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

[tacotime]

Im about to start a CryptoNote clone, Breakoutcoin, just for the ring-signature feature. The only thing that concerns me from this thread is the speculation that there may be backdoors in the core code.

Has there been a real code review either by Monero or others?

From when I first discovered CryptoNote, I couldn't figure out why it wasn't taken more seriously? Why the need for darkcoin and all, when CN does it all in the blockchain?

Yeah, exactly, btw no backdoors found so far, you can read technical details here: https://lab.monero.cc/

Thanks. also, do you know if CN uses the same elliptical curves as bitcoin for private/public keys that make up addresses? 

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30911/how-to-convert-from-bitcoin-address-to-cryptonote

No, it uses EdDSA which are Schnorr signatures (provably secure under the random oracle model, unlike secp256k1)

[tacotime]

sounds safe lol

is there anything wrong with the POW

It's extremely slow. Verifying with only a single CPU core on a modern Intel CPU, it takes almost two hours just to verify the current blockchain. You can verify the Bitcoin blockchain in seconds.

[jaybny]

Yeah, exactly, btw no backdoors found so far, you can read technical details here: https://lab.monero.cc/

Whats this refering to?

https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2014-09-30/?msg=22605681&page=4

im wondering the same thing. maybe its a backdoor for faster GPU mining?

[Oscilson]

Maybe the mining for some people is very low.

[smooth]

Yeah, exactly, btw no backdoors found so far, you can read technical details here: https://lab.monero.cc/

Whats this refering to?

https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2014-09-30/?msg=22605681&page=4

im wondering the same thing. maybe its a backdoor for faster GPU mining?

A snarky FUDish comment as far as I can tell.

The original code could have clearly be considered a back door in that it was deoptimized and obfuscated as discussed in this very thread and dga's blog post here but both were fixed months ago.

There is a valid argument for not making a PoW very complex for fear of backdoors, but aside from the code having originally been obfuscated this one really isn't. It is just: lookup in table, round of AES encryption, write to table, lookup in table, do a multiply-add, write to table, repeat (some XORs omitted for simplicity). Dga has written a few bitcointalk posts on the design of it here and there, but I don't have links to them handy; some might be on this thread.

The trade off here is slow verification in exchange for a low GPU performance ratio and a hypothesized low FPGA/ASIC performance ratio. Whether that is a useful trade off or is even correct for the latter cases remains to be seen. Experiment in progress.

[bluemeanie1]

We all know all altcoins are pump and dump, this is nothing new.

My question is, how are you benefiting from revealing the "truth"?

nothing compares to NXT in this department.

[gmaxwell]

No, it uses EdDSA which are Schnorr signatures (provably secure under the random oracle model, unlike secp256k1)

The wires are a bit crossed there. secp256k1 is just a curve choice, schnorr signatures work fine using the secp256k1.  You should have said "unlike ecdsa".  Ecdsa is well the well studied enormously widely deployed patent dodge that avoids the schnorr patents (that only expired moderately recently).

[CoolGecko]

rethink-your-strategy should be embarrassed by this thread. The Bytecoin developers, no doubt, have put enormous effort into developing Cryptonote. They have in past and continue to be the ones who are doing most of the work. They have made their work open source so that others can build on top of it. And somehow they are trying to cheat people?

Other coins like Monero and Quazarcoin are using the code developed by Bytecoin and that is OK; the license permits that. But don't pretend that the Monero developers are morally better.

Complex code like this takes years to develop and I appreciate the Bytecoin developer's efforts. It's refreshing to be involved in Cryptonote after seeing so many bitcoin clones that have no innovation at all, but are produced only to enrich the developer.

[smooth]

rethink-your-strategy should be embarrassed by this thread.

Total bullshit.

There is no reason to be embarrassed about uncovering and calling out fraud, lies, shills (including shlll clone coins), forged documents, hidden premines, and other scam tactics.

Interesting and useful cryptography and some coding does not excuse being a scammer. (Nor does being a scammer invalidate the technical work, and I think the OP pointed out exactly that.)

Other coins like Monero and Quazarcoin are using the code developed by Bytecoin and that is OK; the license permits that. But don't pretend that the Monero developers are morally better.

They (we) are morally better because we have not engaged in shilling, forgery, lies, and other forms of fraud.

You are apparently so morally blind that you can't see the difference. You should fit right in to the overall altcoin scene I suppose.

BTW, Quazarcoin very likely a shill coin with a developer using a purchased account, as the OP pointed out. I have no idea what is going on with QCN now, but it certainly appears the developer has gone to the usual coin mill scam caretaker tactic (checks in occasionally, says and does approximately nothing, and then disappears for extended periods) that I pointed out earlier in this thread, even before the fact.

[solid12345]

The crypto community has a strange way of viewing what is fair and what is not.

if the Bytecoin devs today sold off all of their premined coins of the technology they invented now for a million dollars, its a scam.

However let's pretend Monero goes to a billion dollar market cap a year from now and the devs own 5% of the supply and they make off with 50 million dollars, well suddenly that is "fair" because they mined it even though they never invented anything really.

