Talk:CryptoNote

Double spending protection - Is anonymity the problem?

"Since CryptoNote currencies are anonymous, the network must confirm the validity of transactions in another way."

AFAIK anonymity is not the problem here but the problem is, that the transactions are not "readable"/"understandable" by 3rd parties. Bitcoin transactions stored in the blockchain are anonymous, too (there are no names in it and nobody really knows the person behind an address), but you can verify it though. Sedrubal 2017-11-11 00:35 UTC

Faked CryptoNote/Bytecoin backstory

It is well accepted that CryptoNote/Bytecoin were first publicly disclosed and discussed in March 2014, that the 2 whitepapers were edited/created around March-April 2014, and that the 2-year blockchain history of Bytecoin from 2012 to March 2014 was faked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0 But the wiki page does not represent this faked backstory, and needs serious rework. Mbevand (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

None of Bytecoin's citations are valid. They all point to broken links. Psyrkus (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I asked for the expose to be white-listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (searchable phrase: "Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)". The answer appears to be a firm "No." Since the Article fails to meet WP:NPOV without that source, I wonder if I should add a template asking for reliable sources WP:RS, pending deletion since those do not actually exist in most cases: due to a historic lack of notability Wikipedia:Notability. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is apparently explained away in the "Faked versions of whitepaper" section of the article. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Monero

Someone on reddit asked help for improving the presence of Monero on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia pillar of neutrality of point of view (WP:NPOV) strongly discourages me to edit the page for other things than correcting factual errors. But nothing prevents me to propose a draft on the talk page :)

Monero as a probably consistently the highest volume of any CryptoNote currency. This is not officially the case because of the insane trafic on hitbtc - it is suspected to be fake, but still, factually, Bytecoin has a higher volume.

The core team repeatedly proved its dedication and Monero is well-regarded by important actors of the cryptocurrency scene such as Andrew Poelstra (andytoshi), Gregory Maxwell or Michael Marquard (Theymos).

Some texts to use as an inspiration for an article: https://xmrmonero.com/faq/en/why-monero-matters-prove-me-monero-not-yet-another-shitcoin

Sorry, I'm running out of inspiration at the moment :) --
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not going to be touching it, but I think the unbelievably bad grammar in the CryptoNote Wikipedia page alone is reason enough for Monero to have its own page;)

The Monero Core team will gladly avail themselves to answer factual questions about Monero. Some key starting points:

The first post on the Bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0

Our 2014 "Year in Review" Missive: https://forum.monero.cc/1/news-and-announcements/134/monday-monero-missives-22-year-in-review-january-5th-2015

The collection of Missives linked on that first post of the Bitcointalk thread also contain important changes / improvements etc. with links / references to external sources where necessary.

An SVG version of the Monero logo is in our branding pack: https://monero.cc/downloads/resources/branding.zip

David - I'm pretty sure Monero exchange volume *has* been consistently higher than Bytecoin. Starting points to verify this: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/#charts vs. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bytecoin-bcn/#charts (switch to 365-day or All time view, note the scale).

Fluffypony (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Monero should have its own Wikipedia page, it already contributed and diverted a lot from the original cryptonote code, also there is deep consensus it is the only cryptonote currency to come on a clean slate after various discrepancies, to put it lightly, on the cryptonote family of coins were exposed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0

responding to David Latapie My understanding is that WP:NPOV allows you to correct factual errors, so long as you "Avoid stating opinions as facts." If certainly raises eyebrows when somebody involved with a project does their own editing. That may have to do with notability concerns, more than anything (you are not supposed to link to primary sources). 198.48.133.157 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CryptoNote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017214413/http://bytecoiner.org/blog/bcn_btc_infographics.php to http://bytecoiner.org/blog/bcn_btc_infographics.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dubious

Bytecoin (BCN)

Cointelegraph appears to use redirection URLs to link directly to primary (self-published) sources. Since it is not clear cointelegraph did any further fact-checking, I don't believe the dates listed. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Faked versions of whitepaper

I did not find the "forgery" interpretation of the back-dated PDF files convincing. One suggestion in that thread is that these "new" files with corrected dates and software versions, and a watermark: were produced after the initial expose.

