Advertisements

Electroneum to Overtake Bytecoin: Speculation


Taking the deep dive, you will find the black pearl?

This is a second look…

Finally, Electroneum (ETN) appears to have some action. It seems to be drifting off…again. It’s what you might call a long shot, in the semi-private cryptocurrency “industry.”

And it could easily overtake Bytecoin. Personally, and I know a lot of folks love Bytecoin, I think it will eventually shuffle off its mortal coil, however. In any event…diversify.

As you may recall, ETN’s are based on the CryptoNote/Monero protocols. But where Monero tends to stay completely private, leading to accusations of criminal, as well as having privacy and security benefits, Electroneum is gambling that it can eject the criminals — in my view.

How will Electroneum keep your funds private, if they are a known entity? Good question.

If all of your altcoins are stored in the ETN database and/or cell phones, it seems only obvious that investigators chasing drug dealers (and tax evaders) need only serve a search warrant and require Electronueum turn over records.

However, by comparison, that extra layer of protection also keeps everyone else from watching where and how you spend your cryptocurrency.

Bitcoins are far easier to trace. That’s why businesses have not adopted them on a large scale. They seem to be more partial to Ripple XRP. (Hint?)

ETN’s are by nature, untraceable. More cash-like. And people oriented.

Monero XMR’s are even more secure than Electroneum ETN’s. The trade off is customer service and known players. We know who runs the ETN business. And we hope it is easier to use than Monero or Bytecoin — and that it will be accepted by retailers.

So, with ETN’s, we actually have less privacy than XMR’s, but far more than Bitcoin and clan. That goes for Ethereum, Litecoin — you name it — as well.

“…security and privacy…”

It is only when you venture into the CryptoNote coins that you begin to think “security and privacy.” And there are a few other non-CryptoNote altcoins now that attempt to secure your altcoins, but they are not necessarily as time tested.

When they first debuted in November 2017 (when we could buy them on an exchange)  Electroneum came with a tad of hoopla. Starting out at about nine cents (US) each, they spiked to over 23 cents in short order. That seemed to say that they were on the right track.

But what happened? They were attacked.

Somebody hit them with a Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. Why? Was it jealously?

Now, this kind of DDoS attack is the chicken’s way of hitting back. It is a last resort blunt force action by those who simply overload the system. It is a criminal act. However, it can also be used to cover-up and hide the real hack. Hence, the Electroneum action to ensure that there was no long lasting damage by pausing services…in my opinion…was a good one.

“...two cents…”

By the end of November (2017) ETN’s were still trading, but down to two cents each. The attack did have consequences. (I hope that any big short-sellers were scrutinized.)

Then the weeks dragged on. Electroneum sent out news updates and advertisements. Apologies came. Momentum was lost. Dull.

And we waited. In the meantime, trading continued, and you could send or receive your ETN’s very easily — as far as we were aware. I mean, you could, and I did, but I was not sure if they arrived in my wallet. But they did and all was well.

“…40 million…”

A firm (Hackerone) was hired to check the ETN “books” (their code etc.) and they probably crossed their fingers. There was a lot of money riding on ETN’s continued  success. About 40 million, but I’ll wager there was a lot more.

It was a bold move to bring in a top company to essentially clear your name. It told the world that Electroneum was serious. They were not scammers. And that they were willing to stake their millions on it.

By the end of November, ETN trading began to pick up again. Even as the coin lay in a sort of limbo, and as the scam-coin accusations flew, the climb in price continued. Still, the promised web wallets were offline.

By mid-December 2017 ETN’s passed 13 cents and things were looking up. But the ETN’s cracked-up again. It is possible that many investors had had enough and dumped.

ETN was now in the nickel store. A whole five cents in value. It seemed that the DDoS attack had succeeded.

A few more days passed. ETN’s drifted.

The December 13 “relaunch” came and went. It did not look good.

Then yesterday happened, December 17, 2017. ETN’s began to climb again. To six cents, then seven, then nine, then…down…

Currently, you can only buy ETN’s at Cryptopia. And I’m not advising anyone to buy them.

