Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)

[GreekBitcoin]

This page kills my computer!

[1714751814]

1714751814

[1714751814]

1714751814

[Hexah]

Thanks for your work. You confirmed my suggestions that someone is trying to discredit the CryptoNote technology along with all the CN-based coins.

Just throwing this out there, but if the correct whitepaper was on the Bytecoin domain all along and on the TOR Cryptonote site, how can we trust that CryptoNote.org is genuine? What if they falsified the whitepapers on purpose?

I thought about that... And I agree with @Cheesus

Regarding the website mysteries... my bet is on that CN didn’t make their own website themselves - did you ever see a nice, design-ish site from a hardcore developers of pretty much any technology? I sure as hell didn’t, simply because bearded, covered in sweaters guys don’t do this kind of stuff.

I mean, look at XMR - they got tons of websites and all of them look like shit.

I think CN ordered a website to someone. It’s just doesn’t add up - what’s the point for hardcore developers to spend so much time designing and coding this website. There probably should be the guy who admins website, actually, maybe he is the guy that replaced those files. Would love to ask him a few questions if he exists.

This casts doubt that CN web site was developed by CryptoNote's team itself.  Someone else has attempt to it.

[act now]

I've just been rechecking genuine whitepaper v.2 and found another watermark.



This is pretty amusing. Note, I couldn't find this watermark in whitepaper v.1.

[smooth]

I thought about that... And I agree with @Cheesus

Why does this not surprise me? Let me think....hmm. Umm.

Oh yeah, that's right! Because you are both BCN shills?

[Brilliantrocket]

I thought about that... And I agree with @Cheesus

Why does this not surprise me? Let me think....hmm. Umm.

Oh yeah, that's right! Because you are both BCN shills?

Registered within 4 minutes of each other. What a coincidence.

[smooth]

dated back December 2012.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

[psterryl]

dated back December 2012.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

Oh... Ok so the signing time on the darknet paper could easily have been faked too. All you'd need to do is set your system clock.

[Rias]

dated back December 2012.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

You (well, not you in particular of course) better try again at breaking CryptoNote website to provide false evidence.

[fluffypony]

Oh... Ok so the signing time on the darknet paper could easily have been faked too. All you'd need to do is set your system clock.

Seems that way. OP said this:

"Now normally you would use a Timestamp Authority (TSA) to validate your system time. There are enough public, free, RFC 3161 compatible TSAs that this is not a difficult thing."

So failing that you can just change your system time.

[psterryl]

dated back December 2012.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

You (well, not you in particular of course) better try again at breaking CryptoNote website to provide false evidence.

That's from the darknet paper though, not the CryptoNote website. The fact that the date is based on the host computer basically means it can't be trusted because someone can easily change their system clock. Since we have no historical record of the darknet site, it's possible someone could have gone back and 'fixed' the dates using a correct version of latex after this thread was posted. If a hacker really did manage to gain access to the Cryptonote site they could have planted much more 'conclusive' false evidence than a messed up whitepaper.

[smooth]

dated back December 2012.

Uh, no. Fail.

Try again scammers.

You (well, not you in particular of course) better try again at breaking CryptoNote website to provide false evidence.

The only basis there is to believe that actually happened are these new posts with more fake documents falsely (or at best unverifiably, but from a trust point of view, that is identical) dated from 2012, as I showed above.

My belief is that it didn't happen at all, and is just an attempt to use the tired "We got hacked!" defense. It doesn't strike me as the brightest strategy to align yourself (not you in particular) with Mark Karpels, et al.

I also believe (as I have said before -- i.e. before this thread) that the more these scammers try to post new stuff to back up their fabtricated story, the more evidence they create that refutes it. That might not be true for a truly skilled fraudsters, but they are not in say, Bernie Madoff's league. They are just a fairly amateurish coin mill, and their efforts reflect that.

[DStrange]

Actually all original whitepapers were done by Satoshi.