At the risk of original research, I suspected something was wrong myself with the very steep emission curve (way steeper than Bitcoin). The thread in question was compelling enough to convince *me* that it was a pre-mining scam. If you read through that thread, you will see that many people also had their suspicions well: but failed to lay out all the reasons why. 198.48.133.157 (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That tagged content is pasted below. Moved here til it can be reliably sourced.

Faked versions of whitepaper

Community activists discovered altered versions of CryptoNote whitepapers with digital signatures not corresponding to Nicolas van Saberhagen PGP key and missing PGP watermarks. This incident has been attributed to documents' forgery. The possible goal of this action was to refute claims about public availability of CryptoNote since 2012 in order to gain competitive advantage. Modified whitepaper included link to discussion thread started in May, 2013 on bitcointalk.org forum and have been generated using TeX Live software released in 2013 with XMP date property set to 2014.

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

origins

the section below is entirely WP:OR. We need secondary sources that say all this. Saying "X was first", cited to X, is WP:OR and not supported by X.

A bunch of these refs are also irretrievably dead.

Origins

CryptoNote technology was first described in a whitepaper CryptoNote v 1.0. An updated version has been released under the name CryptoNote v 2.0 later. The Bytecoin cryptocurrency was the first one where the underlying cryptographic protocol has been implemented. CryptoNote was at first developed in Java for faster launch, and then re-written in C++ in 2013.

CryptoNote is based on many early works and protocols and takes into consideration several issues raised formerly. Below is a list of the most important papers and events that influenced CryptoNote:

• 1983 – Blind signatures described by David Chaum;
• 1997 – HashCash (an instance of a proof-of-work system) invented by Adam Back;
• 2001 – Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Yael Tauman proposed ring signatures to the cryptographic community;
• 2004 – Patrick P. Tsang and Victor K. proposed using the ring signature system for voting and electronic cash;
• 2008 – Bitcoin whitepaper published by Satoshi Nakamoto;
• 2011 – An Analysis of Anonymity in the Bitcoin System, Fergal Reid and Martin Harrigan;
• 2012 – Destination Address Anonymity in Bitcoin (one-time addresses in CryptoNote).

The author of the white paper went by the name Nicolas van Saberhagen, although like Satoshi Nakamoto (the author of the Bitcoin white paper) that name is likely a pseudonym. Saberhagen's true identity and location remains unknown. Some have claimed that the real creator is someone in the Bitcoin community. Adam Back, Nick Szabo and even Satoshi Nakamoto himself have been floated as possible suspects, but there is little to no evidence actually supporting those claims.

Stanford Bitcoin Group’s possible involvement in creation of the CryptoNote protocol has also been discussed. Prior to CryptoNote cryptocurrency protocol, the domain cryptonote.org hosted an encrypted message application also named CryptoNote. This application was developed by the members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group but had not received wide recognition. This website currently hosts the CryptoNote technology.

References

dross in article

There are what see to be spurious claims of non-notable systems. There would seem to be requirements within Wikipedia:Notability to have a higher standard than some vague or miniscule reference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone got the RSes from the AFD?

I just cut the extensively unsourced or primary-sourced sections. Any expansion should be with the sources from the AFD - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Monero community affiliates continue the attacks against Bytecoin

Bytecoin (BCN) has been the first CryptoNote implementation, and very likely by the same authors of CryptoNote protocol itself, after that many forks of Bytecoin have been created included Monero. With Monero creation started a huge denigratory campaign against Bytecoin from Monero community itself, and it's incredible this continues till now that Monero unfairily have surpassed it in popularity, removing all mentions of Bytecoin from CryptoNote page. That it's absurd! A cancel strategy to hide the true CryptoNote story and how Monero community continues to hide its true story of unfair competition against the original project of which it is a derivation whose community tried every dirty move to gain notoriety to the detriment of original CryptoNote based altcoin. - FredBoron (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@FredBoron: Do you have independent reliable sources to support this? Wikipedia is not about "fair" or "true". It is about verifiable facts. What reputable sources discuss this? Retimuko (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

