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

[othe]

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?  

Quazarcoin was even called MONERO before it was renamed to quazar, just to piss us off, so much for productivity.

Thanks for that; I didn't know that Monero became Quazarcoin. But maybe you aren't telling the whole story because I remember reading that there was a disagreement among developers and Monero forked to become Monero and Bitmonero. This often happens in free (as in freedom) software projects, so it is not surprising to me. If there is a fork I'm sure that both sides would like to keep the original name. Probably what happened was that Mr Seis, the Quazarcoin developer, had fewer developers on his side so he consented to change the name of his fork to Quazarcoin.

I don't know what all the issues were but do know that Quazarcoin has a longer emission curve than Monero. I personally support that decision because it makes the coin more stable.

No; i never said that.


The Quazarcoin guy wanted to launch it as Monero first, just to piss Monero off. At a time where Monero already existed.

And no, Bitmonero was likely started by the cryptonote scammers too, they are pissed that the community took over and renamed it to Monero.

There is already a longer emission curve in Boolberry, the only other Cryptonote coin with good development. And i don't think something with a < 6000 Usd marketcap (16 btc) and 0 btc volume can be called "stable" when it had a cap of 555.555 USD at some point.

[CoolGecko]

I've read the responses to my posts and don't see anything that I think would be provable against the Bytecoin developers. If they don't want to reveal their identity that is up to them; it's not a character fault. Remember that even Satoshi Yamamoto hasn't revealed his identity. For a few months I was working on Asiacoin as a developer. One time I revealed my identity to another developer and was advised against that, by the same developer. I'm not sure of the reason why, but think that people might be afraid of being sued by people that mine or buy the coin and lose money, even if it's not the developers fault. Frivolous lawsuits are common in the US. Often the victim will settle out of court to avoid the high court costs, even if innocent.  

Another thing that bothers me about this discussion is the fact that people are glad to accept and use all the work that the Bytecoin developers put into Cryptonote currencies and at the same time are saying that the Bytecoin developers are immoral. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem right. If you really believe that you have a moral high-ground over the Bytecoin developers you should develop your own cryptocurrency. That probably wouldn't be possible for most coins because there is a big difference between developing a cryptocoin from scratch and just maintaining one that was already developed and making minor improvements to it. Most developers wouldn't be up to the task.

[othe]

So you are saying its ok to scam people - as long as you use your own codebase for it? Makes sense, totally.
They decided to release it under MIT license, that was their decision - the license allows everything that has been done with the CN codebase. FACT.


In the end everything is based on Satoshis (And everyone else who contributed!) work anyway...

[Quicken]

CoolGecko - you understand the concept of open source right?

Open source software development and fraudulent activity are separate issues here.

[fluffypony]

I've read the responces to my posts and don't see anything that I think would be provable against the Bytecoin developers. If they don't want to reveal their identity that is up to them; it's not a character fault. Remember that even Satoshi Yamamoto hasn't revealed his identity. For a few months I was working on Asiacoin as a developer.

You misunderstand the difference between creating a new anonymous account and purchasing old accounts in order to look legit. The one action is perfectly legitimate, and there are several cryptocurrencies where that is the case. The other is borderline fraud.

Another thing that bothers me about this discussion is the fact that people are glad to accept and use all the work that the Bytecoin developers put into Cryptonote currencies and at the same time are saying that the Bytecoin developers are immoral. Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem right. If you really believe that you have a moral high-ground over the Bytecoin developers you should develop your own cryptocurrency. That probably wouldn't be possible for most coins because there is a big difference between developing a cryptocoin from scratch and just maintaining one that was already developed and making minor improvements to it. Most developers wouldn't be up to the task.

The CryptoNote developers did the work, NOT the Bytecoin developers. You're confused again.

Additionally, the CryptoNote developers developed the reference code precisely so that projects like Monero can be built using it: "It is a purely technological project which serves to enhance the cryptocurrencies ecosystem."

