking at the original and new code that it isn't the same people working on it any more.)

When I fist mentioned cryptonote.org's recognition of BCN you dismissed it out-of-hand accusing the CN Team of being in the same boat as the BCN Team.

As I explained to you before, the fact that cryptonote repeats the implausible and essentially disproven claim of two-years-in-the-deep-web, it is clear that not all of their statements can be trusted, and their motives appear, to some extent, aligned with those of Bytecoin in perpetuating this false backstory. (This was well-discussed last year, and had nothing to do with you pointing it out.) By the same token, that does not demonstrate that all of their statements are false. Correct logic may be tricky at times, but I'm sure you can understand this, correct?

[smooth]

ps you use the phrase "essentially disproven"? nothing has been proven or disproven, except the wobbly dates on the whitepaper which the CN team are accountable for.

Sure thing child_harold. Nobody has disproven Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either. Believe what you want to believe then.

[child_harold]

ps you use the phrase "essentially disproven"? nothing has been proven or disproven, except the wobbly dates on the whitepaper which the CN team are accountable for.

Sure thing child_harold. Nobody has disproven Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either. Believe what you want to believe then.

What need has the world for Santa when you are here to determine with equal mad pendulum swings those of us who have been nice and those of u who have been naughty?

The freedom to choose what I believe is not yours to give smooth. It is mine to keep.



p.s. still cherry-picking? state your position on the CN Team pls.

[owlcatz]

ps you use the phrase "essentially disproven"? nothing has been proven or disproven, except the wobbly dates on the whitepaper which the CN team are accountable for.

Sure thing child_harold. Nobody has disproven Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either. Believe what you want to believe then.

What need has the world for Santa when you are here to determine with equal mad pendulum swings those of us who have been nice and those of u who have been naughty?

The freedom to choose what I believe is not yours to give smooth. It is mine to keep.



p.s. still cherry-picking? state your position on the CN Team pls.

Wtf. Do you really care so much about monero or the totally anon CN team? Butthurt much? it's pretty clear what your agenda is, and if you think we are stupid and don't get it, you're about 2x as stupid. Go find your purple crayon and be a child again, ffs.

[child_harold]

ps you use the phrase "essentially disproven"? nothing has been proven or disproven, except the wobbly dates on the whitepaper which the CN team are accountable for.

Sure thing child_harold. Nobody has disproven Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy either. Believe what you want to believe then.

What need has the world for Santa when you are here to determine with equal mad pendulum swings those of us who have been nice and those of u who have been naughty?

The freedom to choose what I believe is not yours to give smooth. It is mine to keep.



p.s. still cherry-picking? state your position on the CN Team pls.

Wtf. Do you really care so much about monero or the totally anon CN team? Butthurt much? it's pretty clear what your agenda is, and if you think we are stupid and don't get it, you're about 2x as stupid. Go find your purple crayon and be a child again, ffs.

Oh, so you know me better than I know myself? Why not enlighten us all and explain what my agenda is? Are you another crypto-guardian come to doll out more swiss cheese propaganda? Lest I remind you that even smooth admits rethink-your-strategy may have got some things wrong. Sure Im a little butthurt after you crypto-bunnies tried gangbanging me, but Ive beaten the odds before and I have no interest in switching my brain off as others here clearly do.

A purple crayon is all I need.

[ABISprotocol]

Where can I download a wallet since sourceforge is down?

We've temporary put the files on our servers. Check out the downloads page: https://bytecoin.org/downloads/

Brief comment on this, since sourceforge has been the subject of a lot of community rage (nmap pulled its stuff off of sourceforge (details: http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2015/q2/194), bitcoin removed lists from sourceforge, etc, etc) because sourceforge would add malware onto repositories. Just one of the back stories on this... http://www.techrepublic.com/article/its-time-to-go-away-sourceforge/
And that's before the latest "tits up" debacle
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/17/souceforge_titsup/

I like the idea of Bytecoin community taking care of its own files but I would like to see that distributed too, to be a bit more specific by that, what I mean is this...

1) Github it all (source available from github and linking to it off the bytecoin.org downloads page)
https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin

2) A harder step perhaps to examine and implement, but one worth taking a look at, is Gittorrenting this
See: http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/

If that could be done it would protect the community even more.

Cheers all

[Rias]

I like the idea of Bytecoin community taking care of its own files but I would like to see that distributed too, to be a bit more specific by that, what I mean is this...

1) Github it all (source available from github and linking to it off the bytecoin.org downloads page)
https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin

2) A harder step perhaps to examine and implement, but one worth taking a look at, is Gittorrenting this
See: http://blog.printf.net/articles/2015/05/29/announcing-gittorrent-a-decentralized-github/

This can be a good start. I never liked SourceForge and I'm glad it's been replaced with Bytecoin website.

