Agree, but mining it 'in closed private circles for several months' is faking it considering that it claimed to be two years old, and 'closed private circles' for whatever period of time constitutes a premine by definition (mined before public release).

Furthermore, the premise that the cryptographic and programming experts who developed the original technology couldn't do even the most basic of optimizations (or more likely de-unoptimizations) on the mining code they invented over several months (much less two years) is completely implausible. It is likewise implausible even that independent 'mining teams' not directly associated with the original inventors wouldn't have optimized it at least to some degree, leading to a much higher hash rate, which is not seen on the (faked) blockchain.

The reason no such evidence of these optimizations/un-deoptimizations exists is most plausibly that they were actually running un-deoptimzied code on a very small number of computers over a small period of time to fake the whole thing.


(Putting aside for the moment that your statement reads as "there are no facts at hand except [the facts at hand]"...)

There are many facts at hand, including the first hand reports from many of us who were around at the time and saw the whole clumsily but obviously orchestrated "discovery" of BCN on a dead coin thread, the entire charade of a "message" from Cicada 3301 (100% fake), and all the rest of an obvious altcoin premine scam from the era that was the peak of the altcoin premine scams. The whole thing was a fraud from start to finish, and there are countless first hand reports of it. Moreover there is a lot of "facts at hand" in the rethink-your-strategy post (and various replies on that thread, including attempts to "refute" it from outed sock-puppet and purchased accounts) besides just the whitepaper forensics, all of which point to fraud and scamming. If you don't see it, you are being willfully blind or obstinately contrary.

1. There a few "facts at hand". I should have said few.
2. Im not sure how u can claim it was a scam from "start to finish". GingerAle's remembered theory of a rift in the original team seems plausible
3. am i being "obstinately contrary"? quite possibly, but im learning a lot. thanks

4. Q How much Bitcoin was mined in "private circles" before the launch of bitcointalk and/or a wider mining community

5. smooth, u know ur stuff - kudos.
Q. clearly owning 80% of a CN coin allows de-anon (is this proven byw?). my final question is, in ur opinion what is the minimum amount required to achieve a 50% chance de-anon'ing tx's. could one "crash the plane" with 50%?

6. who is rethink-your-strategy? when i google "bytecoin scam" it all points to his original post.

many many thanks for ur inputs


@kazuki - thanks for this post… interesting. the part emboldened is why i began looking into this. as i said before i assumed BCN was dead.



No intention here to shill BCN. Just replying. thanks. Luckily the "opening lid" thread has sparked up and we can move things over there. Pls quote this post over there if u wish. cheers.

Neato.  I wonder what his intentions/interest are?

There is no specific set amount, but 80% is very high. It is a question of probabilities. Someone who controls e.g. 80% has a high probability to control all of the mixins of any new transaction and therefore know which is the real one (since it is the only one that isn't theirs). With a mix of 5+1 that 80% owner will be able to trace about 33% of new transactions. In that same situation someone who owns 20% (still a lot in any remotely reasonably distributed coin) would only be able to trace 0.032% of new transactions, so obviously that is a huge difference.


No, because such a vow could never be verified or enforced, and furthermore you don't need to sell it, just share information about it. There is certainly no possibility of confidence as long as someone is in a position to do that in an invisible and undetectable manner.

The only protection against this vulnerability is for the coin to be launched, traded, and mined, in a public process where market dynamics and transparency give anyone observing the process reasonable confidence that such disproprtionate control is unlikely or impossible. The best way for major stakeholders to do that is to just hold a significant portion themselves, which is far easier to do when distribution is fair and gradual.

As long as there is a significant number of people doing this (as there is in any well-launched, and well-distributed coin such as Bitcoin or Monero), there is an exceedingly small likelihood of anyone controlling an unacceptably large portion (for example, as above, 80% vs. 20% or less).

Quoted message trimmed for brevity and relevance.

preposterous as it sounds the statement it seems to me is true. bytecoin scam or no bytecoin scam. as I say Ill now look to see the last 12 months+ trading history to see if it has already been disproved by large% sales.

why stop giving me the benefit of the doubt after my most curious insight thus far that arguably a CN coin's anon cannot be safeguarded unless a large % is never sold on exchanges or mined by bad actors or both, and (very tentatively, perhaps regrettably) provides BCN with a justification for a premine.

understand this is purely a thought-experment. i am not vouching for anything here.

By repeating false enough times, it surely becomes true, no? 

dnaleor played some agar.io again today

because im involved in the missives, I guess I can speak up. We record them. I edit them. People transcribe them. And then they sit in a magical digital incubator until the moon turns the proper shade of purple and enough animal un-sacrifices are made (thats when you set up animals to breed. The Monero gods are pro-life. So go find some turtles and put on some Barry White)

re: database testing. The latest bug that my daemon keeps hitting is some threading issue. Anybody have any experience debugging threading problems?

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/issues/328

Because you are acting as a BCN apologist.  You are trying to stretch reason to the point of snapping to defend an 80% premine.

Why would you be doing this?  I can only think of a couple reasons.  The one you are portraying is that of "honest curiosity".

You will not often see me accuse a poster of attempting to pump a coin...  I am getting close though.