And don’t knock Cryptopia too much, but I hope that other exchanges will soon offer ETN’s. If so, it will help to stabilize the coin as well as prevent it from becoming a captured product — like a monopoly.

As I have mentioned before, Bytecoin was the first privacy altcoin on the market, but it has some allegations against it. The stink of it has floated around the net for years. Clung to it, but it was not so much about the protocol.

In fact, the Bytecoin protocol was later investigated formally, by a Monero hired reviewer and it was generally positive. It was about the alleged 80% premine, that has stuck to Bytecoin like a thorn.

If the premine is true, and there have been alleged denials by Bytecoin Team members, it could be devastating for investors if the original anonymous developers decided to cash out. And that has always been the problem. No identifiable person has ever stepped forward, verified he/she developed the code, and proved otherwise.

And that’s not all the problems Bytecoin has had. There are concerns that the original team is a fraud — a fiction. Not one of them has ever be verified. That the altcoin was sold to other to developers, is another allegation. That Cryptocurrency Exchanges have had problems with it and de-listed it. Cryptopia, for one. Yet another problem.

But the new money is flowing in and Bytecoin has recently soared in value. I think this will be short lived, as investors will once again be fleeced, as BCN’s deflate.

Where will that money go next?

“…Bytecoin’s coming sell-off …”

Monero (XMR) developed from the “ashes” of Bytecoin and they have been very successful. Most of their developers, like those on the Bytecoin Team are unknown, however. So, will Bytecoin’s coming sell-off that I am predicting, go into Monero?

The next choice, in this venue, might be ETN’s. I think they will overtake Bytecoin.

It is not such a crazy idea. That is, after the initial ETN investors (not me) recoup their investment by selling.

This one looks like a HODL, to me.


Note: For the record, this writer does hold a small amount of Electroneum and all of the above words are personal observations, having little to do with fake news.


jgs

Advertisements

Do You Own “S2S Compromised Cryptocurrencies?”

Do You Own “S2S Compromised Cryptocurrencies?”

It’s about peers versus subjects, is it not?

Are you a P2P or and S2S Person? That’s the gist of it, right?

P2P is what? Peer to peer, right? Person to person.

S2S is what? Subject to subject. Slave to slave, in some countries.

Pause. Think. Slave to slave = S2S?

So much is said in that P2P acronym. So much is lost in S2S. It matters.

If you are P2P, you are probably safe. But you can be safer. You can do one better.

As an S2S believer, you are in trouble. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Mr. History.

When observing the changing cryptocurrency landscape, we note capitulation and appeasement. Those who bring change; and those who want to stick to the old way of doing business. If not the old way, then bending the new way to the will of the old.

But P2P is not new. It has just been adapted to the blockchain.

S2S is the old way.

Why do we own certain cryptocurrencies, but not others? Why is the P2P idea the best thing to have hit cryptocurrency, let alone the human condition, in thousands of years?

But…there is P2P and there is private P2P, correct?

Many of the newest breeds of crypto-entrepreneurs have forgotten the words of Satoshi Nakamoto and have instead, chosen to use the blockchain technology for other reasons. And there is nothing wrong with that, save the lack of vision of such people. The automatic and almost tribal reductionism is inherent in the herd mentality.

In other words, the desire of many to belong to the herd at any cost. Spare no expense, they say. Trade your privacy and your freedom for a false sense of security.

Don’t rock the boat. Don’t go against the flow. You don’t really need or want P2P. You need S2S. We hear this so often.

So, let’s recall those words, just a few of them, purposely embedded within the Bitcoin Blockchain. “Satoshi’s Warning,” I will call it.

These words resonate today, and I submit that they will resound into the future — if we are still here. And these words will be taken more seriously in ten or twenty years, if world economies do finally collapse, and if cryptocurrencies save the day after that foreseen collapse.

The warning:

‘The Times 3 January 2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks’.

This statement gives one the clear sense that Satoshi had a problem with governments and bank bailouts. He did not agree with the current monetary system in general.

Why?

We can speculate about his motives, read his various quotes, but can we agree that he/she/they invented a well-functioning, but not private, peer-to-peer e-cash system? It seems to me that Satoshi, and I have stated this before, provided the outline – the foundation – upon which others could build.