That Monero is a fork of Bytecoin is widely known fact, and mentioned also in monero official website. The fact Bytecoin is the first Cryptonote implementation is another widely known fact, that since we are talking about open source projects, you can verificate easily checking the first commit on related Github project and Cryptonote appeared in the same period from same author nickname amjuarez, you can also use wayback machine to see that. This page basically doesn't report anything of the Cryptonote history, not even the official link to its Github repository, and there are a lot of efforts to hide all Bytecoin references, a very aggressive Monero community seems want to hide all the info related to Cryptonote origin and Bytecoin, that is also the reason why there is no Bytecoin wikipedia page contrarily to monero, and the Wikipedia article related to Cryptonote is lackluster and under attack as well, and rather than being extended and improved everything is cancelled. How can I believe that You are monitoring the Cryptonote page cancelling all Bytecoin references and you haven't even checked the Cryptonote official github project? It's enough to see on repository cryptonote forked from amjuarez/bytecoin - FredBoron (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@FredBoron: Do you have independent reliable secondary sources that discuss this? Did you have a chance to review Wikipedia policies I linked above about reliable sources and verifiability? Please take time to familiarize yourself with the rules including the ones about edit warring. When your changes are reverted with reasons you are not supposed to revert in response, but discuss here first. I suggest you revert your edits in the article. They are not in agreement with policies. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko:I have linked Cryptonote project Github repository itself, this is the more reliable source possible with every open source commit recorded with timestamp, nothing on the planet could be a more reliable source than this. Here you can see also a 2014 snapshoot of Cryptonote.org website recorded on Wayback Machine of archive.org with a big Bytecoin reference. What YOU are doing isn't in agreement with Wikipedia policies. It's evident you are biased and are here to continue the joke. Cannot be explained in other ways your attitude. FredBoron (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@FredBoron: Please, take some time to look through the policies I liked above. You keep referring to primary sources, but Wikipedia must be based on secondary sources for the most part. If something is not discussed in secondary sources, it is not notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned, especially regarding controversial blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. Simply speaking, we need some articles in reputable magazines or newspapers, interviews with key people involved in reputable media or something like that. Retimuko (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: You should understand the policies you have linked, but it's obvious you are interested to ignore them to promote Monero hiding Bytecoin relation to Cryptonote. First of all, the secondary source is needed for information that can be biased or false, not for objective facts. If a page talks about a poet and He himself in his own biography state He likes milk, attaching a photo where there is him drinking it, you don't need another author or source to report that in an encyclopedia, because it is a factual data. If Microsoft itself state that Vista was named Longhorn before release, you don't need that also a thirdy party blog confirm, because every third party takes the info exactly from the original author. In addition you have 2 different sources. The Github repository fork timestamp (Crypnotote author isn't the author of GitHub portal but only of his repository, so cannot alter the portal data timestamps), in addition to official website snapshot data. But you can also search yourself various others sources although nothing is more reliable than GitHub data timestamps themselves. Your justifications for these unjustified rollbacks are over the limit of ridiculous. Please stop or I will report you to a Wikipedia Moderator. The your is vandalism. FredBoron (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

@FredBoron: please take a look at the policy about original research. Besides, there is a special regime for blockchain and cryptocurrency topics. Due to a long history of promotional edits there is a consensus to use only high-quality secondary sources. Please no cointelegraph and such. Retimuko (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Retimuko: The promotional edits are exactly the yours. You are deliberately ignoring all guidelines and ALL sources regardless the type like a b0t, included those that cannot be in any way biased as Github open source portal where you can track the open projects fork dates. You aren't respecting any guideline, and you aren't here to improve the article in any way, you are here just to hide all the info that can give info that contraddict some of Monero promotion campaign statements against Bytecoin and CryptoNote origin. FredBoron (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@FredBoron: please no Cointelegraph and Bitcoinist. Please bring independent reliable secondary sources. Please stop edit war and personal attacks. Thank you. Retimuko (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)