Did someone of you get the XLM from blockchain.com?
My girlfriend and I did the KYC one week ago but still haven't received anything...

Hi RedStratocaster!

Thank you very much for this workaround. I have been stuck in the same point for a week :-(
Is that the only solution for that?
Moreover, I was thinking about reinserting the mining capability inside 0.13.2.
Do you think it would be feasible/easy to do that?
I found out it is simply(?) a matter of reimplementing the getwork funtion in miner.cpp.
The fact is that the code of that cpp file has changed a lot since 0.9.5, which is the last version to have that functionality.
Since my coin would be mineable only through CPU and GPU (using NeoScrypt probably), it would be really useful to have the miner inside the wallet.
Would you be interested in the reimplementation of getwork?

TIA

I am Nakamoto SAtoshi (Bitcoin) and also Nicholas von SAberhagen (CryptoNote).

It works following the official guide:

    https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-windows.md

But first you have to build a static version of Qt5.7 by following the guide (it takes some hours):

    http://dimitris.apeiro.gr/2015/06/24/build-a-static-qt5-for-windows-by-compiling/

And copy all the files from:

    C:\Qt\Qt5_static\plugins\platforms

To the bitcoin source folder:

    [whatever]\bitcoin-0.13.2\depends\x86_64-w64-mingw32\plugins\platforms

I get the same results whether I use a Linux VM or Windows 10 bash.

I think the problem is that the static libqwindows.a is not distributed with Qt. You get only the shared library qwindows.dll.

The platform plugin libraries are here:

C:\Qt\5.7\mingw53_32\plugins\platforms

I only have:

qminimal.dll
qminimald.dll
qwindows.dll
qwindowsd.dll

I am trying to follow the instructions for building a static Qt5.7 and I hope that also the missing libraries are built in the process.

Hi, I tried this instructions but:

1. after make HOST, I have to perform ./autogen.sh in order to get a configure file
2. the ./configure thing produces this error:

    checking for static Qt plugins: -lqwindows... no
    configure: error: Could not resolve: -lqwindows

What I'm supposed to do?

P.S. The line

    ./configure --prefix=`pwd`/depends/x86_64-w64-mingw32 --with-gui=qt5 --enable-tests=no

has to be corrected this way:

    ./configure --prefix=$PWD/depends/x86_64-w64-mingw32 --with-gui=qt5 --enable-tests=no

Hi Smooth, thanks for your reassuring words.
I tend to become a bit paranoid when I see lots of people trusting a single entity (in this case the CryptoNote team) without substantial proof of bona fide.
I hope that the Monero team succeeds in reviewing the code in its entirety soon, so that any remaining doubt is dispelled.
I like Monero a lot and I don't want to spread FUD on a project which is gaining traction and has the possibility to succeed where others (mainly Bitcoin) failed, that is mass adoption by non-nerd people.

You have to admit, though, that the whole Saberhagen thing is creepy. Why did the CryptoNote author choose that surname as pseudonym?

Anyway I think that someone who really wants to do evil at a such big level does not fill the code and the documentation with hints to his intentions...
He may simply have a strange sense of humor :-)

I see now that also Phoenixcoin, from the same developer, uses Neoscrypt.

I think the only coin using Neoscrypt is Feathercoin.
Gulden and Litecoin both use the original Scrypt.
Am I wrong?

In that case I think I will have to contact the developer of Neoscrypt/Feathercoin for advice:

https://github.com/ghostlander/NeoScrypt

Hi,

does someone have hints/suggestions on how to create a new coin based on the latest Bitcoin codebase but using Neoscrypt instead of SHA as cryptographic algorithm?
Would it be overly difficult?
Is the cryptographic part neatly separated from the rest of the code in Bitcoin or does it have ramification all over the code?
Where can I find the Neoscrypt code separated from a coin?

Thanks

...and regarding all CryptoNote-based coins:

[1] Richard Domingues Boscovich, assistant general counsel for Microsoft's Digital Crimes Unit, declined to be interviewed on Tuesday, saying the case was closed. But he did provide a statement.

"In the Kelihos case, we were able to identify the developer of the code as well as find out how the code was written and distributed," Boscovich said. "It's important to note that this investigation also revealed how cybercriminals leverage people in the industry to develop code for their illegitimate purposes and that, in some cases, the developer is unaware of how their code will be used upon completion."

[1] http://www.computerworld.com/article/2492811/data-center/russian-coder-puts-microsoft-botnet-accusation-behind-him.html

I would like to add something creepy about the theory stating that Sabelnikov IS Saberhagen.

FROM WIKIPEDIA:

The Berserker series is a series of space opera science fiction short stories and novels by Fred Saberhagen, in which robotic self-replicating machines strive to destroy all life.
These Berserkers, named after the human berserker warriors of Norse legend, are doomsday weapons left over from an interstellar war between two races of extraterrestrials. They all have machine intelligence, and their sizes range from that of an asteroid, in the case of an automated repair and construction base, down to human size (and shape) or smaller. The Berserkers' bases are capable of manufacturing more and deadlier Berserkers as need arises.