And remember that: P2P. Let that echo over and over until it seems to lose meaning. Until the echo of it comes back after a time and reminds us what it really is. What its value really is.

P2P is that rock in the river, standing against the tide of financial tyranny. If that rock is hardened (privatized), all the better, but bitcoin’s P2P rock sits high in the rapids. It is “exposed” P2P and it is sandstone. Sandstone will not last. Even so, some want to convert bitcoin to S2S, now. They want to blast that sandstone apart.

If “exposed” P2P is the core value of the bitcoin service, how can it be improved? Satoshi warned that this P2P system was only temporary. That it probably would not last. Was he correct?

Satoshi showed the way.

Then Nicolas van Saberhagen came along and privatized the blockchain. It was the next step in the evolution of blockchains. Many other P2P models are “exposed” at some level.

Saberhagen (he/she/they) created CryptoNote and after a rocky start a new crypto pulled away from the pack: Monero (XMR).

Monero has one well known face: fluffypony (Riccardo Spagni). He came forward and I submit, took his freedom in his hands when he did so.

For all the rancor surrounding Monero and all the concerns I still have about its developers remaining behind the curtain of anonymity, I respect Mr. Spagni. And that is the point: trust. Not to mention that Monero was the first successful private crypto on earth. (Okay – that’s an assertion. Prove me wrong.)

There is another crypto that deserves mention here and I have cited it before. Aeon. “Smooth” is the developer of Aeon and works on Monero. Smooth is anonymous. This might be important in the future since Monero is slowly gaining acceptance on an international scale. Aeon would seem to be the logical partner in that effort.

And there are other private crypto’s out there, but I am only mentioning Monero and Aeon in this post as examples. Many of the other privacy based coins do not have the longevity, have changed hands, or have known developers – which is a risk.

There are arguments against the PoW (proof-of-work) based blockchains, such as Monero and Aeon, as well. Even bitcoin uses PoW, but Ethereum is apparently considering a PoS (proof-of-stake) blockchain addition or change-over. PoS is more energy efficient, certainly.

Obviously, these “proofs” will evolve over time, but getting hung-up in the debate may not be the best course of action.

In fact, allowing the salesmen, flush with crypto-cash, financed to the gills with venture capital, to present vivid images of Crypto 3.0, is a trip to S2S.

How so? These salesmen, often experts in the field of blockchain, are not experts in the field of privacy.

The war now is to destroy the very essence of bitcoin and any cryptocurrency attempting to remain private. It is an effort to undermine the best P2P out there. Usually, by means of overregulation and/or making such transactions illegal.

KYC. Know your customer. Papers please, comrade. You might be a communist-terrorist-tax-evading-immigrant. You might be a criminal. Just in case, we need to know you. Who is this we?

On the other hand, you are probably just an innocent citizensubject wanting to keep as much of your money as possible. And it is your currency, right? No, it is the State’s Currency. “But I have some XMR’s,” you answer, “not State Currency.” All the more reason to know you, comrade.

Privacy? You have no right to that; the herd tells you. What are you trying to hide? Nothing? Prove it. Show us all your currency and let us decide.

Welcome to America, land of the citizen-subjects. Hey, at least we can emigrate – so long as we have paid our taxes first. Even if you hand in your citizenship-subject papers, you must still pay your exit bills, before you may emigrate, right? And they dare call this freedom? (Hey, I’m American, but America is not a place – it was an idea – in the past.)

Is it any better in the UK, Australia, Canada, or Switzerland?

Because of government pressure, the cryptocurrency innovators are beginning to give in. Or maybe they never had the guts in the first place. They are creating what amounts to “S2S” or Subject-to-subject transactions. Weak sister versions of the almost true form. Compromised crypto’s, the lot of them.

But I’m sure they work just fine.

These new S2S innovators are the compromisers. They help support the current fiat monetary systems. The highly centralized, highly controlled, inflation pushing bureaucracies.

I labeled Cardano (ADA) as S2S compromisers. But they are not alone. Ripple (XRP) is S2S compromised as well. Even Ethereum (ETH)  advises that they will comply with governmental information requests. I’m certain there are many more S2S compromisers.

