Quote from: Rias on August 22, 2014, 02:23:25 PM

Quote from: smooth on August 22, 2014, 02:01:40 PM

The only basis there is to believe that actually happened are these new posts with more fake documents falsely (or at best unverifiably, but from a trust point of view, that is identical) dated from 2012, as I showed above.

My belief is that it didn't happen at all, and is just an attempt to use the tired "We got hacked!" defense. It doesn't strike me as the brightest strategy to align yourself (not you in particular) with Mark Karpels, et al.

I also believe (as I have said before -- i.e. before this thread) that the more these scammers try to post new stuff to back up their fabtricated story, the more evidence they create that refutes it. That might not be true for a truly skilled fraudsters, but they are not in say, Bernie Madoff's league. They are just a fairly amateurish coin mill, and their efforts reflect that.

Your version with "just a fairly amateurish coin mill" doesn't match the fact that the someone has created CryptoNote technology, which is totally new. Based on recent releases by Bytecoin (e.g. multisigs) I assume that they initially coded the protocol and are still contributing to its development. Why would amateurish coin mill do so?

Sure it does, because:

1. Brilliant cryptography and okay programming (the BCN code is not brilliant, just okay) do not necessarily correlate with integrity and understanding of other's reactions to your approach to, ahem, "marketing" as pointed out by someone earlier. Autistic spectrum is quite plausible.

2. We don't know who created the original cryptography and/or implementation and, no, I am not impressed by the recent Bytecoin releases. Multisig was already designed in from the start (see white paper), someone just did the fairly straightforward (and incomplete) implementation of it. So I'm not convinced that the managers of the ongoing scamming (more fake papers with bogus signatures, etc.) are necessarily the inventors. I lean against, but I'm not sure.