Bitcoin And Cryptocurrency Bootcamp Udemy Download Free

I made my own Blockchain in Java (Part 2) now with Source Code!

Hello all! Same guy that posted about a Java Bitcoin Address Generator. I've completed my blockchain mockup and I couldn't be happier with it. Although it doesn't have persistent state and doesn't use new addresses as Change addresses (since the wallets are not HD, just single-keypair wallets), I learned a lot from doing this.
It really does help to understand the complexity of cryptocurrencies when you try to make it from scratch by yourself. There's a ton of security behind bitcoin, and some of it may seem absurd (SHA-256 hashing into RIPEMD-160 into 2x SHA-256 like Damn... all for a checksum).
If you want to mess around with the program, I've uploaded it to Github (Link here). It's a functioning wallet-type program that has Accounts you can switch between where each account has its own KeyPair that you can then send and receive funds to. There is a block reward for mining new blocks that is distributed from the "coinbase" wallet.
NOTE: This is intended to be for educational purposes and should in no way be considered a real cryptocurrency/blockchain. It only runs for the time you have it open and loses all information when closed. The addresses it generates ARE valid bitcoin addresses that you can use, but do so at your own risk and know what you're doing. There is no seed for the addresses that are generated.
submitted by Septem_151 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Showerthought] If bitcoin followed litecoin's protocol from the beginning, where would it be today? And where would LTC be today?

Question is mainly in the title. I am not a programmer, but have basic understanding of the fundamentals. For those of you who don't know, main differences are as follows: Bitcoin: 1 Block takes (approximately) 10 minutes to finish mining. No more than 21 million BTC will exist. Follows SHA-256 Protocol Protocol was written using C++
Litecoin: 1 Block takes 2 minutes 30 seconds to finish mining. No more than 84 million will exist. Coded (according to github) using Go, JavaScript, Java, Shell, and Python Follows Scrypt Hash algorithm.
So my question is, "If bitcoin was intended to have a max of 84 million, written in all the languages litecoin is written in, follows the same hash algorithm as litecoin, and all the other stuff litecoin has, would it be less successful or more successful?"
Additionally: What would Charlie Lee have coded back in the day if BTC followed modern LTC's github? a max supply of 336,000,000 LTC? A would it be LTC of a different form that we see today?
submitted by sgtslaughterTV to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero) - Reformatted for Reddit

Original post by rethink-your-strategy on Bitcointalk.org here
This post has been reformatted to share on Reddit. What once was common knowledge, is now gone. You want a quality history lesson? Share this like wildfire.
August 15, 2014, 08:15:37 AM

Preamble

I'd like to start off by stating categorically that the cryptography presented by CryptoNote is completely, entirely solid. It has been vetted and looked over by fucking clever cryptographers/developers/wizards such as gmaxwell. Monero have had a group of independent mathematicians and cryptographers peer-reviewing the whitepaper (their annotations are here, and one of their reviews is here), and this same group of mathematicians and cryptographers is now reviewing the implementation of the cryptography in the Monero codebase. Many well known Bitcoin developers have already had a cursory look through the code to establish its validity. It is safe to say that, barring more exotic attacks that have to be mitigated over time as they are invented/discovered, and barring a CryptoNote implementation making rash decisions to implement something that reduces the anonymity set, the CryptoNote currencies are all cryptographically unlinkable and untraceable.
Two other things I should mention. I curse a lot when I'm angry (and scams like this make me angry). Second, where used my short date format is day/month/year (smallest to biggest).
If you find this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.

The Alleged CryptoNote/Bytecoin Story

CryptoNote is a new cryptocurrency protocol. It builds on some of the Bitcoin founding principles, but it adds to them. There are aspects of it that are truly well thought through and, in a sense, quite revolutionary. CryptoNote claim to have started working on their project years ago after Bitcoin's release, and I do not doubt the validity of this claim...clearly there's a lot of work and effort that went into this. The story as Bytecoin and CryptoNote claim it to be is as follows:
They developed the code for the principles expressed in their whitepaper, and in April, 2012, they released Bytecoin. All of the copyright messages in Bytecoin's code are "copyright the CryptoNote Developers", so clearly they are one and the same as the Bytecoin developers. In December 2012, they released their CryptoNote v1 whitepaper. In September 2013, they released their CryptoNote v2 whitepaper. In November 2013, the first piece of the Bytecoin code was first pushed to Github by "amjuarez", with a "Copyright (c) 2013 amjuarez" copyright notice. This was changed to "Copyright (c) 2013 Antonio Juarez" on March 3rd, 2014. By this juncture only the crypto libraries had been pushed up to github. Then, on March 4th, 2014, "amjuarez" pushed the rest of the code up to github, with the README strangely referring to "cybernote", even though the code referred to "Cryptonote". The copyrights all pointed to "the Cryptonote developers", and the "Antonio Juarez" copyright and license file was removed. Within a few days, "DStrange" stumbled across the bytecoin.org website when trying to mine on the bte.minefor.co.in pool (a pool for the-other-Bytecoin, BTE, not the-new-Bytecoin, BCN), and the rest is history as we know it. By this time Bytecoin had had a little over 80% of its total emission mined.

Immediate Red Flags

The first thing that is a red flag in all of this is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, is a known entity. "Antonio Juarez" is not a known entity, "DStrange" is not a known entity, none of the made up names on the Bytecoin website exist (they've since removed their "team" page, see below), none of the made up names on the CryptoNote website exist (Johannes Meier, Maurice Planck, Max Jameson, Brandon Hawking, Catherine Erwin, Albert Werner, Marec Plíškov). If they're pseudonyms, then say so. If they're real names, then who the fuck are they??? Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are well known - they have published papers or at least have commented on articles of interest. Many of them have their own github repos and Twitter feeds, and are a presence in the cryptocurrency community.
The other immediate red flag is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, had heard of Bytecoin. Those that had heard of it thought it was the crummy SHA-256 Bitcoin clone that was a flop in the market. Bytecoin's claim that it had existed "on the deep web" for 2 years was not well received, because not a single vendor, user, miner, drug addict, drug seller, porn broker, fake ID card manufacturer, student who bought a fake ID card to get into bars, libertarian, libertard, cryptographer, Tor developer, Freenet developer, i2p developer, pedophile, or anyone else that is a known person - even just known on the Internet - had ever encountered "Bytecoin" on Tor. Ever. Nobody.

Indisputable Facts

Before I start with some conjecture and educated guesswork, I'd like to focus on an indisputable fact that obliterates any trust in both Bytecoin's and CryptoNote's bullshit story. Note, again, that I do not doubt the efficacy of the mathematics and cryptography behind CryptoNote, nor do I think there are backdoors in the code. What I do know for a fact is that the people behind CryptoNote and Bytecoin have actively deceived the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, and that makes them untrustworthy now and in the future. If you believe in the fundamentals in CryptoNote, then you need simply use a CryptoNote-derived cryptocurrency that is demonstrably independent of CryptoNote and Bytecoin's influence. Don't worry, I go into this a little later.
So as discussed, there were these two whitepapers that I linked to earlier. Just in case they try remove them, here is the v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper mirrored on Archive.org. This v1/v2 whitepaper thing has been discussed at length on the Bytecoin forum thread, and the PGP signature on the files has been confirmed as being valid. When you open the respective PDFs you'll notice the valid signatures in them:
signature in the v1 whitepaper
signature in the v2 whitepaper
These are valid Adobe signatures, signed on 15/12/2012 and 17/10/2013 respectively. Here's where it gets interesting. When we inspect this file in Adobe Acrobat we get a little more information on the signature
.
Notice the bit that says "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer"? 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. CryptoNote chose not do this. But we have no reason to doubt the time on the signature, right guys? crickets
.
See these references from the v1 whitepaper footnotes? Those two also appear in the v2 whitepaperth. Neither of those two footnotes refer to anything in the main body of the v1 whitepaper's text, they're non-existent (in the v2 whitepaper they are used in text). The problem, though, is that the Bitcointalk post linked in the footnote is not from early 2012 (proof screenshot is authentic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196259.0)
.
May 5, 2013. The footnote is referencing a post that did not exist until then. And yet we are to believe that the whitepaper was signed on 12/12/2012! What sort of fucking fools do they take us for?
A little bit of extra digging validates this further. The document properties for both the v1 whitepaper as well as the v2 whitepaper confirms they were made in TeX Live 2013, which did not exist on 12/12/2012. The XMP properties are also quite revealing
XMP properties for the v1 whitepaper
XMP properties for the v2 whitepaper
According to that, the v1 whitepaper PDF was created on 10/04/2014, and the v2 whitepaper was created on 13/03/2014. And yet both of these documents were then modified in the past (when they were signed). Clearly the CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are so advanced they also have a time machine, right?
Final confirmation that these creation dates are correct are revealed those XMP properties. The properties on both documents confirm that the PDF itself was generated from the LaTeX source using pdfTeX-1.40.14 (the pdf:Producer property). Now pdfTeX is a very old piece of software that isn't updated very often, so the minor version (the .14 part) is important.
.
pdfTeX 1.40.14 pushed to source repo on Feb 14, 2014
.
This version of pdfTeX was only pushed to the pdfTeX source repository on February 14, 2014, although it was included in a very early version of TeX Live 2013 (version 2013.20130523-1) that was released on May 23, 2013. The earliest mentions on the Internet of this version of pdfTeX are in two Stack Exchange comments that confirm its general availability at the end of May 2013 (here and here).
The conclusion we draw from this is that the CryptoNote developers, as clever as they were, intentionally deceived everyone into believing that the CryptoNote whitepapers were signed in 2012 and 2013, when the reality is that the v2 whitepaper was created in March, 2014, and the v1 whitepaper haphazardly created a month later by stripping bits out of the v2 whitepaper (accidentally leaving dead footnotes in).
Why would they create this fake v2 whitepaper in the first place? Why not just create a v1 whitepaper, or not even version it at all? The answer is simple: they wanted to lend credence and validity to the Bytecoin "2 years on the darkweb" claim so that everyone involved in CryptoNote and Bytecoin could profit from the 2 year fake mine of 82% of Bytecoin. What they didn't expect is the market to say "no thank you" to their premine scam.