Few have the tenacity to protect privacy. Legitimate privacy. Many of the cryptocurrency exchanges bow to the might of “.gov” as well.

These S2S capitulators have good people working for them, however. They have children and dreams and I do not fault them for coloring within the lines. If they are to remain at liberty, to exercise their delimited freedoms, they must bow down. No blame can be placed upon subjects working within their enclosures.

It is odd that a fluffypony will not bow, however. It requires vision and nerve to stand, virtually alone. To back a crypto that will not comply.

The same can be said of Smooth and all the developers of both coins (Monero and Aeon). To believe that the “.govs” of the world have not discovered some of their identities, is foolish. And they know it.

And don’t give me that bull about sacrifice. These men and women working behind the curtain to privatize crypto are not doing so for free. Their trade, their gain, is profit. Their potential loss is their freedom. Is this a sacrifice or a trade? Are they, in a sense…

…mutually pledging to each other, their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor?

Private P2P is a down payment on future value few can imagine. To buy the freedoms of their children. To refuse the current call for S2S, and see what happens.

I hope these private P2P men and women, keep at it.

Here’s the audioblog along the same lines: “The P2P Question.”

If you need to convince yourself that privacy is important, buy this: “For the New Intellectual”


 

Note: As usual, the above is only an opinion. I welcome any responses. In the meantime, do not base investment decisions upon any of it. Call your banker, broker, insurance salesman and/or financial advisor, if you must.

Zcash v. Monero: The Friday Night Fights

Zcash v. Monero: The Friday Night Fights

Hello Crypto Dudes and Dudettes,

This is just a nightcap, a final bit of juice for the day.

Recent internet chatter pits Zcash against Monero. It seems that some Zcash supporters are citing or linking to an older evaluation of Monero. One that is not so glowing. Hints that Monero is/was traceable.

Is it? The question seems to hang like bad meat in a broken freezer – in South Africa.

Other allegations imply that Monero is Mickey Mouse, essentially.

Apparently, Edward Snowden has weighed in. Zcash it is.

The peanut gallery is crying foul. Snowden is a shill, a paid endorser…really?

But shouldn’t you at least consider a private cryptocurrency? Bitcoin is traceable. Why wait?

So, what’s in your wallet? Governments already know. And some hackers.

Choose wisely.

And if top academics did help to develop Zcash, who cares if they did not “implement” the actual coin?

That’s one lame argument.

If a rocket scientist shows you how it’s done and you build a brand new shiny rocket, it’s still a rocket. Even if you used old Nazi science – old V2 methods – for some of your “code.” (I’m hinting at the use of bitcoin code within Zcash.)

We know that bitcoin works. We have never seen Bytecoin take off like that. (Note : the Bytecoin link may not work.)

Monero has moved onto higher ground – as – I might say – it’s a “people’s coin.” Grass roots.

Zcash is beholden to their sponsors, right?

But that does not mean we cannot or should not profit from those who back Zcash and therefore “pump” the coin.

The continued success of Zcash – a very volatile coin – is still in the weeds. But judging by bitcoin’s success, is Zcash the best of both worlds? Private or public? You can show and tell or…not, right?

To defend Monero – that it too is based on the works of academia – is disingenuous.

We know those who developed the Zcash/Zerocash process. We cannot verify the existence of a single coder or developer of CryptoNote/CryptoNight – Bytecoin – not one.

And yes, I realize that we do not know Satoshi Nakamoto or his counterpart in the CryptoNote universe – Nicolas van Saberhagen.

That’s not my point.

This article helps to clear the air a bit.

Monero/Aeon, remain the underdog(s) – for now – as far as I’m concerned. And lately Aeon has spiked. We’ll see if it holds.

Certainly, Monero and Aeon are better at holding the line than Zcash. That’s a tell.

Apparently, Edward Snowden doesn’t have time to check the crypto-markets to verify this fact.

That’s all for now.

Poloniex v. Cryptopia?

Poloniex v. Cryptopia?

Preamble:

Do you ever feel like the above picture. A primate looking at a bone trying to figure what it does. How it works.