THEREFORE:

A man (or a team) creating a botnet (Kelihos) mainly involved in spamming and the theft of bitcoins [1] chosed to name himself (themselves) Sabelnikov, and then the man (or team) creating Cryptonote (and a series of scam coins) decided to name himself (themselves) Saberhagen, which is the surname of the man who wrote some novels about robotic self-replicating machines, which are very similar to a botnet...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelihos_botnet

CONCLUSIONS:

What are the real intentions of those people?
Fostering wide adoption of Cryptonote-based coins (maybe excluding Monero) in order to transform the coins' networks in gigantic botnets?

My opinion is that the whole Cryptonote thing has to be avoided like AIDS or pest and should be investigated a lot more.

Well, the malicious code may or may not be related to cryptography. That's true.

The cryptography, on which the proof-of-work is based, may contain a way to reconstruct a private key from a public one. Only an expert cryptographer may be able to spot it.
Some math functions may seem unidirectional but they may not be such.
Monero's review of the whitepaper was aimed at addressing this kind of issues.
The reviewer basically says: OK, from my analysis of the whitepaper, from a mathematician's point of view, the concept of CryptoNote seems secure.
This, though, does not mean that the code is secure, since the code may or may not be an exact implementation of the concept and may contain malicious code.
The mathematician who performed the review did not analyze the code.
Moreover, we don't know anything about the reviewer. Is he an academic? Is he an amateur? Is he nothing at all?

The malicious code may not be related to cryptography at all. It could, instead, allow the creation of a very large botnet.
The analysis should be performed by an expert of botnets and peer-to-peer communication.
The communication protocol should be analyzed in order to exclude the possibility of it to be used to direct, for example, thousands of requests to a single IP address in what is called a DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service).
Think about it. You have a software which is running on thousands of devices and contains code created with the legitimate purpose of coordinating nodes...
May that code be diverted from its legitimate use and used instead to attack a vulnerable target? Attacks of this type have already been directed against well known exchanges like Kraken, Coinbase and BTCChina. The attacker could ask for big money for stopping the attacks.

I did not say that Monero should not be paying for those analyses. Whoever does them, though, should possess enough credibility in the field of cryptography and/or botnets.
His identity should, therefore, not be hidden and be, instead, verifiable.

Here the review of the CryptoNote whitepaper is described as "informal":

http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2751/what-type-of-security-audits-has-monero-received

and it has been performed by someone, Surae Noether, who describes himself as matematician, but does not disclose his real identity.
His credibility, in my opinion, is near zero.

Moreover, as far as I know, no real deep analysis of the code has been performed from the point of view of security.

It is true that the code is Open Source, but an ordinary software developer with no knowledge of cryptography and peer-to-peer communication would not be able to spot malicious code.
The analysis should be performed by a specialist or better by a team of specialists, all of them with verifiable academic background.

Well, in the Open Source world (to which I belong), people decide to publish their code because they love to share it or because the project will benefit from the community effort to review, amend, complete and further develop the code. That's why Open Source code is usually well commented, well formatted and well documented.

I haven't found request for collaboration on CryptoNote Foundation site... What is their goal?

Here (I mean in the code of every cryptocurrency) we have code that deals with peer to peer decentralized communication between nodes, which is also the way botnets work.
The epee library (written by a well known botnet creator) contains code that allows each part of the peer-to-peer communication to issue commands that are executed by the other part.
My concerns regard the possibility for a malicious node to execute harmful (botnet-connected) code on another node.

If I was a botnet creator, I would develop a software platform for creating cryptocurrencies, hide my botnet code inside that software and let others create lots of cryptocurrencies.
The PCs of the miners would then become zombies of my botnet and I could direct my attacks toward any target of my choice by activating the malicious code hidden in the software.

Just my thoughts.
Waht do you think about it?

Hi, I'm in the process of evaluating various codebases for developing a new coin and I stumbled upon CryptoNote.
Before being spread and advocated by the CryptoNote foundation, the codebase was used for creating Bytecoin, a secretely 80% premined coin, which many have seen as an attempt to create a pump and dump coin.
The code contains a library, called epee, which has been written by a notorious russian botnet creator.
Given that premises, many questions arise, which have not fully or credibly answered by anyone (including the Monero team which reviewed the code and decided it was ok to build a coin upon it):

- why should anyone want his code to be used for creating other coins? What is the hidden agenda of CryptoNote foundation?
   (the motivations given in CryptoNote foundation's page are not credible, and I personally suspect they implanted some sort of hidden vulnerability and will exploit it as soon as Monero or other CryptoNote-based coins reach a sufficiently high price, or they could transform a coin's network into an extremely dangerous botnet)

- I have read CryptoNote's White Paper and its review made by a Monero-paid mathematician and I have to say the latter did not convince me at all.
  The review has been performed on the White Paper and not on the code. What warranty do we have that the code really implements what's on the White Paper and does not contain some trojan horse/botnet code?
  I tried to read the code (I'm a professional analyst/programmer/system administrator) and I found it really difficult to follow it. Finding a backdoor in code written by others is not trivial.
  One should basically trust CryptoNote's team...
  
- Every time Monero team answers to people asking about CryptoNote, they simply end their sentences with "every CryptoNote-based coin, except Monero".
  I don't see strong evidence for excluding Monero from the group of CryptoNote-based coins.
  Their code is not significantly different from that of CryptoCoin and my suspect is that they do not "own" the code, just like me and other people who attempted to read it.

I do not want to bash or advocate anyone. I just want to know if CryptoNote codebase can be safely used to create a new coin.