It's in the original post under "all tied up in a bow" or something like that. Essentially all of the cryptonote/bytecoin-run coins used the same ISPs, same mail providers, same very idiosyncratic web designs elements, etc. A reasonable sample of other coins shows that very few if any unaffiliated coins used the same hosting resources and I very much doubt any of them used the css reset. Some of this was likely changed after that post came out, but it was accurate at the time (I checked most of it).

This is not 100% absolute irrefutable evidence (though I'm not sure what would be) but is pretty damn compelling, especially when viewed in light of the comparison with other, clearly-unaffiliated coins.


Who knows. You'd have to ask them. I've commented on the caretaker developer pump-and-dump scam (they're holding coins from early mining and will keep up appearance of development while they slowly sell, until they're done, and then its good bye for good), but I will be the first to admit I'm totally guessing. However, I'm going to be a bit skeptical when affiliation with a clearly-scummy organization (and with respect to your comment about the truth being the first casualty, this really isn't even controversial any more) has been demonstrated.


Someone claimed that the GUI was "recently" developed, and cited this as evidence of this coin having very active development. I disagree and the link provides background support for my claim that the GUI was largely developed by early June.


Fair enough. I comment on all sorts of things, especially scams and other questionable practices. I did this before I started working on Monero and I'll do it after.