It’s like that now. The more I learn about cryptocurrency “exchanges” — at least the friendly ones — the less I know. What the hell is this “bone” thing?

Perhaps, it is best to clear our minds of the extraneous nonsense dished up on the internet like so much fast food, no matter how good it tastes.

Maybe we should go to the source. Talk to the guys and gals on the front lines. Go to the exchanges themselves and just ask. So, that’s what I did. Like a smart guy. Really smart, I tell you.

I feel that I have implied things in a previous post that I should not have. So, in a sense, this post is my retraction and clarification. My bit of re-education. Hey, I’m not perfect, but neither is crypto, so bite me.

Here’s what I learned, after being contacted by a manager from a cryptocurrency firm. I learned that things are rather screwed up, to put it politely.


The Tables have Turned:

I questioned the Cryptopia Cryptocurrency Exchange’s decision to delist Bytecoin. I was not on about Cryptopia’s fees or trying to review their policies. And it was not specifically about Bytecoin. I don’t even like Bytecoin (BCN) — any longer.

I was after the reasoning behind the delisting process. In fact, given my suspicions, I thought that there was something more to this story. Something nefarious. And I was right that their was more, but wrong for suspecting foul play.

As it turns out, a manager at Cryptopia took the time to explain to me why BCN will be delisted there. I’ll not give a name, but I have obtained permission to use the information here.

This is my interpretation of Cryptopia’s dilemma, but a predicament all exchanges of this nature should be aware. If I’m off base here, I apologize – to Cryptopia.

If cryptocurrency experts have questions about the following, please let me know in the comments section below.


Payment ID’s:

So, here’s the scoop.

It is not so much that BCN has a “paymentid” issue. It has more to do with another well-known exchange.

An exchange which is quite large, but perhaps has outgrown its ability to serve the customer. I’m referring to Poloniex, of course. It is becoming a dinosaur.

There are all kinds of complaints against Poloniex. Poloniex scams people. Poloniex scalps investors. Poloniex delists or freezes coins for months at a time. It has been seized by unknown parties, banned users, been hacked, and the list goes on.

But we’re focused on one thing here: BCN. Why the delist?

For those of you who are unaware of how one sends BCN’s, it’s a bit more involved than sending bitcoin (BTC’s). One requires, in many cases, two pieces of information.

  1. A wallet address where the BCN is supposed to go
  2. A paymentid, to ensure your BCN is credited to your account.

And this is where the difficulties arise.

One can encrypt the “paymentid” and the fact that one did this is visible on the blockchain. Even on Bytecoin’s blockchain.

Knowing this, means one can exploit this knowledge.

So, how does it work?

Poloniex transfers cryptocurrencies to other exchanges. A large percentage of the CryptoNote transactions, especially the ones Poloniex sends to Cryptopia deposit with no problems. The “paymentids” are not encrypted.

Unfortunately, about 10% of the Poloniex transfers to Cryptopia were (are) transferred encrypted.

But here is the problem. Poloniex has not provided the “key” to unlock the encrypted deposits.

In other words, Poloniex sends the BCN, but Cryptopia is unable to clear the transaction – unable to credit the customers’ cryptocurrency account.

So, what happens?

Continue reading

Bytecoin Blackout?

Bytecoin Blackout?

>

Earlier today it was reported that Bytecoin.org mysteriously went offline. (You can read about it on BitcoinTalk.org here.) As of this writing the site is still down. Here’s what you might get:

An error occurred.

Sorry, the page you are looking for is currently unavailable. Please try again later.

If you are the system administrator of this resource then you should check the error log for details.

Faithfully yours, nginx.

Now this does not necessarily mean that 300 million dollars in BCN will evaporate, but it might end up that way. Especially if news comes out that Bytecoin.org was a complete and utter scam from jump street. Many have warned about this very thing.

And please know that Bytecoin’s Forum is still up. See: https://bytecointalk.org/index.php to verify. However, this is not a very active forum.