Personally I think the word "fair" means little around here. To me for example, Bryce Weiner cloning Neutrinocoin and stamping it with his logo was not in the interest of creating a "fair" neutrinocoin but a weasely way for Bryce and his coinmarket crew to get rich by ripping off neutrino with the cloak of altruism while they super mine it in its opening days. Who is going to stand up and defend those Neutrino crooks after all, there is no honor among thieves.

I operate under the assumption everyone has a selfish agenda.

fyi I don't own any cryptonote coins.

[CoolGecko]

@smooth
No, Monero is not morally better. In fact, I'm disgusted by the way some Monero people have been attacking other Cryptonote coins, not just bytecoin but also Quazarcoin. If you are a Monero developer, isn't it more productive to work on improving your own coin than attacking other coins?  

[smooth]

No, you are not morally better. In fact, I'm disgusted by the way some Monero people have been attacking other Cryptonote coins, not just bytecoin but also Quazarcoin. If you are a Monero developer, isn't it more productive to work on improving your own coin than attacking other coins?  

Looking at the github history (and everything else) for Monero and Quazarcoin speaks for itself.

Pointing out the truth is not attacking.

Stop trying to obfuscate and promote an obvious scam (or extension of a scam) coin and there won't be it won't be to clarify reality.

I'd have more respect for what you are doing if you simply started a new coin with a clean and transparent history rather than trying to rehabilitate the QCN scam. (Assuming you aren't one of the many alts of the original scammers), how much QCN did you buy at rock bottom prices before trying to pump it?

[CoolGecko]

@Smooth:
I don't hold many Quazarcoins or other coins, so that's not an issue for me. But I am working on improving the user interface in my own limited way. For me the learning experience is more important than actually profiting from the coins.

[CoolGecko]

I operate under the assumption everyone has a selfish agenda.

fyi I don't own any cryptonote coins.

If you operate under that assumption, you'll USUALLY be right. But people aren't always selfish. I'm sure that there must be cryptocoin developers out there who are in it because they are creative and enjoy creating new things and making their ideas work. And there must be some who believe that cryptocurrencies, not controlled by governments, are a better way forward than government printed money.

[smooth]

The crypto community has a strange way of viewing what is fair and what is not.

if the Bytecoin devs today sold off all of their premined coins of the technology they invented now for a million dollars, its a scam.

However let's pretend Monero goes to a billion dollar market cap a year from now and the devs own 5% of the supply and they make off with 50 million dollars, well suddenly that is "fair" because they mined it even though they never invented anything really.

Personally I think the word "fair" means little around here. To me for example, Bryce Weiner cloning Neutrinocoin and stamping it with his logo was not in the interest of creating a "fair" neutrinocoin but a weasely way for Bryce and his coinmarket crew to get rich by ripping off neutrino with the cloak of altruism while they super mine it in its opening days. Who is going to stand up and defend those Neutrino crooks after all, there is no honor among thieves.

I operate under the assumption everyone has a selfish agenda.

fyi I don't own any cryptonote coins.

It''s not about selfish and and fair, it is about fraud, deceptive tactics, and lies.

If you find something that the Monero developers have said that isn't true, point it out. If we claimed that Monero was launched in April 18 but actually you find out that it was really launched on October 18 and we premined six months worth of coins in secret, go ahead and call us out for it. If you find that we are operating a half dozen or more other coins under shill identities, call us out for that. If we publish documents that claim to be from 2012 (including alleged digital signatures from 2012) but reference forum posts that didn't exist until 2013, go ahead and prove to everyone what liars and scammers we are.

If you you think that what Bytecoin/Cryptonote did was "fair" or that "fair" doesn't matter, that's your business. I don't even necessarily disagree that "fair" is a largely subjective and often meaningless concept. But if you think Bytecoins/Cryptonote wasn't operating in a fraudulent and deceptive manner (and got caught), then you are simply mistaken.

[smooth]

@Smooth:
I don't hold many Quazarcoins or other coins, so that's not an issue for me. But I am working on improving the user interface in my own limited way. For me the learning experience is more important than actually profiting from the coins.

I commend you for working on something as a learning experience, though of course I can't be sure what you say is true (though in reality it doesn't matter).

None of that means the OP of this thread should be "embarrassed" for the huge amount of work he put into uncovering all this stuff and pulling all the details together. I have a particular appreciation for it because I was active on the Bytecoin thread from the beginning and I saw a lot of the lies. I recognized that it was likely a load of crap but I couldn't really prove it. I had no idea about some of the other stuff, like fake whitepapers and shill coins, but it doesn't surprise me at all given what I saw.

[CoolGecko]

@Smooth:
I don't hold many Quazarcoins or other coins, so that's not an issue for me. But I am working on improving the user interface in my own limited way. For me the learning experience is more important than actually profiting from the coins.

I commend you for working on something as a learning experience, though of course I can't be sure what you say is true (though in reality it doesn't matter).