And Now for Some Conjecture

As I mentioned earlier, the Bytecoin "team" page disappeared. I know it exists, because "AtomicDoge" referred to it as saying that one of the Bytecoin developers is a professor at Princeton. I called them out on it, and within a week the page had disappeared. Fucking cowards.
That was the event that triggered my desire to dig deeper and uncover the fuckery. As I discovered more and more oddities, fake accounts, trolling, and outright falsehoods, I wondered how deep the rabbit hole went. My starting point was DStrange. This is the account on Bitcointalk that "discovered" Bytecoin accidentally a mere 6 days after the first working iteration of the code was pushed to Github, purely by chance when mining a nearly dead currency on a tiny and virtually unheard of mining pool. He has subsequently appointed himself the representative of Bytecoin, or something similar. The whole thing is so badly scripted it's worse than a Spanish soap opera...I can't tell who Mr. Gonzales, the chief surgeon, is going to fuck next.
At the same time as DStrange made his "fuck me accidental discovery", another Bitcointalk account flared up to also "accidentally discover this weird thing that has randomly been discovered": Rias. What's interesting about both the "Rias" and "DStrange" accounts are their late 2013 creation date (October 31, 2013, and December 23, 2013, respectively), and yet they lay dormant until suddenly, out of the blue, on January 20th/21st they started posting. If you look at their early posts side by side you can even see the clustering: Rias, DStrange.
At any rate, the DStrange account "discovering" Bytecoin is beyond hilarious, especially with the Rias account chiming in to make the discovery seem natural. Knowing what we unmistakably do about the fake CryptoNote PDF dates lets us see this in a whole new light.
Of course, as has been pointed out before, the Bytecoin website did not exist in its "discovered" form until sometime between November 13, 2013 (when it was last captured as this random picture of a college girl) and February 25, 2014 (when it suddenly had the website on it as "discovered"). This can be confirmed by looking at the captures on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bytecoin.org
The CryptoNote website, too, did not exist in its current form until after October 20, 2013, at which time it was still the home of an encrypted message project by Alain Meier, a founding member of the Stanford Bitcoin Group and co-founder of BlockScore. This, too, can be confirmed on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cryptonote.org
~It's hard to ascertain whether Alain had anything to do with CryptoNote or Bytecoin. It's certainly conceivable that the whitepaper was put together by him and other members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group, and the timeline fits, given that the group only formed around March 2013. More info on the people in the group can be found on their site, and determining if they played a role is something you can do in your own time.~
Update: Alain Meier posted in this thread, and followed it up with a Tweet, confirming that he has nothing to do with CryptoNote and all the related...stuff.

Batshit Insane

The Bytecoin guys revel in creating and using sockpuppet accounts. Remember that conversation where "Rias" asked who would put v1 on a whitepaper with no v2 out, and AlexGR said "a forward looking individual"? The conversation took place on May 30, and was repeated verbatim by shill accounts on Reddit on August 4 (also, screenshot in case they take it down).
Those two obvious sockpuppet/shill accounts also take delight in bashing Monero in the Monero sub-reddit (here are snippets from WhiteDynomite and cheri0). Literally the only thing these sockpuppets do, day in and day out, is make the Bytecoin sub-reddit look like it's trafficked, and spew angry bullshit all over the Monero sub-reddit. Fucking batshit insane - who the fuck has time for that? Clearly they're pissy that nobody has fallen for their scam. Oh, and did I mention that all of these sockpuppets have a late January/early February creation date? Because that's not fucking obvious at all.
And let's not forget that most recently the sockpuppets claimed that multi-sig is "a new revolutionary technology, it was discovered a short time ago and Bytecoin already implemented it". What the actual fuck. If you think that's bad, you're missing out on the best part of all: the Bytecoin shills claim that Bytecoin is actually Satoshi Nakamoto's work. I'm not fucking kidding you. For your viewing pleasure...I present to you...the Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus:
.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.msg8354977#msg8354977
.
Seriously. Not only is this insulting as fuck to Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's insulting as fuck to our intelligence. And yet the fun doesn't stop there, folks! I present to you...the centerpiece of this Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus exhibit...
.
Of course! How could we have missed it! The clues were there all along! The CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are actually aliens! Fuck me on a pogostick, this is the sort of stuff that results in people getting committed to the loony bin.
One last thing: without doing too much language analysis (which is mostly supposition and bullshit), it's easy to see common grammar and spelling fuck ups. My personal favorite is the "Is it true?" question. You can see it in the Bytecoin thread asking if it's Satoshi's second project, in the Monero thread asking if the Monero devs use a botnet to fake demand, and in the Dashcoin thread confirming the donation address (for a coin whose only claim is that they copy Bytecoin perfectly, what the fuck do they need donations for??).

Layer After Layer

One of the things that happened soon after the Bytecoin "big reveal" was a string of forks popping up. The first was Bitmonero on April 18. Fantomcoin was launched May 6. Quazarcoin was launched May 8. HoneyPenny was announced on April 21, although only launched as Boolberry on May 17. duckNote was launched on May 30. MonetaVerde as launched June 17.
Now for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with who isn't a retarded fuckface, the Bytecoin code was pushed up to SourceForge on 08/04/2014 (the "Registered" date is at the bottom of the page). I have no idea why they did this, maybe it's to try and lend credence to their bullshit story (oh hey, look how old Bytecoin is, it's even on Sourceforge!)
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated (hurr durr), Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin, and Monetaverde are all also on Sourceforge. This gives us a frame of reference and a common link between them - it's quite clear that at least these three are run by the same team as CryptoNote. There is further anecdotal evidence that can be gathered by looking at the shill posts in the threads (especially the way the Moneteverda shills praise merge mining, in a way that is nearly fucking indistinguishable from the Bytecoin praise for multi-sig technology).
QuazarCoin is a special case and deserves a little attention. Let's start with OracionSeis, who launched it. He's well known on Bitcointalk for selling in-game currencies. In that same thread you'll notice this gem right at the end from Fullbuster: "Hey,OracionSeis is no longer under my use so please https://bitcointa.lk/threads/selling-most-of-the-game-currencies.301540/#post-5996983 come into this thread! thank you !" Click through to his new link and Fullbuster clarifies: "Hello, I may look new around here but i've sold my first account and created new one and i have an intention to keep the same services running as my first account did." So now that we know that OracionSeis is a fucking bought account, we can look at his actions a little more critically.
On May 7, just when Monero was being taken back by the community (see below), OracionSeis out of the blue decided to take it overelaunch it himself. This included a now-defunct website at monero.co.in, and a since-abandoned Github. The community pushed back hard, true to form, with hard-hitting statements such as "To reiterate, this is not the original devs, and thus not a relaunch. OP, fuck you for trying this. This should warrant a ban." A man after my own heart. OracionSeis caved and decided to rename it to...QuazarCoin, which launched on May 8. To recap: bought account, launched by trying to "relaunch" Monero, got fucked up, renamed it to QuazarCoin. Clearly and undeniably goes in our pile of fuckface coins.
The other three are a little more interesting. Let's start with ~fuckNote~duckNote. It's hard to say if duckNote is a CryptoNote/Bytecoin project. The addition of the HTML based wallet is a one-trick pony, a common thread among most of the CryptoNote/Bytecoin controlled coins, but that could also be the result of a not-entirely-retarded developer. Given the shill posts in the duckNote thread I'm going to flag it as possibly-controlled-by-the-fuckface-brigade.
And now we come to ~HoneyPenny~ ~MoneyPenny~ ~HoneyBerry~ ~Boolean~ Boolberry. This is an interesting one. This was "pre-announced" on April 21, although it was only released with the genesis block on May 17. This puts it fourth in line, after Fantomcoin and Quazarcoin, although fucktarded proponents of the shittily-named currency insist that it was launched on April 21 because of a pre-announcement. Fucking rejects from the Pool of Stupidity, some of them. At any rate, "cryptozoidberg" is the prolific coder that churned out a Keccak-derived PoW (Wild Keccak) in a month, and then proceeded to add completely fucking retarded features like address aliasing that requires you to mine a block to get an address (lulz) and will never cause any issues when "google" or "obama" or "zuckerberg" want their alias back. Namecoin gets around this by forcing you to renew every ~200 - 250 days, and besides, nobody is making payments to microsoft.bit. This aliasing system is another atypical one-trick-pony that the CryptoNote developers push out and claim is monumental and historical and amazing.
There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifiert, 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 githubw (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).
We know from the copyright that Andrey N. Sabelnikov is the epee author, and we can say with reasonable certainty that he was involved in Bytecoin's creation and is the dev behind Boolberry. Sabelnikov is quite famous - he wrote the Kelihos botnet code and worked at two Russian security firms, Microsoft took him to court for his involvement (accusing him of operating the botnet as well), and then settled with him out of court on the basis of him not running the botnet but just having written the code. Kelihos is a botnet that pumped out online pharmacy spam (you know the fucking annoying "Y-ou Ne3D Vi-4Gra!?" emails? those.) so it's good to see he transitioned from that to a cryptocurrency scam. Regardless of BBR's claim to have "fixed" CryptoNote's privacy (and the fake fight on Bitcointalk between the "Bytecoin devs" and cryptozoidberg), it's clear that the link between them is not transparent. BBR is either the brainchild of a spam botnet author that worked on Bytecoin, or it's the CryptoNote developers trying to have one currency distanced from the rest so that they have a claim for legitimacy. I think it's the second one, and don't want to enter into a fucking debate about it. Make up your own mind.
Which brings us to the oddest story of the bunch: Bitmonero. It's pretty clear, given its early launch date and how unfamiliar anyone was with creating a genesis block or working in completely undocumented code, that thankful_for_today is/was part of the CryptoNote developers. He made a fatal error, though: he thought (just like all the other cryptocurrencies) that being "the dev" made him infallible. Ya know what happened? He tried to force his ideas, the community politely said "fuck you", and Bitmonero was forked into Monero, which is leading the pack of CryptoNote-based coins today. Let me be perfectly fucking clear: it doesn't matter that the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers know their code and can push stuff out, and it doesn't matter that Sabelnikov can shovel bullshit features into his poorly named cryptocurrency, and it doesn't matter that Monetaverde is "green" and has "merged mining". Nobody working behind these cryptocurrencies is known in the cryptocurrency community, and that alone should be a big fucking red flag. Monero is streets ahead, partly because of the way they're developing the currency, but mostly because the "core devs" or whatever they're called are made up of reasonably well-known people. That there are a bunch of them (6 or 7?) plus a bunch of other people contributing code means that they're sanity checking each other.
And, as we saw, this has fucking infuriated the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers. They're so angry they waste hours and hours with their Reddit accounts trawling the Monero sub-reddit, for what? Nobody has fallen for their scam, and after my revelation today nobody fucking will. Transparency wins, everything else is bullshit.
As pointed out by canonsburg, when the Bytecoin/CryptoNote people realised they'd lost the fucking game, they took a "scorched earth" approach. If they couldn't have the leading CryptoNote coin...they'd fucking destroy the rest by creating a shit-storm of CryptoNote coins. Not only did they setup a thread with "A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency", but they even have a dedicated website with a fuckton of JavaScript. Unfortunately this plan hasn't worked for them, because they forgot that nobody gives a fuck, and everyone is going to carry on forking Bitcoin-based coins because of the massive infrastructure and code etc. that works with Bitcoin-based coins.
There are a bunch of other useless CryptoNote coins, by the way: Aeon, Dashcoin, Infinium-8, OneEvilCoin. We saw earlier that Dashcoin is probably another CryptoNote developer driven coin. However, this entire group is not really important enough, nor do they have enough potential, for me to give a single fuck, so make up your own mind. New CryptoNote coins that pop up should be regarded with the utmost caution, given the bullshit capabilities that we've already seen.

