No, Monero is not morally better. In fact, I'm disgusted by the way some Monero people have been attacking other Cryptonote coins, not just bytecoin but also Quazarcoin. If you are a Monero developer, isn't it more productive to work on improving your own coin than attacking other coins?
Quazarcoin was even called MONERO before it was renamed to quazar, just to piss us off, so much for productivity.
Thanks for that; I didn't know that Monero became Quazarcoin. But maybe you aren't telling the whole story because I remember reading that there was a disagreement among developers and Monero forked to become Monero and Bitmonero. This often happens in free (as in freedom) software projects, so it is not surprising to me. If there is a fork I'm sure that both sides would like to keep the original name. Probably what happened was that Mr Seis, the Quazarcoin developer, had fewer developers on his side so he consented to change the name of his fork to Quazarcoin.
I don't know what all the issues were but do know that Quazarcoin has a longer emission curve than Monero. I personally support that decision because it makes the coin more stable.
No; i never said that.
The Quazarcoin guy wanted to launch it as Monero first, just to piss Monero off. At a time where Monero already existed.
And no,
Bitmonero was likely started by the cryptonote scammers too, they are pissed that the community took over and renamed it to Monero.
There is already a longer emission curve in Boolberry, the only other Cryptonote coin with good development. And i don't think something with a < 6000 Usd marketcap (16 btc) and
0 btc volume can be called "stable" when it had a cap of 555.555 USD at some point.