To clarify a bit what fluffypony explained, what you see on the project master (trunk) are commits that were merged there from other forks (moneromooo's fork in the case of the new transfer_split algorithm) via pull requests. That isn't obvious in the commit list (the commits themselves look the same), although the merge also shows up as a later commit.

To conclude my stint as interloper…

Thanks to all of you for your invaluable time and patience. I am quite aware I may have stepped out-of-line from time-to-time but that’s what people like us do: step out-of-line. We are all free thinkers or at least should be, and we can congratulate ourselves

I have been reading into the cryptonote, bytecoin and monero story for almost a month and there is yet much reading left. Sufficed to say I have reached no firm conclusions, save one. Most important is the continued development of anonymous digital currencies for the betterment of man. As such I look forward to seeing the next crypto innovations, whoever creates them.

In brief what I found perhaps most surprising in this is that both fluffypony and smooth are convinced the cryptonote team is in cahoots with the bytecoin team. For me this raises lots of questions which I wont bore you with now, save one:

Does monero's attack on bytecoin purpose to destroy the future of arguably the most innovative anonymous crypto-currency ever developed? (especially because the cryptonote and bytecoin teams may well be the same or consist of some of the same members). If so, at what cost?

I'd like to see monero stand on its own without feeling the need to bash bytecoin in order to prop itself up. I read GingerAle's welcome to monero text which was mostly good besides the gratuitous shiv in bytecoin.

There may be an irony in all of this. By the time the world hears about monero it'll be at least 80% mined (if it isn't already). Whist you were "open' about your launch this coin has been mostly mined by small circles of people, perhaps not much larger than those presumably small circles who quietly mined bytecoin. What may be of most significance (or should be) is the security, quality and usability of the product. Their histories may prove not to be as important to those seeking privacy as to those seeking privacy in monero. You may say they might be able to de-anon tx's but their distro is always improving (presumably) and your distro is not demonstrably better. The shift from suspicion of guilt to certain guilt and lynch mobs without hard-proof is unsettling to me and I think monero should consider not firing off the rethink-your-strategy post so liberally when without all the facts at hand even smooth admits is prone to error.

I'll continue to watch both projects (and Shadow) and their development.

Best wishes.

A "need" which you've invented in a transparent attempt to straw-man Monero into some kind of malicious intent.

Calling out an apparent premine fraud is not an "attack' (nor is forking, as iCEBREAKER correctly points out) and as I've explained before, you still have the history entirely backwards: The suspicions, investigations, and challenges of Bytecoin's history are not the product of Monero, Monero is the project of those concerns.

Most of us started out as intrigued by the Bytecoin technology and story and only decided to fork it (and support the fork) once it became apparent that story was bullshit, and its promoters had by then lost the support and confidence of the community.


Monero will be 82% mined a bit under 4 years after launch (not really though, since there are perpetual rewards, so no one will ever feel it is "too late" to mine). If no one has heard of it by then, we'll have done something very wrong, or perhaps done our best but it just didn't work out anyway. In fact a lot of people have heard of Monero, even now, a year or so after launch.

More importantly, though, they will hear about a first four years that were a transparent project, open to any willing participants, with a verifiable history. Which is to say it won't look like a non-transparent likely fraud that will impair its success forever.

Maybe that has already been done

LOL, every new Release I have to spend time removing unwanted and unvetted closed source services. XP is more secure than any newer M$ release. Relying on M$ and their backdoor updates is retarded in the extreme.

On another note.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/24/uk-met-police-snowden-investigation-journalists/

I took a look and this code is beyond me. I am way behind the curve these days. Can someone explain what Data extra contains?

Thanks, from what I could see that contains very sensitiveness material and should be monitored for any unvetted forwarding. I just don't have the skills to see if that gets snuck in anywhere.

Is there a basic breakdown list of all variables, methods/functions/procedures descriptions and a block diagram available?

Bummer, without those there is no way I could catch up with the amount of time I'm able to invest. :|

This is the only coin so far I've cared enough about to even look at the code.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of sensitive data being redirected. I know I would use that vector if I wanted to uncover that info. I certainly would not broadcast erroneous packets to alert the network. But like I said, I'm not up to the code anymore and haven't protected networks in 15 years so I'm so far behind the curve I would probably be useless even if I did catch up.

Doxygen is supported. It can generate docs and graphs which is better than nothing, but to be really useful requires annotations, which mostly don't exist. Adding them is a good project, but the issue is that incorrect annotations are probably worse than none at all, and to add correct ones require that you already understand how the code works...

Attacking this in bite-size pieces is somewhat feasible though. So i someone feels qualified to understand how some of the code works, pull requests to add annotations are a great way to contribute.

Intro here: http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/manual/docblocks.html