All Tied Up in a Bow

I want to cement the relationship between the major CryptoNote shitcoins. I know that my previous section had a lot of conjecture in it, and there's been some insinuation that I'm throwing everyone under the bus because I'm raging against the machine. That's not my style. I'm more of a Katy Perry fan..."you're going to hear me roar". There were some extra links I uncovered during my research, and I lacked the time to add it to this post. Thankfully a little bit of sleep and a can of Monster later have given me the a chance to add this. Let's start with an analysis of the DNS records of the CN coins.
If we look at the whois and DNS records for bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com, we find three common traits, from not-entirely-damming to oh-shiiiiiiit:
  1. There's a lot of commonality with the registrar (NameCheap for almost all of them), the DNS service (HurricaneElectric's Free DNS or NameCheap's DNS), and with the webhost (LibertyVPS, QHosteSecureFastServer.com, etc.)
  2. All of the CN domains use WhoisGuard or similar private registration services.
  3. Every single domain, without exception, uses Zoho for email. The only outlier is bitmonero.org that uses Namecheap's free email forwarding, but it's safe to disregard this as the emails probably just forward to the CryptoNote developers' email.
The instinct may be to disregard this as a fucking convenient coincidence. But it isn't: Zoho used to be a distant second go Google Apps, but has since fallen hopelessly behind. Everyone uses Google Apps or they just use mail forwarding or whatever. With the rest of the points as well, as far-fetched as the link may seem, it's the combination that is unusual and a dead giveaway of the common thread. Just to demonstrate that I'm not "blowing shit out of proportion" I went and checked the records for a handful of coins launched over the past few months to see what they use.
darkcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: Amazon AWS, open registration through NameCheap monero.cc: mail: mail.monero.cc, hosting: behind CloudFlare, open registration through Gandi xc-official.com: mail: Google Apps, hosting: MODX Cloud, hidden registration (DomainsByProxy) through GoDaddy blackcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: behind BlackLotus, open registration through NameCheap bitcoindark.org: mail: no MX records, hosting: Google User Content, open registration through Wix viacoin.org: mail: mx.viacoin.org, hosting: behind CloudFlare, closed registration (ContactPrivacy) through Hostnuke.com neutrinocoin.org: mail: HostGator, hosting: HostGator, open registration through HostGator
There's no common thread between them. Everyone uses different service providers and different platforms. And none of them use Zoho.
My next check was to inspect the web page source code for these sites to find a further link. If you take a look at the main CSS file linked in the source code for monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, bitmonero.org, and bytecoiner.org, we find a CSS reset snippet at the top. It has a comment at the top that says "/* CSS Reset /", and then where it resets/sets the height it has the comment "/ always display scrollbars */". Now, near as I can find, this is a CSS snipped first published by Jake Rocheleau in an article on WebDesignLedger on October 24, 2012 (although confusingly Google seems to think it appeared on plumi.de cnippetz first, but checking archive.org shows that it was only added to that site at the beginning of 2013). It isn't a very popular CSS reset snippet, it got dumped in a couple of gists on Github, and translated and re-published in an article on a Russian website in November, 2012 (let's not go full-blown conspiritard and assume this links "cryptozoidberg" back to this, he's culpable enough on his own).
It's unusual to the point of being fucking impossible for one site to be using this, let alone a whole string of supposedly unrelated sites. Over the past few years the most popular CSS reset scripts have been Eric Meyer's "Reset CSS", HTML5 Doctor CSS Reset, Yahoo! (YUI 3) Reset CSS, Universal Selector ‘’ Reset, and Normalize.css, none of which contain the "/ CSS Reset /" or "/ always display scrollbars */" comments.
You've got to ask yourself a simple question: at what point does the combination of all of these fucking coincidental, completely unusual elements stop being coincidence and start becoming evidence of a real, tenable link? Is it possible that bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com just happen to use similar registrars/DNS providers/web hosts and exactly the fucking same wildly unpopular email provider? And is it also possible that monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, and bytecoin.org just happen to use the same completely unknown, incredibly obscure CSS reset snippet? It's not a conspiracy, it's not a coincidence, it's just another piece of evidence that all of these were spewed out by the same fucking people.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Don't take the last section as any sort of push for Monero. I think it's got potential (certainly much more than the other retarded "anonymous" coins that "developers" are popping out like street children from a cheap ho), and I hold a bit of XMR for shits and giggles, so take that tacit endorsement with a pinch of fucking salt.
The point is this: Bytecoin's 82% premine was definitely the result of a faked blockchain. CryptoNote's whitepaper dates were purposely falsified to back up this bullshit claim. Both Bytecoin and CryptoNote have perpetuated this scam by making up fake website data and all sorts. They further perpetuate it using shill accounts, most notably "DStrange" and "Rias" among others.
They launched a series of cryptocurrencies that should be avoided at all cost: Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, and Monetaverde. They are likely behind duckNote and Boolberry, but fuck it, it's on your head if you want to deal with scam artists and botnet creators.
They developed amazing technology, and had a pretty decent implementation. They fucked themselves over by being fucking greedy, being utterly retarded, being batshit insane, and trying to create legitimacy where there was none. They lost the minute the community took Monero away from them, and no amount of damage control will save them from their own stupidity.
I expect there to be a fuck-ton of shills posting in this thread (and possibly a few genuine supporters who don't know any better). If you want to discuss or clarify something, cool, let's do that. If you want to have a protracted debate about my conjecture, then fuck off, it's called conjecture for a reason you ignoramus. I don't really give a flying fuck if I got it right or wrong, you're old and ugly enough to make up your own mind.
tl;dr - CryptoNote developers faked dates in whitepapers. Bytecoin faked dates in fake blockchain to facilitate an 82% premine, and CryptoNote backed them up. Bytecoin, Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, Monetaverde, Dashcoin are all from the same people and should be avoided like the fucking black plague. duckNote and Boolberry are probably from them as well, or are at least just fucking dodgy, and who the fuck cares anyway. Monero would have been fucking dodgy, but the community saved it. Make your own mind up about shit and demand that known people are involved and that there is fucking transparency. End transmission.
Just a reminder that if you found this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.
submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Format test, ignore

Original post by rethink-your-strategy on Bitcointalk.org here
This post has been reformatted to share on Reddit. What once was common knowledge, is now gone. You want a quality history lesson? Share this like wildfire.
August 15, 2014, 08:15:37 AM

Preamble

I'd like to start off by stating categorically that the cryptography presented by CryptoNote is completely, entirely solid. It has been vetted and looked over by fucking clever cryptographers/developers/wizards such as gmaxwell. Monero have had a group of independent mathematicians and cryptographers peer-reviewing the whitepaper (their annotations are here, and one of their reviews is here), and this same group of mathematicians and cryptographers is now reviewing the implementation of the cryptography in the Monero codebase. Many well known Bitcoin developers have already had a cursory look through the code to establish its validity. It is safe to say that, barring more exotic attacks that have to be mitigated over time as they are invented/discovered, and barring a CryptoNote implementation making rash decisions to implement something that reduces the anonymity set, the CryptoNote currencies are all cryptographically unlinkable and untraceable.
Two other things I should mention. I curse a lot when I'm angry (and scams like this make me angry). Second, where used my short date format is day/month/year (smallest to biggest).
If you find this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.

