Talk:CryptoNote

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)