[Rias]

The only basis there is to believe that actually happened are these new posts with more fake documents falsely (or at best unverifiably, but from a trust point of view, that is identical) dated from 2012, as I showed above.

My belief is that it didn't happen at all, and is just an attempt to use the tired "We got hacked!" defense. It doesn't strike me as the brightest strategy to align yourself (not you in particular) with Mark Karpels, et al.

I also believe (as I have said before -- i.e. before this thread) that the more these scammers try to post new stuff to back up their fabtricated story, the more evidence they create that refutes it. That might not be true for a truly skilled fraudsters, but they are not in say, Bernie Madoff's league. They are just a fairly amateurish coin mill, and their efforts reflect that.

Your version with "just a fairly amateurish coin mill" doesn't match the fact that the someone has created CryptoNote technology, which is totally new. Based on recent releases by Bytecoin (e.g. multisigs) I assume that they initially coded the protocol and are still contributing to its development. Why would amateurish coin mill do so?

[smooth]

The only basis there is to believe that actually happened are these new posts with more fake documents falsely (or at best unverifiably, but from a trust point of view, that is identical) dated from 2012, as I showed above.

My belief is that it didn't happen at all, and is just an attempt to use the tired "We got hacked!" defense. It doesn't strike me as the brightest strategy to align yourself (not you in particular) with Mark Karpels, et al.

I also believe (as I have said before -- i.e. before this thread) that the more these scammers try to post new stuff to back up their fabtricated story, the more evidence they create that refutes it. That might not be true for a truly skilled fraudsters, but they are not in say, Bernie Madoff's league. They are just a fairly amateurish coin mill, and their efforts reflect that.

Your version with "just a fairly amateurish coin mill" doesn't match the fact that the someone has created CryptoNote technology, which is totally new. Based on recent releases by Bytecoin (e.g. multisigs) I assume that they initially coded the protocol and are still contributing to its development. Why would amateurish coin mill do so?

Sure it does, because:

1. Brilliant cryptography and okay programming (the BCN code is not brilliant, just okay) do not necessarily correlate with integrity and understanding of other's reactions to your approach to, ahem, "marketing" as pointed out by someone earlier. Autistic spectrum is quite plausible.

2. We don't know who created the original cryptography and/or implementation and, no, I am not impressed by the recent Bytecoin releases. Multisig was already designed in from the start (see white paper), someone just did the fairly straightforward (and incomplete) implementation of it. So I'm not convinced that the managers of the ongoing scamming (more fake papers with bogus signatures, etc.) are necessarily the inventors. I lean against, but I'm not sure.

[Este Nuno]

Wow.

As an impartial observer let me just say one thing:

You CN/Bytecoin whoever you are posters coming out of the woodwork like this is incredibly transparent.

Just stop. You're doing more harm to yourselves then good.

I own no CryptoNote coins whatsoever at the moment. I've traded some BBR and XMR on short time frames , trying to get in and out in time when they bubble.

Also,

Lukejr, if you're reading this. Do you really think it's possible for Bitcoin to integrate ring signatures? I assumed this was impossible.

Does anyone know if it's possbile to do such a thing? This is exciting news if it's plausable. My current view is that it's probably "possible" but completely unfeasable for a Bitcoin based technology to under go such a change.

[2112]

On a side note: if you copy the word "difficulty" from the Tor whitepaper and paste it into a text editor you'll get the "di_culty" as a result. As far as I understand, "fi" letters combination is badly interpreted by latex compiler and is replaced in PDF by a special character that looks almost the same as these two letters but can't be copied.

The "special character" you are trying to name is called "ligature" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographic_ligature .

TeX certainly has the capability to take certain letter strings, e.g. "ffi" and replace them with the traditional-typography ligatures "ffi". The native TeX fonts (Computer Modern) all have ligatures, but the tools that post-process them to other fonts (like Adobe Type 1) for PDF formatting may be missing or mishandling the ligatures.

