Quote from: sorryforthat on April 13, 2015, 12:36:20 AM

Quote from: smooth on April 13, 2015, 12:03:31 AM

Quote from: Rias on April 12, 2015, 11:58:16 PM

Sounds more like conspiracy theory to me. I'd say there's something more behind the Bytecoin story, and there are more things pointing to 2012 as a project launch year rather to the smooth's version of events. Personally, I believe that the project was created in 2012 in a rough minimum viable product, which simply did not take off. I tend to agree with Halon's razor in this case.

Nope, already contradicted by statements made by Bytecoin supporters. Not going to explicitly point them out though (for now)

I've said before that the more bullshit they spin up the more contradictions will be created, and that is true.

They should really stop digging.

But a good portion of all of this is merely speculation. For all we know the people you say are creating the backwards statements arent even involved in the creation. Isn't it possible for others to perpetuate all of this without truly having anything to do with the coin itself, something like a takeover. This is no different than Satoshi creating bitcoin and everything to include updates and posts being handled by others.

In a sense it doesn't matter at all who "created" it (could be aliens!). We know who is promoting it, and we know they are lying scammers, if only because of their own contradictions. Also, the official bytecoin web site at one point claimed that a Princeton professor was part of the team and gave biographical information (I saw it). Someone did the research and figured out that no such professor existed (I checked this and confirmed it). It was pure fraud. They took the alleged "team member" off the web site which was likely a good idea because institutions such as Princeton are quite powerful and don't take kindly to their name being falsely used to promote scams.

There is also from the weight of the evidence as evaluated by credible independent objective observers, such as actual professors that really exist:

Quote from: dga on August 22, 2014, 04:43:20 PM

I have no horses in the XMR race (but I do hold some BBR), but let me say that independent of the OP -- and with a little less venom and swearing -- it was very clear from the code that the bytecoin premine was fake. Nothing to do with the whitepaper, and you can find the obsfucated and slowed-down code in the git history of XMR and Bytecoin.

I have no comment about the other coins, and personally believe both that the XMR dev team is reasonably clean and that BBR was a good-faith effort to create something non-scammy, but I don't have a technical basis for that conclusion.

I don't want you to buy any coin (and I'd never advise anyone to put money on cryptocurrencies unless they want to gamble). But I do believe it's worthwhile suggesting to people somewhat emphatically that they stay the heck away from BCN and tread carefully with some of the clones that just copy-pasted that code, as much as they should be careful with any alt that just copy-pastes the Bitcoin code and tweaks a few parameters. Most are at best worthless and at worst outright scams. The thing that adds potential value to a coin that's not actively used is its development, community (consider dogecoin as an example of the latter, and both BBR and XMR as examples of the former), and in some cases, its underlying technical innovations (cryptonote broadly speaking).

And before you fling accusations, I'm quite sure I'm not a sock puppet: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/crypto/not_a_sock_puppet.html

That's enough for me.

The right razor to use here is not Hanlon's it is Occam's (though perhaps Hanlon's too with the stupidity of the fraud), and all the lies are causing Good Ol' Occam to lose his voice with how loudly he's shouting fraud here.