Are we about to experience another Alphabay fiasco? It does not appear to be that way — exactly. Unless the Bytecoin Team has raked in enough cash and has decided to abandon ship — which is not sinking. Maybe they are quitting on a high note? If so, the value should fall very soon. Why? Who will tend the software? How will we know when there is a software update? Are they switching to a full wallet based system — a more decentralized approach? If so, then where will newcomers obtain the application software? The wallet? The blockchain?

You can check here to see if the site is up yet: Bytecoin.org

The timing of this outage — this blackout — is curious. It coincides with a massive pump on the order of four million dollars (US). Although, Poloniex has not yet opened BCN (Bytecoin) for deposits/withdrawals — allegedly they are waiting for a solution from Bytecoin. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the BCN trading at Poloniex is “off the chain.” What do they know that we don’t? Is this just another Polo-Pump?

If we back up a bit, some of us might recall that Bytecoin.org took their private forum offline recently and dumped a load of spam. This was shortly after I emailed them about the problem, but I do not know if they conducted the cleaning because of my email.

Strangely, just after my post yesterday about Pacific_Skyline, the main site went offline. Again, that’s probably just a coincidence, right? I mean, did I shame them? Maybe. I’ve been pretty tough on them lately about their odd writing — how it seems foreign-styled. Foreign in the sense that it’s not the American style of writing. Which is okay, but they might need to hire an editor to flesh out some of their extraneous verbiage. Long winded and flowery for sure. That is unusual, in my mind, for “math” types. Maybe it’s a French thing, since their website is allegedly based there. But I doubt it.

Now the Cryptonote.org website is still up. If you recall, Bytecoin is a Cryptonote coin. Run Scamadviser and you should find that this site is listed as “99%” and it “looks safe.” “Looks” is a weasel word. My cat “looks” safe, but he will eat your dog. Cryptonote.org might be located in the Netherlands, but it is hidden, according to the review. The site could just as easily be located in Panama or in the US. There has also been a lot of speculation that Cryptonote.org and Bytecoin.org are operated by the same crew. Should we then expect the CryptoNote.org site to shut down next? According to others, Bytecoin and CryptoNote parted ways some years ago and therefore Bytecoin.org going silent at this juncture, should not cause any troubles on CryptoNote.org.

Since many of the CryptoNote coins are related, I checked the following websites:

Aside from Pebblecoin and Quazarcoin, the above websites are easy to find and active. There are more CryptoNote coins, but they are essentially “dead” coins. In other words, many of the CryptoNote websites are alive and well. This makes me think that we are simply experiencing some kind of upgrade to the Bytecoin.org website. Again, if you will recall — at least for those of us who follow Bytecoin and the CryptoNote coins in general — we were advised about a forthcoming “colored coin” update by the Bytecoin Team about a month ago. We were not advised, however, that the website would blackout for a time. And, this new bit of news was a long time coming. About a year. And…it seemed repetitive. Are we being led by the nose? The long con?

There is no news on the CryptoNote.org website about Bytecoin.org’s current hiatus. There is no recent activity on Github, but I would not expect any if this is just a website upgrade. But I would expect this if the Teto-Team is upgrading BCN. You would think with all of the money flowing into BCN of late, that the TetoTeam can now focus on some serious development. Or maybe a seriously long vacation?

This of course brings up the 80 plus percent Bytecoin premine allegation. These days, with all of the ICO’s about, it does not strike us as odd, that any type of big premine is a big deal. It’s only about our acceptance of the coin — if it works as advertised. And it has always worked for me.

A recent piece on Reddit, if it can be believed, advised of an older exchange with the one of the previous Bytecoin Team members. What I got out of it was that there were about a 1000 or so early miners of BCN and the coin was really released in 2012, but the post did not go into the specifics — nothing about the fudged White Paper dates or the non-existence of a website back then.

If the Redditor in question stumbled upon a truth about Bytecoin, it would seem to imply several things. First, that over a thousand individuals have over 80% of the coins, which means it is not a small group of people and that is probably a good thing. Secondly, that the core Teto-Team may not know each other, personally. Now, take this as you may, but the most successful secret operatives work using the cell theory. They often do not know the organization they work for and only have one other contact — a vague one at that. In the new world of the internet, the developers of cryptocurrencies can work completely — or almost completely — anonymously. They do not need to identify their other team members at all.