In my browser and in my text font the single character "ffi" "ffi" ligature displays just fine. So this maybe something to do with your configuration if you can't see the "special characters".

[Wanesst]

ALL RETHINK-YOUR-STRATEGY INVESTIGATION IS SCAM!

Look at this. I checked the snapshots of CSS files RethinkYourStrategy posted here and this is what I found. It don’t match.

I checked every web page myself and the CSS code from his snapshots is different from the reality. Since I found this I don’t trust his research anymore. Every single thing that he claims must be doublechecked.  


CryptoNoteFoundation CSS by RethinkYourStrategy




CryptoNoteFoundation CSS I found




The rest of the snapshots I made are here: bitmonero.org, bytecoin.org,CryptoNote, CryptoNoteCoin, FantomCoin, MonetaVerde

[Liquid71]

Maybe it’s an inside job or some kind of revenge attempt. There are so many possibilities for this type of behaviour, maybe in the end somebody is trying to earn some money crushing the exchange rate of all CN coins. While we’re talking somebody is making $$$

Let me explain what really happened.

And since I engaged with most of you guys (as in exact same shill crew that has showed up here now -- you know who you are) early on in the BCN thread about the 80% hidden premine, etc., and nearly all of what I wrote turned out to be exactly correct, you might want to pay attention. You guys tried this "there are so many possibilities" line back then. It was silly and bogus back then and it is silly and bogus now.

The cryptonote site did not get hacked. They swapped out the paper because this lame "We got hacked!" defense was the best the coin mill crew behind BCN/Cryptonote/BMR/QCN/FCN/etc. could come up with to futilely try to explain away being exposed as frauds and scammers.

Open your eyes man.

You're delusional, the proof you Monero pump and dumpers came up with is a fraudulent whitepaper and when it's proven the legit whitepaper was on the tor website proving the clearnet Cryptonote site was probably hacked, you also claim proof it's a scam.
Get real dude, nobody takes you guys serious because you are so desperate. Monero trolls likely behind this whole mess, makes more sense than Cryptonote making a fraudulent paper to expose..who exactly?

you offer nothing, just run around screaming scam. Dude we get it you're a huge bagholder of monero and want to see every other coin fail. Offer something up besides The would have had to swap out the whitepapers prior to this thread, so what exactly does the "we got hacked" claim defend them against..prior to this lame hatchet job by a Monero insider?
Bytecoin probably is a scam but I'm not investing in Monero, you're a bunch of desperate assclowns out to make a quick buck and care nothing about crypto dumping your clone shitcoin and waiting for cryptonote 2.0 coins.

Now that your "fraudulent whitepaper" scam to pump and dump your monero bags has just about run it's course it's time for me to dump your clone shitcoin and wait for a cryptonote 2.0 coin

[smooth]

proven the legit whitepaper was on the tor website

Show me third party verification of the signature and date from 2012 and I'll be impressed. Otherwise what is on the tor website is whatever the owner of that tor website wants it to be. Just more fake documents, in other words.

[Liquid71]

Wow.

As an impartial observer let me just say one thing:

You CN/Bytecoin whoever the fuck you are posters coming out of the woodwork like this is incredibly transparent.

Just stop. You're doing more harm to yourselves then good.

I own no CryptoNote coins whatsoever at the moment. I've traded some BBR and XMR on short time frames , trying to get in and out in time when they bubble.

Also,

Lukejr, if you're reading this. Do you really think it's possible for Bitcoin to integrate ring signatures? I assumed this was impossible.

Does anyone know if it's possbile to do such a thing? This is exciting news if it's plausable. My current view is that it's probably "possible" but completely unfeasable for a Bitcoin based technology to under go such a change.

Wow you should probably read the whole thread rather than the first post..

Another "senior" member who needs to point out he only invested a little, or traded XMR and has no horse in the race but feels the need to point out what a scam Cryptonote is, despite the first post being proven to be false. How many of you guys are in on the XMR pump and dump? Must be big money riding on this...