Quote from: polecrab on July 03, 2014, 09:30:21 AM

I wonder if this is a response to my post observing they never officially published their code:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=512747.msg7556314#msg7556314

The symbiosis between cryptonote and bytecoin also draws my attention. Cryptonote calls bytecoin their reference implementation. Bytecoin code has crytponote copyright and licence at core, but there is no other public repository for the cryptonote code that I could find. My intuition tells me they are not the same person or persons since they seem to have different objectives by the artifacts they have published.

Pretty nice investigating job, respect you. All this start to resemble a detective story.

Can anybody witness else confirm that "Cryptonote creators called bytecoin their reference implementation" in that time?

There are two possibilities:

1. As you proved in that thread, and as commonly known this days, Bytecoin had been hiddenly premined. So if some witnesses do confirm that Cryptonote creators (proven by SSL certificate) did call Bytecoin their reference implementation, it will completely disconsider Cryptonote creators.

2. Another possibility you mentioned, there are TWO groups of people among official Cryptonote creators, one group is honest, and other is disreputable. This hypotesis explains why the disreputable group of official Cryptonote creators that started shit-fork opportunity and this thread, does have access to SSL certificates of Cryptonote web-sites. And being disreputable, they can not sign NEW shit-fork-opportunity web-site correctly (may be they are working on it, but can not do it quickly).

So at this discussion point we MUST break at debug point, and demand for that Cryptonote creators group who started this thread AND launched shit-fork-opportunity web site, to prove us they are actually honest, thoroughly.