None of that means the OP of this thread should be "embarrassed" for the huge amount of work he put into uncovering all this stuff and pulling all the details together. I have a particular appreciation for it because I was active on the Bytecoin thread from the beginning and I saw a lot of the lies. I recognized that it was likely a load of crap but I couldn't really prove it. I had no idea about some of the other stuff, like fake whitepapers and shill coins, but it doesn't surprise me at all given what I saw.

What I do know is that there is much baloney being spread around, so I don't take much of what people say very seriously.

These things I know are real: I know that the Bytecoin developers are the ones who developed Cryptonote coins. I am a software developer myself, and I know that this technology didn't appear overnight; it must have taken them years to develop it.

While they were developing and perfecting it, they mined a lot of coins, most of the Bytecoins that will ever be circulated. They could have just thrown all their old coins out and started with a new blockchain when the coin was released, so they aren't saints. But they are not villains either, they gave the world a new cryptocoin technology, better than bitcoin in several ways.

If the Bytecoin developers were selfish they would have patented the technology, so that no one else could use it, but they didn't do that. Instead, they released it as free-software so that others can use it to create their own coins and build on it.

The original poster seemed to be concerned that the Bytecoin developers aren't well known. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether they are known or not. The fact is they did something good.

[smooth]

While they were developing and perfecting it, they mined a lot of coins, most of the Bytecoins that will ever be circulated. They could have just thrown all their old coins out and started with a new blockchain when the coin was released, so they aren't saints. But they are not villains either, they gave the world a new cryptocoin technology, better than bitcoin in several ways.

You have strange definitions if you think people lying, forging documents, operating as shills, and and other disreputable methods "aren't saints. But they aren't villains either" I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion but I view people who try to commit that kind of fraud on the community as being villains.

Yes the technology is good. As open source, the world is free to use as we see fit, and they deserve to be respected for the technology and the open source release, although I really don't believe their goals were noble at all. I think they just felt that it gave their secretly 82%-premined coin a better chance to make them rich. A closed source coin would likely go nowhere (a few have tried).

Use as we see fit includes creating new coins that have nothing to do with their underhanded schemes/scams.

If you really want to work on a "learning experience" I'd suggest you do just that and stop wasting your time with "Quazarcoin" which hasn't really added anything to this process at all.

BTW, you don't really know the Bytecoin promoters are the ones who developed the Cryptonote technology (unless you know more than you are letting on). Maybe they bought it or something?

The original poster seemed to be concerned that the Bytecoin developers aren't well known. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass whether they are known or not. The fact is they did something good.

I guess different people can read different things out of the post. I read more about what they did than who they are. But then since I was there paying close attention (and pointing out a few contradictions) when they were trying to pull off the scam, I may have had more interest in that part of it.

[CoolGecko]

If you really want to work on a "learning experience" I'd suggest you do just that and stop wasting your time with "Quazarcoin" which hasn't really added anything to this process at all.

So now I'm wasting my time? I was under the impression that you are a developer, but I guess I was wrong. Don't you realize that if I develop a HTML wallet for Quazarcoin, that the same wallet could be used , with minor modifications, on other cryptonote coins as well? The API is the same.

I think you are the same person who goes to the Quazarcoin threads and trashtalks Quazarcoin. Honestly, I like the developer. When the likes of you come and starts trashtalking, he tries to make peace and advises the posters not to fight. I don't know how good of a developer he is, but definitely like him as a person. He has the right idea.

If you think that trashtalking other coins is going to help Monero, think again. To me it's just low and makes me not want to associate with Monero. But I'm not going to judge a whole community based on my negative experience with some and say that all the Monero people are like that.

[smooth]

If you really want to work on a "learning experience" I'd suggest you do just that and stop wasting your time with "Quazarcoin" which hasn't really added anything to this process at all.

So now I'm wasting my time? I was under the impression that you are a developer, but I guess I was wrong. Don't you realize that if I develop a HTML wallet for Quazarcoin, that the same wallet could be used , with minor modifications, on other cryptonote coins as well? The API is the same.

Yes I'm well aware that the coins use largely the same API. I also complemented your effort in working on a learning project.

I think you are the same person who goes to the Quazarcoin threads and trashtalks Quazarcoin.

If I've commented about Quazarcoin at all, it was giving what I believe to be correct information, not trashtalking. For example, someone on there asked a little while ago if the changes pushed by the Quazarcoin developer during his most recent short appearance were the same as the changes from the cyptonotecoin repo, and I indicated that they were. I may have also pointed out that there isn't any actual development going on there, only caretaking (I think in response to a question). For example in the form of merging changes from cryptonotecoin without explaining their origin, leaving the impression that actual original development was being done. If that kind of accurate information is trashtalking to you, then so be it. More likely it is the reality that makes you uncomfortable, and you blame me for pointing it out to you (ignorance is bliss).

I'm responding to you here because I happen to think you are way off base attacking the original poster who did a ton of hard work to uncover and document a rather sophisticated fraud effort.

I still don't see any of this as trash talking, but to each his own I guess.