The Bytecoin developers slapped some lipstick on that and tried to get the community to kiss it, but the community rejected them. That does not diminish the hard work that the CryptoNote developers and academics have put into the original reference material.

Your continued implication that the Bytecoin developers were responsible for a codebase that is clearly marked as having been developed by the CryptoNote developers is the only thing happening that is blatantly immoral.

Well, that and the ongoing CryptoNote scams.

[CoolGecko]

The Quazarcoin guy wanted to launch it as Monero first, just to piss Monero off. At a time where Monero already existed.

Really, well all I can say is that he seems like a decent fellow to me. In fact, I like him better than some of the folks on this thread.

[fluffypony]

Really, well all I can say is that he seems like a decent fellow to me. In fact, I like him better than some of the folks on this thread.

Do you like his personality from before or after the account was sold to the current owner that launched QuazarCoin? Because clearly there are two different personalities and two different people.

[CoolGecko]

Your continued implication that the Bytecoin developers were responsible for a codebase that is clearly marked as having been developed by the CryptoNote developers is the only thing happening that is blatantly immoral.

Maybe you didn't read what I said in response to you above. It's my understanding that the Cryptonote developers and the Bytecoin developers were the same people, when the coin was being developed. I think that they may have formed separate teams now though. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Bytecoin developers didn't make the codebase before. I could be wrong as I don't know the history well. If you are right about this prove it to me.

[fluffypony]

Maybe you didn't read what I said in response to you above. It's my understanding that the Cryptonote developers and the Bytecoin developers were the same people, when the coin was being developed. I think that they may have formed separate teams now though. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Bytecoin developers didn't make the codebase before. I could be wrong as I don't know the history well. If you are right about this prove it to me.

If you look at the Bytecoin source code from the beginning it said "Copyright (c) 2012-2013 The Cryptonote developers". Here is an example from the May 4th 2014 initial commit - https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin/blob/296ae46ed8f8f6e5f986f978febad302e3df231a/src/cryptonote_config.h#L1

The point at which they changed it to say "Bytecoin developers" was August 13th, because even the previous commit (June 29th) still said "Cryptonote developers" on every file - https://github.com/amjuarez/bytecoin/blob/209e2356f54c5f93b8f6d6cf7810693e60b45a9e/src/cryptonote_core/tx_pool.cpp

The best thing for you to do is checkout the source code at that June 29th commit and see if they attribute anything to the Bytecoin developers. You will see they do not.

With regards to them being the same people, there used to be a topic on the CryptoNote forum called "Who Are You?" that they've since deleted (you can see it on archive.org as the fourth post down on the Philosophy sub-forum). Thankfully, Rias (a Bytecoin shill) wrote up a little FAQ where he referenced that deleted thread in answering a question -

Q: Are CN and BCN developers the same people?
A: Cryptonote's developers repeatedly refer to Bytecoin's devs as "them" and also indicate that they used to collaborate closely on the earlier stages, but currently two teams don't have direct connections [5].

[Febo]

Oh really? The developer says that the premine is 1.5%, and I tell the miners it's really 18% and I'm being disrespectful? You make me laugh. And for your information these "developers" hadn't spent hardly any time on these coins. Copy, change some variables, make up a bitcointalk page (with their lies) and launch the coin.

Lrn2sarcasm plx

You do realise that the CryptoNote developers did all the work, right? Which is why the original Bytecoin source says "Copyright the CryptoNote developers". More recently they changed the license and the copyright, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bytecoin developers just slapped a name on the CryptoNote developer's hard work, ghostmined 82%, and then tried to sell it as a fait accompli. There's even a thread on the CryptoNote forum somewhere where they mention the recent (at that stage) rift between themselves and the Bytecoin developers, I would imagine solely because the Bytecoin developers did nothing more than "copy, change some variables, make up a bitcointalk page (with their lies) and launch the coin".

It's my understanding that the CryptoNote developers and Bytecoin developers were the same people, though maybe now they formed separate groups.