[Rias]

By the way, the recent Bytecoin blog post is very comprehensive on all major proof-of-work algorithms. It goes from the very basics (Hashcash and other ideas) to Bitcoin's SHA-256, scrypt, X11 and finishes with CryptoNight. It's a great reading indeed, I suggest you to check it out.

The Proof-of-Work in Cryptocurrencies: Brief History

https://bytecoin.org/blog/proof-of-work-part/
https://bytecoin.org/blog/proof-of-work-part-2/

[child_harold]

In the past criticisms have been made over some of the crypto used in CN after audits were performed*. Thusly one CN coin changed some of the crypto. This was brought up recently on twitter and Peter Todd's comment reads: "Yup! Rather have cleaned up bad code w/ good crypto over bad crypto..." https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225

My questions to the devs here are:

1) Are the criticisms fair?
2) Has BCN similarly changed some of the crypto used?
3) If not will they? If not, why not?

Many thanks in advance for any responses to these question.

*Im not the most super savvy tech guy but if memory serves the criticisms related to some of the libs used. There is at least one post in BCT detailing this.

[Ullo]

In the past criticisms have been made over some of the crypto used in CN after audits were performed*. Thusly one CN coin changed some of the crypto. This was brought up recently on twitter and Peter Todd's comment reads: "Yup! Rather have cleaned up bad code w/ good crypto over bad crypto..." https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225

My questions to the devs here are:

1) Are the criticisms fair?
2) Has BCN similarly changed some of the crypto used?
3) If not will they? If not, why not?

Many thanks in advance for any responses to these question.

*Im not the most super savvy tech guy but if memory serves the criticisms related to some of the libs used. There is at least one post in BCT detailing this.

1) Criticism "after audits were performed" is a little bit vague. For my current knowledge nobody has published a full review of Bytecoin/CryptoNote cryptography or code (except for Monero's peer review of CryptoNote whitepaper, but it was generally positive). If there was a specific paper or comment, I may come up with a more relevant response.

2) Peter Todd's comment is in line with previous Monero/Dash comparison. I suppose it means that Monero is based on a good cryptography and they're doing code refactoring, while Dash is supposedly based on some weaker cryptography (I'm not going to comment on this here). As for your question, only DigitalNote made any significant changes in the CN cryptography (encrypted messages).

3) Even though Bytecoin has made tons of code refactoring in the past few months, there were no significant cryptographic changes. However, in the upcoming release 1.0.6 there going to be a substantial crypto improvement. We'll cover that once the release is ready.

I hopes this clarifies your doubts.

[child_harold]

In the past criticisms have been made over some of the crypto used in CN after audits were performed*. Thusly one CN coin changed some of the crypto. This was brought up recently on twitter and Peter Todd's comment reads: "Yup! Rather have cleaned up bad code w/ good crypto over bad crypto..." https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225

My questions to the devs here are:

1) Are the criticisms fair?
2) Has BCN similarly changed some of the crypto used?
3) If not will they? If not, why not?

Many thanks in advance for any responses to these question.

*Im not the most super savvy tech guy but if memory serves the criticisms related to some of the libs used. There is at least one post in BCT detailing this.

1) Criticism "after audits were performed" is a little bit vague. For my current knowledge nobody has published a full review of Bytecoin/CryptoNote cryptography or code (except for Monero's peer review of CryptoNote whitepaper, but it was generally positive). If there was a specific paper or comment, I may come up with a more relevant response.

2) Peter Todd's comment is in line with previous Monero/Dash comparison. I suppose it means that Monero is based on a good cryptography and they're doing code refactoring, while Dash is supposedly based on some weaker cryptography (I'm not going to comment on this here). As for your question, only DigitalNote made any significant changes in the CN cryptography (encrypted messages).

3) Even though Bytecoin has made tons of code refactoring in the past few months, there were no significant cryptographic changes. However, in the upcoming release 1.0.6 there going to be a substantial crypto improvement. We'll cover that once the release is ready.

I hopes this clarifies your doubts.

Sorry for the vagueness. If memory serves then Monero's peer review of the CryptoNote whitepaper is what I was referring to. Maybe somebody can clarify. Assuming it is then whilst generally positive I believe it may have made mention of a few libs etc which would be preferable over the ones originally used.

However the code refactoring and "substantial crypto improvement" you speak of does set my mind at ease re this matter. Could you provide any info or clues about some of these improvements forthcoming in 1.0.6?

Many thanks for your reply.

update: improvements anything to do with this? http://www.texpaste.com/n/xaypn9ni

[Ullo]

Sorry for the vagueness. If memory serves then Monero's peer review of the CryptoNote whitepaper is what I was referring to. Maybe somebody can clarify. Assuming it is then whilst generally positive I believe it may have made mention of a few libs etc which would be preferable over the ones originally used.

However the code refactoring and "substantial crypto improvement" you speak of does set my mind at ease re this matter. Could you provide any info or clues about some of these improvements forthcoming in 1.0.6?