The Alleged CryptoNote/Bytecoin Story

CryptoNote is a new cryptocurrency protocol. It builds on some of the Bitcoin founding principles, but it adds to them. There are aspects of it that are truly well thought through and, in a sense, quite revolutionary. CryptoNote claim to have started working on their project years ago after Bitcoin's release, and I do not doubt the validity of this claim...clearly there's a lot of work and effort that went into this. The story as Bytecoin and CryptoNote claim it to be is as follows:
They developed the code for the principles expressed in their whitepaper, and in April, 2012, they released Bytecoin. All of the copyright messages in Bytecoin's code are "copyright the CryptoNote Developers", so clearly they are one and the same as the Bytecoin developers. In December 2012, they released their CryptoNote v1 whitepaper. In September 2013, they released their CryptoNote v2 whitepaper. In November 2013, the first piece of the Bytecoin code was first pushed to Github by "amjuarez", with a "Copyright (c) 2013 amjuarez" copyright notice. This was changed to "Copyright (c) 2013 Antonio Juarez" on March 3rd, 2014. By this juncture only the crypto libraries had been pushed up to github. Then, on March 4th, 2014, "amjuarez" pushed the rest of the code up to github, with the README strangely referring to "cybernote", even though the code referred to "Cryptonote". The copyrights all pointed to "the Cryptonote developers", and the "Antonio Juarez" copyright and license file was removed. Within a few days, "DStrange" stumbled across the bytecoin.org website when trying to mine on the bte.minefor.co.in pool (a pool for the-other-Bytecoin, BTE, not the-new-Bytecoin, BCN), and the rest is history as we know it. By this time Bytecoin had had a little over 80% of its total emission mined.

Immediate Red Flags

The first thing that is a red flag in all of this is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, is a known entity. "Antonio Juarez" is not a known entity, "DStrange" is not a known entity, none of the made up names on the Bytecoin website exist (they've since removed their "team" page, see below), none of the made up names on the CryptoNote website exist (Johannes Meier, Maurice Planck, Max Jameson, Brandon Hawking, Catherine Erwin, Albert Werner, Marec Plíškov). If they're pseudonyms, then say so. If they're real names, then who the fuck are they??? Cryptographers, mathematicians, and computer scientists are well known - they have published papers or at least have commented on articles of interest. Many of them have their own github repos and Twitter feeds, and are a presence in the cryptocurrency community.
The other immediate red flag is that nobody, and I mean no-fucking-body, had heard of Bytecoin. Those that had heard of it thought it was the crummy SHA-256 Bitcoin clone that was a flop in the market. Bytecoin's claim that it had existed "on the deep web" for 2 years was not well received, because not a single vendor, user, miner, drug addict, drug seller, porn broker, fake ID card manufacturer, student who bought a fake ID card to get into bars, libertarian, libertard, cryptographer, Tor developer, Freenet developer, i2p developer, pedophile, or anyone else that is a known person - even just known on the Internet - had ever encountered "Bytecoin" on Tor. Ever. Nobody.

Indisputable Facts

Before I start with some conjecture and educated guesswork, I'd like to focus on an indisputable fact that obliterates any trust in both Bytecoin's and CryptoNote's bullshit story. Note, again, that I do not doubt the efficacy of the mathematics and cryptography behind CryptoNote, nor do I think there are backdoors in the code. What I do know for a fact is that the people behind CryptoNote and Bytecoin have actively deceived the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community, and that makes them untrustworthy now and in the future. If you believe in the fundamentals in CryptoNote, then you need simply use a CryptoNote-derived cryptocurrency that is demonstrably independent of CryptoNote and Bytecoin's influence. Don't worry, I go into this a little later.
So as discussed, there were these two whitepapers that I linked to earlier. Just in case they try remove them, here is the v1 whitepaper and the v2 whitepaper mirrored on Archive.org. This v1/v2 whitepaper thing has been discussed at length on the Bytecoin forum thread, and the PGP signature on the files has been confirmed as being valid. When you open the respective PDFs you'll notice the valid signatures in them:
signature in the v1 whitepaper
signature in the v2 whitepaper
These are valid Adobe signatures, signed on 15/12/2012 and 17/10/2013 respectively. Here's where it gets interesting. When we inspect this file in Adobe Acrobat we get a little more information on the signature
.
Notice the bit that says "Signing time is from the clock on the signer's computer"? 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. CryptoNote chose not do this. But we have no reason to doubt the time on the signature, right guys? crickets
.
See these references from the v1 whitepaper footnotes? Those two also appear in the v2 whitepaperth. Neither of those two footnotes refer to anything in the main body of the v1 whitepaper's text, they're non-existent (in the v2 whitepaper they are used in text). The problem, though, is that the Bitcointalk post linked in the footnote is not from early 2012 (proof screenshot is authentic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=196259.0)
.
May 5, 2013. The footnote is referencing a post that did not exist until then. And yet we are to believe that the whitepaper was signed on 12/12/2012! What sort of fucking fools do they take us for?
A little bit of extra digging validates this further. The document properties for both the v1 whitepaper as well as the v2 whitepaper confirms they were made in TeX Live 2013, which did not exist on 12/12/2012. The XMP properties are also quite revealing
XMP properties for the v1 whitepaper
XMP properties for the v2 whitepaper
According to that, the v1 whitepaper PDF was created on 10/04/2014, and the v2 whitepaper was created on 13/03/2014. And yet both of these documents were then modified in the past (when they were signed). Clearly the CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are so advanced they also have a time machine, right?
Final confirmation that these creation dates are correct are revealed those XMP properties. The properties on both documents confirm that the PDF itself was generated from the LaTeX source using pdfTeX-1.40.14 (the pdf:Producer property). Now pdfTeX is a very old piece of software that isn't updated very often, so the minor version (the .14 part) is important.
.
pdfTeX 1.40.14 pushed to source repo on Feb 14, 2014
.
This version of pdfTeX was only pushed to the pdfTeX source repository on February 14, 2014, although it was included in a very early version of TeX Live 2013 (version 2013.20130523-1) that was released on May 23, 2013. The earliest mentions on the Internet of this version of pdfTeX are in two Stack Exchange comments that confirm its general availability at the end of May 2013 (here and here).
The conclusion we draw from this is that the CryptoNote developers, as clever as they were, intentionally deceived everyone into believing that the CryptoNote whitepapers were signed in 2012 and 2013, when the reality is that the v2 whitepaper was created in March, 2014, and the v1 whitepaper haphazardly created a month later by stripping bits out of the v2 whitepaper (accidentally leaving dead footnotes in).
Why would they create this fake v2 whitepaper in the first place? Why not just create a v1 whitepaper, or not even version it at all? The answer is simple: they wanted to lend credence and validity to the Bytecoin "2 years on the darkweb" claim so that everyone involved in CryptoNote and Bytecoin could profit from the 2 year fake mine of 82% of Bytecoin. What they didn't expect is the market to say "no thank you" to their premine scam.

And Now for Some Conjecture

As I mentioned earlier, the Bytecoin "team" page disappeared. I know it exists, because "AtomicDoge" referred to it as saying that one of the Bytecoin developers is a professor at Princeton. I called them out on it, and within a week the page had disappeared. Fucking cowards.
That was the event that triggered my desire to dig deeper and uncover the fuckery. As I discovered more and more oddities, fake accounts, trolling, and outright falsehoods, I wondered how deep the rabbit hole went. My starting point was DStrange. This is the account on Bitcointalk that "discovered" Bytecoin accidentally a mere 6 days after the first working iteration of the code was pushed to Github, purely by chance when mining a nearly dead currency on a tiny and virtually unheard of mining pool. He has subsequently appointed himself the representative of Bytecoin, or something similar. The whole thing is so badly scripted it's worse than a Spanish soap opera...I can't tell who Mr. Gonzales, the chief surgeon, is going to fuck next.
At the same time as DStrange made his "fuck me accidental discovery", another Bitcointalk account flared up to also "accidentally discover this weird thing that has randomly been discovered": Rias. What's interesting about both the "Rias" and "DStrange" accounts are their late 2013 creation date (October 31, 2013, and December 23, 2013, respectively), and yet they lay dormant until suddenly, out of the blue, on January 20th/21st they started posting. If you look at their early posts side by side you can even see the clustering: Rias, DStrange.
At any rate, the DStrange account "discovering" Bytecoin is beyond hilarious, especially with the Rias account chiming in to make the discovery seem natural. Knowing what we unmistakably do about the fake CryptoNote PDF dates lets us see this in a whole new light.
Of course, as has been pointed out before, the Bytecoin website did not exist in its "discovered" form until sometime between November 13, 2013 (when it was last captured as this random picture of a college girl) and February 25, 2014 (when it suddenly had the website on it as "discovered"). This can be confirmed by looking at the captures on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bytecoin.org
The CryptoNote website, too, did not exist in its current form until after October 20, 2013, at which time it was still the home of an encrypted message project by Alain Meier, a founding member of the Stanford Bitcoin Group and co-founder of BlockScore. This, too, can be confirmed on Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cryptonote.org
~It's hard to ascertain whether Alain had anything to do with CryptoNote or Bytecoin. It's certainly conceivable that the whitepaper was put together by him and other members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group, and the timeline fits, given that the group only formed around March 2013. More info on the people in the group can be found on their site, and determining if they played a role is something you can do in your own time.~
Update: Alain Meier posted in this thread, and followed it up with a Tweet, confirming that he has nothing to do with CryptoNote and all the related...stuff.

