Is it possible to fabricate a blockchain ?

[TheGambler]

Yes, timestamps can be forged.

If someone was careful enough and had plenty of fakes nodes, they could fabricate such a thing.

But what about the difficulty of the proof of work, considering it is high, wouldn't it require massive amount of computer power to fabricate it ?

Yes it would...
It hasn't been dome before simply because it requires this much power

[1714944411]

1714944411

[digicoin]

Wow, there are more and more people think CryptoNote-based Bytecoin is a scam.

Fortunately, CryptoNote is the most innovative technology for several years  so far. XMR (Monero), BBR (BoolBerry) have fair and transparent launch that you can rely on. Those 2 coins fix a lot of bugs in Bytecoin too. Basically, they become separate CryptoNote implementations

[gmaxwell]

The privacy tech is indeed very interesting, the rest of the tech... uh. some is very clearly ill-advised (e.g. the "CPU-only" pow is now much faster mined with propritary gpu software— now it's just acting as an albatross, the slowest to verify POW yet deployed and failing at the advertised goal in record time—  the blocksize control algorithm is totally incentive-busted in the long term) and the software is very immature.

The history around the launch is pretty sketchy, and as far as I know there is no evidence that it's as old as it claims to be, but why the heck would anyone lie about such things? It isn't like anyone is really going to believe it or that it matters if they do or don't. Now there are a zillion forks, it's not clear which will survive, they're also being secretive for "competitive" reasons  ... in any case, this is the tech subforum, and the tech is interesting without regard to the (usual) altcoin drama.

Back to the question, it would be trivial to prove something— like a blockchain or a program— existed at particular point, it would have only taken someone who knew about the something to have posted a hash of it someplace durable, like in the Bitcoin blockchain. This doesn't seem to have happened here, but instead things outside were very aggressively committed in that chain, which proves the other side of the boundary (it wasn't created any earlier), so aggressively that the absence of any proof in the other direction is additional suspect.

But perhaps who cares? Alt these "CPU" altcoins seen to end up sending most of their coins to a small number of fast speculators, seemingly powered by stolen computing power and private optimizations... if you go by hashrate you'd see numbers like a coin that hardly anyone has heard of having 60k fast cpus worth of mining a month after it was created... Uh yea, right. The unfairness of some launch or another I suspect mostly impacts the squabbling between very early speculators, and fairness to other people depends more on transparency and on "fitness to purpose", allowing people who are not speculators to participate in the economy. So the bigger question is if anyone is going to go complete anymore of the ecosystem, rather than if someone got an early advantage, because its very clear that in all these things someone did.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It's Bytecoin (BCN). They claim to have been around "on the dark web" for two years and then suddenly launched forth into the light in March (with 82% of the coins already mined). I went into a fair amount of detail as to why I think we should dispute their 2 year claim in this thread.

Incidentally, we forked BCN and create Monero a while back, which is based on the same CryptoNote protocol, but obviously has a blockchain that has had many observers from launch (and is already diverging from BCN's reference implementation as we rapidly improve it).

Thanks for this!
Kindly,
       Muhammed Zakhir