I also read on Cryptonote Forum. Was said like this:
Current Cryptonote people and Bytecoin people worked close together on Cryptonote technology, but when Bytecoin people got interested only in coin aspect of technology they parted. And now works separated.
But it is as anything here, if you believe their words.

[Este Nuno]

Your continued implication that the Bytecoin developers were responsible for a codebase that is clearly marked as having been developed by the CryptoNote developers is the only thing happening that is blatantly immoral.

Maybe you didn't read what I said in response to you above. It's my understanding that the Cryptonote developers and the Bytecoin developers were the same people, when the coin was being developed. I think that they may have formed separate teams now though. I haven't seen anyone claim that the Bytecoin developers didn't make the codebase before. I could be wrong as I don't know the history well. If you are right about this prove it to me.

Cryptonote people have been denying that they were responsible for the Bytecoin scam for as long as I remember. We'll probably never know for sure what the details are behind that, who's who, how many people were involved ect. But the Cryptonote developers knew enough that in order to save any shred of credibility they had to publicly distance themselves from the Bytecoin scam.

[CoolGecko]

@fluffypony;

Thankyou for your response.

If they are the same people, changing what the copywrite says doesn't mean anything. If they are not the same people, it's possible that it was initially given to the Cryptonote developers, but both parties decided that it should go to the Bytecoin developers. There are several things that could have happened; we don't know.

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now. Them being separate entities in the past? It appears that they probably were, but it says that they worked closely together. Maybe some of the people where in both groups. We don't know; it's unclear. If they were separate entities and worked closely together, it's reasonable to say that both groups were involved in developing the basecode.

From the references you gave, to reach the conclusion that the Bytecoin developers took the Cryptonote developers code and don't deserve any credit for development seems pretty far fetched to me. Even if they don't deserve all the credit, they deserve part of the credit for sure. And usually the way it is, the persons who actually write the code or their employers get copywrite credit. So even if many of the ideas came from the Crytonote developers, if the Bytecoin developers actually wrote the code, the copywrites should be assigned to them. Copywrites are not given for ideas, they are given for actual code written. If the Crytonote developers wanted legal credit for their ideas, they would have had to patent them. That could have been the reason why the copywrite was changed.

[pa]

@fluffypony;

Thankyou for your response.

If they are the same people, changing what the copywrite says doesn't mean anything. If they are not the same people, it's possible that it was initially given to the Cryptonote developers, but both parties decided that it should go to the Bytecoin developers. There are several things that could have happened; we don't know.

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now. Them being separate entities in the past? It appears that they probably were, but it says that they worked closely together. Maybe some of the people where in both groups. We don't know; it's unclear. If they were separate entities and worked closely together, it's reasonable to say that both groups were involved in developing the basecode.

From the references you gave, to reach the conclusion that the Bytecoin developers took the Cryptonote developers code and don't deserve any credit for development seems pretty far fetched to me. Even if they don't deserve all the credit, they deserve part of the credit for sure. And usually the way it is, the persons who actually write the code or their employers get copywrite credit. So even if many of the ideas came from the Crytonote developers, if the Bytecoin developers actually wrote the code, the copywrites should be assigned to them. Copywrites are not given for ideas, they are given for actual code written. If the Crytonote developers wanted legal credit for their ideas, they would have had to patent them. That could have been the reason why the copywrite was changed.

What "credit" are they looking for? If they want fame and status, it would help if they identified themselves, told the truth about the beginnings of cryptonote/bytecoin, and answered some tough questions. Instead, what we get is a puppet show and obfuscation. If they want money and a share in the future of cryptonote technology, nothing is stopping them from buying XMR. It's on sale.

[CoolGecko]

@fluffypony;

Thankyou for your response.

If they are the same people, changing what the copywrite says doesn't mean anything. If they are not the same people, it's possible that it was initially given to the Cryptonote developers, but both parties decided that it should go to the Bytecoin developers. There are several things that could have happened; we don't know.

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now. Them being separate entities in the past? It appears that they probably were, but it says that they worked closely together. Maybe some of the people where in both groups. We don't know; it's unclear. If they were separate entities and worked closely together, it's reasonable to say that both groups were involved in developing the basecode.