Batshit Insane

The Bytecoin guys revel in creating and using sockpuppet accounts. Remember that conversation where "Rias" asked who would put v1 on a whitepaper with no v2 out, and AlexGR said "a forward looking individual"? The conversation took place on May 30, and was repeated verbatim by shill accounts on Reddit on August 4 (also, screenshot in case they take it down).
Those two obvious sockpuppet/shill accounts also take delight in bashing Monero in the Monero sub-reddit (here are snippets from WhiteDynomite and cheri0). Literally the only thing these sockpuppets do, day in and day out, is make the Bytecoin sub-reddit look like it's trafficked, and spew angry bullshit all over the Monero sub-reddit. Fucking batshit insane - who the fuck has time for that? Clearly they're pissy that nobody has fallen for their scam. Oh, and did I mention that all of these sockpuppets have a late January/early February creation date? Because that's not fucking obvious at all.
And let's not forget that most recently the sockpuppets claimed that multi-sig is "a new revolutionary technology, it was discovered a short time ago and Bytecoin already implemented it". What the actual fuck. If you think that's bad, you're missing out on the best part of all: the Bytecoin shills claim that Bytecoin is actually Satoshi Nakamoto's work. I'm not fucking kidding you. For your viewing pleasure...I present to you...the Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus:
.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.msg8354977#msg8354977
.
Seriously. Not only is this insulting as fuck to Satoshi Nakamoto, but it's insulting as fuck to our intelligence. And yet the fun doesn't stop there, folks! I present to you...the centerpiece of this Bytecoin Batshit Insane Circus exhibit...
.
Of course! How could we have missed it! The clues were there all along! The CryptoNote/Bytecoin developers are actually aliens! Fuck me on a pogostick, this is the sort of stuff that results in people getting committed to the loony bin.
One last thing: without doing too much language analysis (which is mostly supposition and bullshit), it's easy to see common grammar and spelling fuck ups. My personal favorite is the "Is it true?" question. You can see it in the Bytecoin thread asking if it's Satoshi's second project, in the Monero thread asking if the Monero devs use a botnet to fake demand, and in the Dashcoin thread confirming the donation address (for a coin whose only claim is that they copy Bytecoin perfectly, what the fuck do they need donations for??).

Layer After Layer

One of the things that happened soon after the Bytecoin "big reveal" was a string of forks popping up. The first was Bitmonero on April 18. Fantomcoin was launched May 6. Quazarcoin was launched May 8. HoneyPenny was announced on April 21, although only launched as Boolberry on May 17. duckNote was launched on May 30. MonetaVerde as launched June 17.
Now for some reason unbeknownst to anyone with who isn't a retarded fuckface, the Bytecoin code was pushed up to SourceForge on 08/04/2014 (the "Registered" date is at the bottom of the page). I have no idea why they did this, maybe it's to try and lend credence to their bullshit story (oh hey, look how old Bytecoin is, it's even on Sourceforge!)
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated (hurr durr), Quazarcoin, Fantomcoin, and Monetaverde are all also on Sourceforge. This gives us a frame of reference and a common link between them - it's quite clear that at least these three are run by the same team as CryptoNote. There is further anecdotal evidence that can be gathered by looking at the shill posts in the threads (especially the way the Moneteverda shills praise merge mining, in a way that is nearly fucking indistinguishable from the Bytecoin praise for multi-sig technology).
QuazarCoin is a special case and deserves a little attention. Let's start with OracionSeis, who launched it. He's well known on Bitcointalk for selling in-game currencies. In that same thread you'll notice this gem right at the end from Fullbuster: "Hey,OracionSeis is no longer under my use so please https://bitcointa.lk/threads/selling-most-of-the-game-currencies.301540/#post-5996983 come into this thread! thank you !" Click through to his new link and Fullbuster clarifies: "Hello, I may look new around here but i've sold my first account and created new one and i have an intention to keep the same services running as my first account did." So now that we know that OracionSeis is a fucking bought account, we can look at his actions a little more critically.
On May 7, just when Monero was being taken back by the community (see below), OracionSeis out of the blue decided to take it overelaunch it himself. This included a now-defunct website at monero.co.in, and a since-abandoned Github. The community pushed back hard, true to form, with hard-hitting statements such as "To reiterate, this is not the original devs, and thus not a relaunch. OP, fuck you for trying this. This should warrant a ban." A man after my own heart. OracionSeis caved and decided to rename it to...QuazarCoin, which launched on May 8. To recap: bought account, launched by trying to "relaunch" Monero, got fucked up, renamed it to QuazarCoin. Clearly and undeniably goes in our pile of fuckface coins.
The other three are a little more interesting. Let's start with ~fuckNote~duckNote. It's hard to say if duckNote is a CryptoNote/Bytecoin project. The addition of the HTML based wallet is a one-trick pony, a common thread among most of the CryptoNote/Bytecoin controlled coins, but that could also be the result of a not-entirely-retarded developer. Given the shill posts in the duckNote thread I'm going to flag it as possibly-controlled-by-the-fuckface-brigade.
And now we come to ~HoneyPenny~ ~MoneyPenny~ ~HoneyBerry~ ~Boolean~ Boolberry. This is an interesting one. This was "pre-announced" on April 21, although it was only released with the genesis block on May 17. This puts it fourth in line, after Fantomcoin and Quazarcoin, although fucktarded proponents of the shittily-named currency insist that it was launched on April 21 because of a pre-announcement. Fucking rejects from the Pool of Stupidity, some of them. At any rate, "cryptozoidberg" is the prolific coder that churned out a Keccak-derived PoW (Wild Keccak) in a month, and then proceeded to add completely fucking retarded features like address aliasing that requires you to mine a block to get an address (lulz) and will never cause any issues when "google" or "obama" or "zuckerberg" want their alias back. Namecoin gets around this by forcing you to renew every ~200 - 250 days, and besides, nobody is making payments to microsoft.bit. This aliasing system is another atypical one-trick-pony that the CryptoNote developers push out and claim is monumental and historical and amazing.
There's also the matter of cryptozoidberg's nickname. In the Bytecoin code there's the BYTECOIN_NETWORK identifiert, 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 githubw (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).
We know from the copyright that Andrey N. Sabelnikov is the epee author, and we can say with reasonable certainty that he was involved in Bytecoin's creation and is the dev behind Boolberry. Sabelnikov is quite famous - he wrote the Kelihos botnet code and worked at two Russian security firms, Microsoft took him to court for his involvement (accusing him of operating the botnet as well), and then settled with him out of court on the basis of him not running the botnet but just having written the code. Kelihos is a botnet that pumped out online pharmacy spam (you know the fucking annoying "Y-ou Ne3D Vi-4Gra!?" emails? those.) so it's good to see he transitioned from that to a cryptocurrency scam. Regardless of BBR's claim to have "fixed" CryptoNote's privacy (and the fake fight on Bitcointalk between the "Bytecoin devs" and cryptozoidberg), it's clear that the link between them is not transparent. BBR is either the brainchild of a spam botnet author that worked on Bytecoin, or it's the CryptoNote developers trying to have one currency distanced from the rest so that they have a claim for legitimacy. I think it's the second one, and don't want to enter into a fucking debate about it. Make up your own mind.
Which brings us to the oddest story of the bunch: Bitmonero. It's pretty clear, given its early launch date and how unfamiliar anyone was with creating a genesis block or working in completely undocumented code, that thankful_for_today is/was part of the CryptoNote developers. He made a fatal error, though: he thought (just like all the other cryptocurrencies) that being "the dev" made him infallible. Ya know what happened? He tried to force his ideas, the community politely said "fuck you", and Bitmonero was forked into Monero, which is leading the pack of CryptoNote-based coins today. Let me be perfectly fucking clear: it doesn't matter that the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers know their code and can push stuff out, and it doesn't matter that Sabelnikov can shovel bullshit features into his poorly named cryptocurrency, and it doesn't matter that Monetaverde is "green" and has "merged mining". Nobody working behind these cryptocurrencies is known in the cryptocurrency community, and that alone should be a big fucking red flag. Monero is streets ahead, partly because of the way they're developing the currency, but mostly because the "core devs" or whatever they're called are made up of reasonably well-known people. That there are a bunch of them (6 or 7?) plus a bunch of other people contributing code means that they're sanity checking each other.
And, as we saw, this has fucking infuriated the Bytecoin/CryptoNote developers. They're so angry they waste hours and hours with their Reddit accounts trawling the Monero sub-reddit, for what? Nobody has fallen for their scam, and after my revelation today nobody fucking will. Transparency wins, everything else is bullshit.
As pointed out by canonsburg, when the Bytecoin/CryptoNote people realised they'd lost the fucking game, they took a "scorched earth" approach. If they couldn't have the leading CryptoNote coin...they'd fucking destroy the rest by creating a shit-storm of CryptoNote coins. Not only did they setup a thread with "A complete forking guide to create your own CryptoNote currency", but they even have a dedicated website with a fuckton of JavaScript. Unfortunately this plan hasn't worked for them, because they forgot that nobody gives a fuck, and everyone is going to carry on forking Bitcoin-based coins because of the massive infrastructure and code etc. that works with Bitcoin-based coins.
There are a bunch of other useless CryptoNote coins, by the way: Aeon, Dashcoin, Infinium-8, OneEvilCoin. We saw earlier that Dashcoin is probably another CryptoNote developer driven coin. However, this entire group is not really important enough, nor do they have enough potential, for me to give a single fuck, so make up your own mind. New CryptoNote coins that pop up should be regarded with the utmost caution, given the bullshit capabilities that we've already seen.