Many thanks for your reply.

In Bytecoin 1.0.6 we are introducing multi-addressing for RPC Wallet to get rid of payment IDs. It is a genuine multi-addressing, not a payment ID included into the address.

From CryptoNote protocol perspective, you have to scan each output with your private keys to learn about an incoming transaction. This poses a challenge for the service that generates a number of addresses as under current crypto protocol this would imply that each output should be scanned for each address which is resource consuming and non-viable on large scale.

Our new approach performs a magic trick (I'll intentionally leave it like this before the release) that allows such a verification to be performed much easier regardless of how many addresses the service has created.

You may expect Bytecoin 1.0.6 release next week, and we'll be covering it in details in our blog.

update: improvements anything to do with this? http://www.texpaste.com/n/xaypn9ni

I've asked seigen to have a look to have a valid answer on this one.

[Ullo]

Bytecoin 1.0.5 update

Bytecoin team has updated Bytecoin Reference Client 1.0.5, Bytecoin RPC Wallet 1.0.5 and Bytecoin Wallet 1.0.5. The update introduces p2p network stability improvements.

You may download the new binaries on Bytecoin website.

[seigen]

update: improvements anything to do with this? http://www.texpaste.com/n/xaypn9ni

I've asked seigen to have a look to have a valid answer on this one.

The proposal by Adam Back does reduce the size of ring signature. In case of large ringsig it maybe roughly two times smaller. However, from asymptotic point of view there is no difference from CryptoNote implementation: it is still a linear dependence O(n).

[Cheesus]

How the testing is done. by Bytecoin

https://bytecoin.org/blog/software-testing-process/

We continue to introduce you to Bytecoin development process. In our previous article, "Our Approach to Cryptocurrency Development", we covered the task management and development methodologies that we utilize. Today's article provides an in-depth overview of our testing process.

To recap, we rely on a mix of test-driven development (TDD) and extreme programming (XP). The main idea of XP is to create code in small batches. It allows thinking lean and efficient while avoiding excessively complicated solutions and over-design. For Bytecoin team this approach is aligned with the Test First paradigm. It implies that before producing a line of code, we create a test for it.

[child_harold]

I love this coin for the tech. CN leader IMO.
BUT we have a problem. Monero keep bashing bytecoin by making unproven accusations re blockchain and premine.
The dignified silence approach may not pan out. What can be proven re 2012?
In good faith.

How can we shut them up?

p.s. they (Monero) call me a troll… blah blah… dont care. I want the truth.

The only way Monero's accusations make sense is if the CN Team is "in on it". Nobody can be trusted in CN except for XMR is the position XMR hold.

[NASdaq]

I love this coin for the tech. CN leader IMO.
BUT we have a problem. Monero keep bashing bytecoin by making unproven accusations re blockchain and premine.
The dignified silence approach may not pan out. What can be proven re 2012?
In good fauth.

How can we shut them up?

p.s. they (Monero) call me a troll… blah blah… dont care. I want the truth.

The only way Monero's accusations make sense is if the CN Team is "in on it". Nobody can be trusted in CN except for XMR is the position XMR hold.

@child_harold, I respect your attempt to get to the bottom of the BCN & CN backstory, and I suspect you might be genuine. What you mention above became the issue that swayed me towards believing BCN is indeed a well thought out but botched mega scam, and that's what made me sell all my BCN and buy XMR.

The reason is simple. Do a thought experiment; imagine someone accuses you of committing a horrible crime (pedophile, rapist, murderer) and they're doing it publicly. If you were innocent you would want to defend yourself, and you would counter the accusations against you with evidence that proved, or at least suggested strongly, that you didn't commit the crime. You have all the resources available as your accuser (i.e. it's not like Rupert Murdoch vs Jo Six-pack played out unfairly in the mass media, but two equally matched opponents on a forum). If you had evidence to clear yourself would you produce it? Of course you would!!!

I waited for a good number of months thinking the XMR conspiracy theory sounded too far fetched, and while I didn't exactly dig into the details like you have, I did appreciate the basic accusation immediately - BCN was launched a lot later than 2012 and was ninja mined to 80% dishonestly with a fabricated blockchain. At first I assumed BCN would produce some evidence that indicated the coin was launched when they said it was. When that didn't come I was truly shocked, but not straight away, and that's part of the scam. BCN people are hoping that eventually we'll all stop talking about it, and new crypto users wont know the full story. Human history is full of such 'rehabilitation' events (how did the famous philosopher , Martin Heidegger, ever get rehabilitated in the 1950's after his blatant Nazi past during the 1930's? - answer, he never spoke of it publicly himself, and later generations of people focused on his work, which was top-notch, just like the CN and BCN scammers).

The BCN devs are doing the same thing as martin heidegger, avoiding the topic, because the scam is true, and there's a good chance people will forget in 2-5 years time and they might get away with it still. That's why I support your efforts - keep it up!!