From the references you gave, to reach the conclusion that the Bytecoin developers took the Cryptonote developers code and don't deserve any credit for development seems pretty far fetched to me. Even if they don't deserve all the credit, they deserve part of the credit for sure. And usually the way it is, the persons who actually write the code or their employers get copywrite credit. So even if many of the ideas came from the Crytonote developers, if the Bytecoin developers actually wrote the code, the copywrites should be assigned to them. Copywrites are not given for ideas, they are given for actual code written. If the Crytonote developers wanted legal credit for their ideas, they would have had to patent them. That could have been the reason why the copywrite was changed.

What "credit" are they looking for? If they want fame and status, it would help if they identified themselves, told the truth about the beginnings of cryptonote/bytecoin, and answered some tough questions. Instead, what we get is a puppet show and obfuscation. If they want money and a share in the future of cryptonote technology, nothing is stopping them from buying XMR. It's on sale.

I hope you are not suggesting that THEY want credit. I never said that. One person in this thread unfairly said that they don't any deserve credit for the codebase. I corrected her. And as for not revealing their identities, please read my following post where I explain why they might not want to do that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.msg9727717#msg9727717

I'm out of here.

[btc-mike]

@CoolGecko - I'm wondering why you dig up this thread almost four months later. When it was originally posted, there was lots of debate. I believe the only thing coming out of that debate was more damaging info.

Your initial post said that "rethink-your-strategy should be embarrassed by this thread." I was never fond of the poster, but there are a LOT of facts in his post. All conclusions are based on fact that everyone, including yourself can verify. Based on those facts, most find it hard to believe that the original CryptoNote/Bytecoin players were up to anything good.
 

[smooth]

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now.

It is hardly clear at all.

Given how the cryptonote folks continue to support the false story about Bytecoin being 2 years old, made various changes to their web site to try to cover up the document forgeries (supported by identified shill accounts also associated with Bytecoin), other implausible claims, and a few other reasons documented in this thread,it is likely they are the very same scammers after all.

Also, its copyright not copywrite, but that's the least of your misunderstandings of how intellectual property actually works.

Thank you for bumping the thread though. It is helpful to remind people that these scammers are still out there and probably still pumping out new scam coins.

Also, nobody cares about their identities, really. The only real relevance of identities here is the observation that the scammers are operating a bunch of different shill coins, a bunch of different shill web sites, and generally polluting the environment with their not-so-obvious scams. So unless you are prepared to do the level of research and fact checking that OP did here (and I'm certainly not), you have no chance to know whether you are dealing with one of the coin mill scam coins or not unless you deal with people who actually have a reputation of being legit. Even then, there is no guarantee you will uncover every scam. It is unfortunate, for example, that you got tricked into thinking that Quazarcoin was a sincere effort and that the developer was actually a cool guy instead of a scammer buying an account as part of a fleet of shill coins. It happens.

[btc-mike]

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now.

They more they proclaim "Separate", the more it seems they are "Same".

[Eastwind]

As far as them being separate entities, it's pretty clear that they are separate entities now.

They more they proclaim "Separate", the more it seems they are "Same".

True. Do we know any of them?

[runpaint]

I read the entire thread.  Posts synced.

[NemesisT]

There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifier, which according to the comment is "Bender's nightmare" (hurr durr, such funny, 11100111110001011011001210110110 has a 2 in it). Now this may be a little bit of conjecture, yo, but the same comment appears twice in the "epee" contributed library, once in the levin signature, and again in the portable storage signature. The contexts are so disconnected and different that it would be a fucking stretch to imagine that the same person did not write both of these. We can also rule out this being a Bytecoin-specific change, as the "Bender's nightmare" comments exist in the original epee library on github (which is completely unused anywhere on the planet except in Bytecoin, most unusual for a library that has any usefulness, and was first committed to github on February 9, 2014).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=887482.0
https://github.com/cryptobender/lui