All Tied Up in a Bow

I want to cement the relationship between the major CryptoNote shitcoins. I know that my previous section had a lot of conjecture in it, and there's been some insinuation that I'm throwing everyone under the bus because I'm raging against the machine. That's not my style. I'm more of a Katy Perry fan..."you're going to hear me roar". There were some extra links I uncovered during my research, and I lacked the time to add it to this post. Thankfully a little bit of sleep and a can of Monster later have given me the a chance to add this. Let's start with an analysis of the DNS records of the CN coins.
If we look at the whois and DNS records for bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com, we find three common traits, from not-entirely-damming to oh-shiiiiiiit:
  1. There's a lot of commonality with the registrar (NameCheap for almost all of them), the DNS service (HurricaneElectric's Free DNS or NameCheap's DNS), and with the webhost (LibertyVPS, QHosteSecureFastServer.com, etc.)
  2. All of the CN domains use WhoisGuard or similar private registration services.
  3. Every single domain, without exception, uses Zoho for email. The only outlier is bitmonero.org that uses Namecheap's free email forwarding, but it's safe to disregard this as the emails probably just forward to the CryptoNote developers' email.
The instinct may be to disregard this as a fucking convenient coincidence. But it isn't: Zoho used to be a distant second go Google Apps, but has since fallen hopelessly behind. Everyone uses Google Apps or they just use mail forwarding or whatever. With the rest of the points as well, as far-fetched as the link may seem, it's the combination that is unusual and a dead giveaway of the common thread. Just to demonstrate that I'm not "blowing shit out of proportion" I went and checked the records for a handful of coins launched over the past few months to see what they use.
darkcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: Amazon AWS, open registration through NameCheap monero.cc: mail: mail.monero.cc, hosting: behind CloudFlare, open registration through Gandi xc-official.com: mail: Google Apps, hosting: MODX Cloud, hidden registration (DomainsByProxy) through GoDaddy blackcoin.io: mail: Namecheap email forwarding, hosting: behind BlackLotus, open registration through NameCheap bitcoindark.org: mail: no MX records, hosting: Google User Content, open registration through Wix viacoin.org: mail: mx.viacoin.org, hosting: behind CloudFlare, closed registration (ContactPrivacy) through Hostnuke.com neutrinocoin.org: mail: HostGator, hosting: HostGator, open registration through HostGator
There's no common thread between them. Everyone uses different service providers and different platforms. And none of them use Zoho.
My next check was to inspect the web page source code for these sites to find a further link. If you take a look at the main CSS file linked in the source code for monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, bitmonero.org, and bytecoiner.org, we find a CSS reset snippet at the top. It has a comment at the top that says "/* CSS Reset /", and then where it resets/sets the height it has the comment "/ always display scrollbars */". Now, near as I can find, this is a CSS snipped first published by Jake Rocheleau in an article on WebDesignLedger on October 24, 2012 (although confusingly Google seems to think it appeared on plumi.de cnippetz first, but checking archive.org shows that it was only added to that site at the beginning of 2013). It isn't a very popular CSS reset snippet, it got dumped in a couple of gists on Github, and translated and re-published in an article on a Russian website in November, 2012 (let's not go full-blown conspiritard and assume this links "cryptozoidberg" back to this, he's culpable enough on his own).
It's unusual to the point of being fucking impossible for one site to be using this, let alone a whole string of supposedly unrelated sites. Over the past few years the most popular CSS reset scripts have been Eric Meyer's "Reset CSS", HTML5 Doctor CSS Reset, Yahoo! (YUI 3) Reset CSS, Universal Selector ‘’ Reset, and Normalize.css, none of which contain the "/ CSS Reset /" or "/ always display scrollbars */" comments.
You've got to ask yourself a simple question: at what point does the combination of all of these fucking coincidental, completely unusual elements stop being coincidence and start becoming evidence of a real, tenable link? Is it possible that bytecoin.org, quazarcoin.org, fantomcoin.org, monetaverde.org, cryptonote.org, bytecoiner.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonotestarter.org, and boolberry.com just happen to use similar registrars/DNS providers/web hosts and exactly the fucking same wildly unpopular email provider? And is it also possible that monetaverde.org, fantomcoin.org, quazarcoin.org, cryptonotefoundation.org, cryptonote-coin.org, cryptonote.org, and bytecoin.org just happen to use the same completely unknown, incredibly obscure CSS reset snippet? It's not a conspiracy, it's not a coincidence, it's just another piece of evidence that all of these were spewed out by the same fucking people.

The Conclusion of the Matter

Don't take the last section as any sort of push for Monero. I think it's got potential (certainly much more than the other retarded "anonymous" coins that "developers" are popping out like street children from a cheap ho), and I hold a bit of XMR for shits and giggles, so take that tacit endorsement with a pinch of fucking salt.
The point is this: Bytecoin's 82% premine was definitely the result of a faked blockchain. CryptoNote's whitepaper dates were purposely falsified to back up this bullshit claim. Both Bytecoin and CryptoNote have perpetuated this scam by making up fake website data and all sorts. They further perpetuate it using shill accounts, most notably "DStrange" and "Rias" among others.
They launched a series of cryptocurrencies that should be avoided at all cost: Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, and Monetaverde. They are likely behind duckNote and Boolberry, but fuck it, it's on your head if you want to deal with scam artists and botnet creators.
They developed amazing technology, and had a pretty decent implementation. They fucked themselves over by being fucking greedy, being utterly retarded, being batshit insane, and trying to create legitimacy where there was none. They lost the minute the community took Monero away from them, and no amount of damage control will save them from their own stupidity.
I expect there to be a fuck-ton of shills posting in this thread (and possibly a few genuine supporters who don't know any better). If you want to discuss or clarify something, cool, let's do that. If you want to have a protracted debate about my conjecture, then fuck off, it's called conjecture for a reason you ignoramus. I don't really give a flying fuck if I got it right or wrong, you're old and ugly enough to make up your own mind.
tl;dr - CryptoNote developers faked dates in whitepapers. Bytecoin faked dates in fake blockchain to facilitate an 82% premine, and CryptoNote backed them up. Bytecoin, Fantomcoin, Quazarcoin, Monetaverde, Dashcoin are all from the same people and should be avoided like the fucking black plague. duckNote and Boolberry are probably from them as well, or are at least just fucking dodgy, and who the fuck cares anyway. Monero would have been fucking dodgy, but the community saved it. Make your own mind up about shit and demand that known people are involved and that there is fucking transparency. End transmission.
Just a reminder that if you found this information useful, a little donation would go a long way. Bitcoin address is 1rysLufu4qdVBRDyrf8ZjXy1nM19smTWd.
submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to heyfuckyou [link] [comments]

Intergalactic Money: The deep impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain federation

Intergalactic Money: The deep impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain federation
Prologue: This article is a strategic response to the following crypto-related papers published in 2017: 1. “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets” by John Pfeffer of Pfeffer Capital and 2. “Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts” by Joseph Poon of Lightning Network and Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum Foundation.
John Pfeffer in his paper titled “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets” claims that “scaling solutions for blockchains in particular and decentralized networks including (implied) DAG-based networks such as PoS, Sharding, etc. are bullish for adoption and users/consumers but bearish for token value/investors. Even without those technology shifts, the cost of using decentralized protocols is deflationary, since the cost of processing power, storage and bandwidth are deflationary.” Farther he states “ It’s a mistake to compare monopoly network effects of Facebook or other centralized platforms to blockchain protocols because blockchain protocols can be forked to a functionally identical blockchain with the same history and users up to the moment if a parent chain persists in being arbitrarily expensive to use(i.e. rent-seeking). Like TCP/IP but unlike Facebook, blockchain protocols are open-source software that anyone can copy or fork freely.” Add regulatory pressures on bitcoin and public permissionless currency and its negative impact.

https://preview.redd.it/zjyhwcacmml11.jpg?width=636&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ea21ea7e6957cb39dfbb57fa3193e5805578d38d

It’s obvious from his statements; John is not aware of latest R&D projects focused on improving decentralized networks and advances in decentralized protocols especially “Unforkable Realtime Blockchains” such as Algorand, Bitlattice and Orch.Network based on Recursive STARKs and FHE/SHE. He is also ignorant of the fact that there are several projects working on self-evolving censor-proof quantum safe protocols such as Orch Network (token symbol: ORC and URL: https://orch.network/). These protocols have adopted a continuous development strategy while getting ready for next paradigm shifts in technology e.g. practical quantum computing and quantum internet. He also does not understand that a futuristic protocol token with infinite-divisibility integrated with a hybrid quantum-classical computational infrastructure can easily counteract and neutralize the deflationary nature of its own tokens and its limited supply hardcap making it infinitely scalable and elastic.
While I agree with his following statement: “A non-sovereign, non-fiat, trustless, censorship-resistant cryptoasset would be a far better alternative for most foreign currency international reserves. IMF SDRs are already a synthetic store of value, so could also be easily and sensibly replaced by such a cryptoasset.”, this necessarily does not make BTC the right candidate for several reasons: 1. BTC is not a self-improving self-evolvable fully censorship-resistant cryptoasset which is a must for it to qualify as a viable reserve asset and appeal to long-term institutional and high networth investors.
Bitcoins miners are mostly corporate entities having large investments in ASIC-based mining equipments. It’s not impossible to corner 51% mining power by a centralized resourceful entity compromising double spending protection and other trustless security measures built-in. So BTC is not truly decentralized. 2. The underlying hash algorithm and encryption protocol of BTC known as SHA-256 can be broken by multi-qubit quantum circuits and quantum computers under active development in labs across the world. So BTC is not future-proof and its very existence is threatened unless its core developers continuously modify and improve its underlying security model and technology. 3. Bitcoin is not infinitely-divisible that’s it’s not only upwardly non-scalable, the same is true for its downward scalability. In fact BTC has only 8 decimal places known as Satoshis(1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC)
Futuristic protocol tokens such as infinitely scalable minerless Orch(ORC) should be more attractive to long-term investors looking for an alternative non-sovereign, non-fiat, and trustless, censorship-resistant privacy preserving high-velocity cryptoasset.
In their paper titled “Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts” Joseph Poon and Vitalik Buterin defines their proposal as “Plasma is a proposed framework for incentivized and enforced execution of ‘smart contracts’ which is scalable to a significant amount of state updates per second (potentially billions) enabling the blockchain to be able to represent a significant amount of decentralized financial applications worldwide.” Now first thing is it’s not clear what do they mean by “Autonomous Smart Contracts” and what specifically autonomous component in Plasma it refers to. For example, an autonomous weapon would set the target and hit it on its own without any humans in the loop or an autonomous self-driving car would drive down to a destination point without any human navigating it.
Now contrary to their claims, their off-chain and second-layer scaling solution with Ethereum(ETH) as the root blockchain is neither censor-proof nor truly scalable as this requires state-channel based masternodes/validators. So it’s not a feasible solution at all as trust issues will crop up at every moment.
Moreover, Scalable Multi-Party Computation is feasible only in a platform that guarantees functional encryption i.e. query, exchange and computation between encrypted objects, data and entities which is possible only via recursive STARKs and Lattice-based FHE(Fully Homomorphic Encryption). A second-layer protocol like Plasma does not have the capability of providing functional encryption to all distributed anonymous parties having zero mutual trusts.
There is a repeated effort to push some dangerous products under a guise of advanced blockchains and decentralized platforms. For instance, hidden external oracles and corporate entity-controlled decentralized platforms. Blockchain applications live in their own digital realm, totally orthogonal to the real world and environment we live in. Be it decentralized application or a smart contract, their reach is limited to the space they can control. Any use case projection in our reality eventually confronts the following hard fact: how can an app efficiently and securely interact with the physical world? Now hidden external oracles like that of oraclize.it and hardware pythias are being marketed as the solutions to this problem. But (IMHO) internal encrypted entities of Orch (ORC) platform known as Degents having access to cryptographically reliable external software/hardware sensors-actors will transparently and securely interact with the external world/environment.
Only minerless future-proof general-purpose decentralized networks such as Orch(ORC) designed from scratch as an MPC(Multiparty Computation) platform can deliver truly scalable MPC solutions flawlessly and reliably to millions of consumers simultaneously without compromising on security and trustlessness.
The far reaching impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain with built-in quantum safe privacy and multicompute features will be immeasurable and profound.
It would transform the whole universe of blockchain and decentralized networks inlcuding all blockchain-based and blockchainfree platforms such as DAG-based and DHT-based platforms e.g. IOTA, Nano and Holochain.
Orch Network (native token symbol: ORC and URL: https://orch.network) will enable and power following dapps and user-cases:

  1. Privacy-preserving Infinitely-divisible Hypercurrency and Confidential Global Payment System with integrated encrypted decentralized chat service
  2. Unmanned Decentralized Cryptoasset Exchanges
  3. Large-scale Federated IoT Networks
  4. Decentralized DNS Clusters
  5. Anonymous trading of Tokenized Financial Assets and Derivatives Contracts
  6. Automated Hedge Funds
  7. Crypto darkpools
  8. Temporal Insurance Products
  9. Global Supply chain and unmanned cargo ships and drones
  10. Realtime Encrypted Video Communication capable Anonymous Web Infrastructure
  11. High-velocity Non-sovereign Reserve Asset
  12. Near-Perfect Coin Mixer
  13. Decentralized Marketplace App
  14. Transparent Robust Stable Coins
  15. Decentralized P2P Storage of functionally encrypted data
  16. Permissionless ICO Platforms
  17. Decentralized and Encrypted Facebook, gmail, Twitter and google-like search/answer engines
  18. Decentralized CDNs
  19. Customizable Decentralized Governance System for blockchains and dapps
Another important thing that will boost the price and value of Orch Network token ORC is its integrated Turing Incomplete cyber contract protocol running Turing Incomplete cyber contracts written in Crackcity(a Turing Incomplete language derived from Crack and Simplicity) that runs on top of Crack Machine(s). Crack machines are Orch’s blockchain virtual machines.
Ethereum’s main deficiency and Achilles’ heel is its Turing Complete smart contract programming language Solidity.

  1. Turing-complete languages are fundamentally inappropriate for writing “smart contracts” — because such languages are inherently undecidable, which makes it impossible to know what a “smart contract” will do before running it.
(2) We should learn from Wall Street’s existing DSLs (domain-specific languages) for financial products and smart contracts, based on declarative and functional languages such as Ocaml and Haskell — instead of doing what the Web 2.0 programmers” behind Solidity did, and what Peter Todd is also apparently embarking upon: ie, ignoring the lessons that Wall Street has already learned, and “reinventing the wheel”, using less-suitable languages such as C++ and JavaScript-like languages (Solidity), simply because they seem “easier” for the “masses” to use.
(3) We should also consider using specification languages (to say what a contract does) along with implementation languages (saying how it should do it) — because specifications are higher-level and easier for people to read than implementations which are lower-level meant for machines to run — and also because ecosystems of specification/implementation language pairs (such as Coq/Ocaml) support formal reasoning and verification tools which could be used to mathematically prove that a smart contract’s implementation is “correct” (ie, it satisfies its specification) before even running it.
Turing-complete languages lead to “undecidable” programs (ie, you cannot figure out what you do until after you run them)
One hint: recall that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proved that any mathematical system which is (Turing)-complete, must also be inconsistent incomplete [hat tip] — that is, in any such system, it must be possible to formulate propositions which are undecidable within that system.
This is related to things like the Halting Problem.
And by the way, Ethereum’s concept of “gas” is not a real solution to the Halting Problem: Yes, running out of “gas” means that the machine will “stop” eventually, but this naïve approach does not overcome the more fundamental problems regarding undecidability of programs written using a Turing-complete language.
The take-away is that:
When using any Turing-complete language, it will always be possible for someone (eg, the DAO hacker, or some crook like Bernie Madoff, or some well-meaning but clueless dev from slock.it) to formulate a “smart contract” whose meaning cannot be determined in advance by merely inspecting the code: ie, it will always be possible to write a smart contract whose meaning can only be determined after running the code.
Take a moment to contemplate the full, deep (and horrifying) implications of all this.
Some of the greatest mathematicians and computer scientists of the 20th century already discovered and definitively proved (much to the consternation most of their less-sophisticated (naïve) colleagues — who nevertheless eventually were forced to come around and begrudgingly agree with them) that: Given a “smart contract” written in a Turing-complete language, it is impossible to determine the semantics / behavior of that “smart contract” in advance, by mere inspection — either by a human, or even by a machine such as a theorem prover or formal reasoning tool (because such tools unfortunately only work on more-restricted languages, not on Turing-complete languages — for info on such more-restricted languages, see further below on “constructivism” and “intuitionistic logic”).
The horrifying conclusion is that: the only way to determine the semantics / behavior of a “smart contract” is “after-the-fact” — ie, by actually running it on some machine (eg, the notorious EVM) — and waiting to see what happens (eg, waiting for a hacker to “steal” tens of millions of dollars — simply because he understood the semantics / behavior of the code better than the developers did.
Last but not the least, increasing regulatory pressures on Bitcoin, Ethereum and other permissionless public cryptocurrencies/cryptotokens will impact their prices negatively in the medium to long-term.
The need for a hyperfast private zero-knowledge proof cryptocurrency that keeps payer-payee and payment data private and secure along with a decentralized scalable multicomputation platform can’t be overemphasized.
submitted by OrchNetwork to u/OrchNetwork [link] [comments]

Intergalactic Money: The deep impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain federation

Intergalactic Money: The deep impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain federation
Prologue: This article is a strategic response to the following crypto-related papers published in 2017: 1. “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets” by John Pfeffer of Pfeffer Capital and 2. “Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts” by Joseph Poon of Lightning Network and Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum Foundation.
John Pfeffer in his paper titled “An (Institutional) Investor’s Take on Cryptoassets” claims that “scaling solutions for blockchains in particular and decentralized networks including (implied) DAG-based networks such as PoS, Sharding, etc. are bullish for adoption and users/consumers but bearish for token value/investors. Even without those technology shifts, the cost of using decentralized protocols is deflationary, since the cost of processing power, storage and bandwidth are deflationary.” Farther he states “ It’s a mistake to compare monopoly network effects of Facebook or other centralized platforms to blockchain protocols because blockchain protocols can be forked to a functionally identical blockchain with the same history and users up to the moment if a parent chain persists in being arbitrarily expensive to use(i.e. rent-seeking). Like TCP/IP but unlike Facebook, blockchain protocols are open-source software that anyone can copy or fork freely.” Add regulatory pressures on bitcoin and public permissionless currency and its negative impact.
It’s obvious from his statements; John is not aware of latest R&D projects focused on improving decentralized networks and advances in decentralized protocols especially “Unforkable Realtime Blockchains” such as Algorand, Bitlattice and Orch.Network based on Recursive STARKs and FHE/SHE. He is also ignorant of the fact that there are several projects working on self-evolving censor-proof quantum safe protocols such as Orch Network (token symbol: ORC and URL: https://orch.network/). These protocols have adopted a continuous development strategy while getting ready for next paradigm shifts in technology e.g. practical quantum computing and quantum internet. He also does not understand that a futuristic protocol token with infinite-divisibility integrated with a hybrid quantum-classical computational infrastructure can easily counteract and neutralize the deflationary nature of its own tokens and its limited supply hardcap making it infinitely scalable and elastic.

https://preview.redd.it/lj2bgefhmml11.jpg?width=636&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce282da0942d65464d7edf2c822fff4737f0aa87
While I agree with his following statement: “A non-sovereign, non-fiat, trustless, censorship-resistant cryptoasset would be a far better alternative for most foreign currency international reserves. IMF SDRs are already a synthetic store of value, so could also be easily and sensibly replaced by such a cryptoasset.”, this necessarily does not make BTC the right candidate for several reasons: 1. BTC is not a self-improving self-evolvable fully censorship-resistant cryptoasset which is a must for it to qualify as a viable reserve asset and appeal to long-term institutional and high networth investors.
Bitcoins miners are mostly corporate entities having large investments in ASIC-based mining equipments. It’s not impossible to corner 51% mining power by a centralized resourceful entity compromising double spending protection and other trustless security measures built-in. So BTC is not truly decentralized. 2. The underlying hash algorithm and encryption protocol of BTC known as SHA-256 can be broken by multi-qubit quantum circuits and quantum computers under active development in labs across the world. So BTC is not future-proof and its very existence is threatened unless its core developers continuously modify and improve its underlying security model and technology. 3. Bitcoin is not infinitely-divisible that’s it’s not only upwardly non-scalable, the same is true for its downward scalability. In fact BTC has only 8 decimal places known as Satoshis(1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC)
Futuristic protocol tokens such as infinitely scalable minerless Orch(ORC) should be more attractive to long-term investors looking for an alternative non-sovereign, non-fiat, and trustless, censorship-resistant privacy preserving high-velocity cryptoasset.
In their paper titled “Plasma: Scalable Autonomous Smart Contracts” Joseph Poon and Vitalik Buterin defines their proposal as “Plasma is a proposed framework for incentivized and enforced execution of ‘smart contracts’ which is scalable to a significant amount of state updates per second (potentially billions) enabling the blockchain to be able to represent a significant amount of decentralized financial applications worldwide.” Now first thing is it’s not clear what do they mean by “Autonomous Smart Contracts” and what specifically autonomous component in Plasma it refers to. For example, an autonomous weapon would set the target and hit it on its own without any humans in the loop or an autonomous self-driving car would drive down to a destination point without any human navigating it.
Now contrary to their claims, their off-chain and second-layer scaling solution with Ethereum(ETH) as the root blockchain is neither censor-proof nor truly scalable as this requires state-channel based masternodes/validators. So it’s not a feasible solution at all as trust issues will crop up at every moment.
Moreover, Scalable Multi-Party Computation is feasible only in a platform that guarantees functional encryption i.e. query, exchange and computation between encrypted objects, data and entities which is possible only via recursive STARKs and Lattice-based FHE(Fully Homomorphic Encryption). A second-layer protocol like Plasma does not have the capability of providing functional encryption to all distributed anonymous parties having zero mutual trusts.
There is a repeated effort to push some dangerous products under a guise of advanced blockchains and decentralized platforms. For instance, hidden external oracles and corporate entity-controlled decentralized platforms. Blockchain applications live in their own digital realm, totally orthogonal to the real world and environment we live in. Be it decentralized application or a smart contract, their reach is limited to the space they can control. Any use case projection in our reality eventually confronts the following hard fact: how can an app efficiently and securely interact with the physical world? Now hidden external oracles like that of oraclize.it and hardware pythias are being marketed as the solutions to this problem. But (IMHO) internal encrypted entities of Orch (ORC) platform known as Degents having access to cryptographically reliable external software/hardware sensors-actors will transparently and securely interact with the external world/environment.
Only minerless future-proof general-purpose decentralized networks such as Orch(ORC) designed from scratch as an MPC(Multiparty Computation) platform can deliver truly scalable MPC solutions flawlessly and reliably to millions of consumers simultaneously without compromising on security and trustlessness.
The far reaching impact of a self-evolving infinitely-scalable general-purpose realtime unforkable public blockchain with built-in quantum safe privacy and multicompute features will be immeasurable and profound.
It would transform the whole universe of blockchain and decentralized networks inlcuding all blockchain-based and blockchainfree platforms such as DAG-based and DHT-based platforms e.g. IOTA, Nano and Holochain.
Orch Network (native token symbol: ORC and URL: https://orch.network) will enable and power following dapps and user-cases:

  1. Privacy-preserving Infinitely-divisible Hypercurrency and Confidential Global Payment System with integrated encrypted decentralized chat service
  2. Unmanned Decentralized Cryptoasset Exchanges
  3. Large-scale Federated IoT Networks
  4. Decentralized DNS Clusters
  5. Anonymous trading of Tokenized Financial Assets and Derivatives Contracts
  6. Automated Hedge Funds
  7. Crypto darkpools
  8. Temporal Insurance Products
  9. Global Supply chain and unmanned cargo ships and drones
  10. Realtime Encrypted Video Communication capable Anonymous Web Infrastructure
  11. High-velocity Non-sovereign Reserve Asset
  12. Near-Perfect Coin Mixer
  13. Decentralized Marketplace App
  14. Transparent Robust Stable Coins
  15. Decentralized P2P Storage of functionally encrypted data
  16. Permissionless ICO Platforms
  17. Decentralized and Encrypted Facebook, gmail, Twitter and google-like search/answer engines
  18. Decentralized CDNs
  19. Customizable Decentralized Governance System for blockchains and dapps
Another important thing that will boost the price and value of Orch Network token ORC is its integrated Turing Incomplete cyber contract protocol running Turing Incomplete cyber contracts written in Crackcity(a Turing Incomplete language derived from Crack and Simplicity) that runs on top of Crack Machine(s). Crack machines are Orch’s blockchain virtual machines.
Ethereum’s main deficiency and Achilles’ heel is its Turing Complete smart contract programming language Solidity.

  1. Turing-complete languages are fundamentally inappropriate for writing “smart contracts” — because such languages are inherently undecidable, which makes it impossible to know what a “smart contract” will do before running it.
(2) We should learn from Wall Street’s existing DSLs (domain-specific languages) for financial products and smart contracts, based on declarative and functional languages such as Ocaml and Haskell — instead of doing what the Web 2.0 programmers” behind Solidity did, and what Peter Todd is also apparently embarking upon: ie, ignoring the lessons that Wall Street has already learned, and “reinventing the wheel”, using less-suitable languages such as C++ and JavaScript-like languages (Solidity), simply because they seem “easier” for the “masses” to use.
(3) We should also consider using specification languages (to say what a contract does) along with implementation languages (saying how it should do it) — because specifications are higher-level and easier for people to read than implementations which are lower-level meant for machines to run — and also because ecosystems of specification/implementation language pairs (such as Coq/Ocaml) support formal reasoning and verification tools which could be used to mathematically prove that a smart contract’s implementation is “correct” (ie, it satisfies its specification) before even running it.
Turing-complete languages lead to “undecidable” programs (ie, you cannot figure out what you do until after you run them)
One hint: recall that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem proved that any mathematical system which is (Turing)-complete, must also be inconsistent incomplete [hat tip] — that is, in any such system, it must be possible to formulate propositions which are undecidable within that system.
This is related to things like the Halting Problem.
And by the way, Ethereum’s concept of “gas” is not a real solution to the Halting Problem: Yes, running out of “gas” means that the machine will “stop” eventually, but this naïve approach does not overcome the more fundamental problems regarding undecidability of programs written using a Turing-complete language.
The take-away is that:
When using any Turing-complete language, it will always be possible for someone (eg, the DAO hacker, or some crook like Bernie Madoff, or some well-meaning but clueless dev from slock.it) to formulate a “smart contract” whose meaning cannot be determined in advance by merely inspecting the code: ie, it will always be possible to write a smart contract whose meaning can only be determined after running the code.
Take a moment to contemplate the full, deep (and horrifying) implications of all this.
Some of the greatest mathematicians and computer scientists of the 20th century already discovered and definitively proved (much to the consternation most of their less-sophisticated (naïve) colleagues — who nevertheless eventually were forced to come around and begrudgingly agree with them) that: Given a “smart contract” written in a Turing-complete language, it is impossible to determine the semantics / behavior of that “smart contract” in advance, by mere inspection — either by a human, or even by a machine such as a theorem prover or formal reasoning tool (because such tools unfortunately only work on more-restricted languages, not on Turing-complete languages — for info on such more-restricted languages, see further below on “constructivism” and “intuitionistic logic”).
The horrifying conclusion is that: the only way to determine the semantics / behavior of a “smart contract” is “after-the-fact” — ie, by actually running it on some machine (eg, the notorious EVM) — and waiting to see what happens (eg, waiting for a hacker to “steal” tens of millions of dollars — simply because he understood the semantics / behavior of the code better than the developers did.
Last but not the least, increasing regulatory pressures on Bitcoin, Ethereum and other permissionless public cryptocurrencies/cryptotokens will impact their prices negatively in the medium to long-term.
The need for a hyperfast private zero-knowledge proof cryptocurrency that keeps payer-payee and payment data private and secure along with a decentralized scalable multicomputation platform can’t be overemphasized.
submitted by OrchNetwork to u/OrchNetwork [link] [comments]

Bitcoin SHA256 Mining Farm mining monero using sha-256 gekkoscience SHA256 Hashing Using Java - Backbone of any Blockchain or a Cryptocurrency What would happen to Bitcoin if SHA256 were broken? BITCOIN MINING trailer

The Bitcoin mining went through a lot of ups and downs since its beginning. Back then, it was hard and you needed to be technically advanced. Luckily for us, in 2017/2018 we saw a lot of new user friendly tools. We’ve got several great GUI miners, as well an “innovation”- Bitcoin Mining with JavaScript. Table […] We still have to implement the mining process that is at the heart of the Proof-of-Work consensus algorithm used by the Bitcoin Blockchain. Mining consists of trying different SHA-256 signature How the Bitcoin Mining Works: Bitcoin Mining requires a task that is exceptionally tricky to perform, but simple to verify. It uses cryptography, with a hash function called double SHA-256( a one-way function that converts a text of any dimension into a string of 256 bits). This course is for students who wish to confidently navigate the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrency, and it’s taught by developers who love technology, rather than investors looking to pitch you. Many courses focus on teaching you how to purchase Bitcoin, but very few explain how it works or why it has become so popular. The course begins with a basic overview of the history, concepts SHA-256 is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA. SHA stands for Secure Hash Algorithm. Cryptographic hash functions are mathematical operations run on digital data; by comparing the computed "hash" (the output from execution of the algorithm) to a known and expected hash value, a person can determine the data's integrity.

[index] [10382] [24960] [4750] [6389] [954] [11495] [8068] [23080] [16560] [20928]

Bitcoin SHA256 Mining Farm

What is a Bitcoin hash and SHA-256 - Duration: 1:54. Ofir Beigel 62,993 views. 1:54. JAVA - How To Design Login And Register Form In Java Netbeans ... Mining Bitcoin with Excel ... Bitcoin mining a block is difficult because the SHA-256 hash of a block's header must be lower than or equal to the target in order for the block to be accepted by the network. Help Me By Pressing SUBSCRIBE Bantu Saya Dengan Tekan SUBSCRIBE atau LANGGAN https://www.eobot.com/user/1411259 sign up now to gain speed on eobot. now i'm m... My hack job of a mining farm. Nothing fancy, just barebone hashing. It's a hobby Farm now running on a Raspberry B+ I'd love to hear about your rigs! Please comment below and share your links. Andreas is the author of three books: “Mastering Bitcoin,” published by O’Reilly Media and considered the best technical guide to bitcoin, “Mastering Ethereum: Building Smart Contracts and ...

Flag Counter