Like I’ve mentioned before, this ability to work independently and anonymously, within the international financial environment, makes Bytecoin, if it survives its christening by fire, a force to be reckoned with. No other POW (Proof-of-Work) cryptocurrency on earth has ever accomplished such privacy and independence before; and had such success. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

There has been much praise for the “coding” as well. Bytecoin is not a *bleep*coin, as it were. There have been recent issues with mining, however. This problem allowed someone or a group of them, to mine extra coins — beyond the perimeters set up in the code. It appears as if the Bytecoin Team has refused to undo these added coins and this stand has probably angered some. In the final analysis, however, when a cryptocurrency invalidates transactions after the fact, which would be required if a blockchain was rolled-back in order to reverse the creation of these extra coins, you end up with things like Ethereum Classic. Bytecoin avoided this rift. Full ahead, they said —  then they fixed the workings on the fly, as I understand it.

And please do not mention Monero. We know at least one player in that space. It is not unimaginable that other, less moral characters (our governments), know a lot more about the Monero developers. I’d say, in a world controlled by government money, that allowing one’s identity to leak out in this arena, is like to planning to go to prison in the future. Or, at the very least, sending a public invitation to the regulatory agencies the world over to plant electronic eavesdropping devices on your dog. (Hint: check their floppy ears.)

There is a side note here. Something that is causing a lot of concern on the internet. The Net Neutrality debate is raging. This could be one of the reasons that many websites have slowed over the past 48 hours. Of course those who support neutrality aren’t really supporting free and fair internet usage. They are supporting the institution of force. How so? If you are an internet company, under the idea of neutrality, you are required not to act in the interest of your own business. You may not charge other companies extra for use of your servers. You can’t offer special deals or market products of your choice by slowing down or limiting the access of competitors. You must allow every company connected to the internet — which really does not exist at all since it is simply computers connected to each other — free and unfettered access to your equipment. After all, under this alleged neutrality, the internet, which might use your equipment, your electrical power, your time — whether you agree to allow it or not — does not belong to you. It is some virtual thing, afloat in a sea of electricity — like the air we breathe. Nuts. It’s like Johnny Mnemonic all over again. “Information should be free!” Okay, but who will pay for it kids? Silence. Haven’t you heard? There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, Jethro. Okay, the above is over-simplified, but ain’t that the gist of it?

Now we wait. The thing is, customers hate waiting. In fact, we find other, better suppliers — ones who are up to the job. (There, I just had to get that last Bytecoin dig in.)

Get off of your duff Bytecoin — if you’re still live.

Are you under attack?

Seriously, I hope that Bytecoin.org is “under reconstruction” as some have speculated. If true and if the new site comes up with some great new tech, well then, we might be in for a wild rocket ride.

I know…a lot of “ifs.”

Curiously, a few hours after posting this, the Bytecoin.org website once again showed itself. ScamAdviser indicates that the site is currently “94%” safe. There has been no official word from the Teto-Team as to why the site disappeared for over a day.

 


Image Source: Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bytecoin: Enigma


Bytecoin O

Source: Bytecoin.org

 

Is Bytecoin like a low hanging sweet orange?

Or is it a shriveled, rotten grape, being picked over by the third wave of cryptocurrency noobs?

In Florida (in the United States), where I live, many of us are concerned about “Citrus Greening.”

It’s not what you think, however. It’s not when the leaves of the orange trees turn green, but when the fruit remains green and never ripens.

The diseased fruit, like a dead and dying cryptocurrency, sort of fools you. It says, “I’m almost ready. Gimme a few more days…” And then the darned orange or lemon drops off of the tree. A useless un-ripened thing.

Cryptocurrency pyramid schemes are the same. They drop from the web just as malformed.

The citrus greening is the result of a pest: the Citrus Psyllid. The insect that deposits  bacteria “in” the trees. The cryptocurrency schemes are also pests, but they take your deposits.

It makes me wonder just what can kill the Bitcoin Tree? I mean, transactions are really slow now, right? If I can’t zip my Bitcoins across the internet in a few days, then what is the sense?

I know an entomologist who studies our citrus greening problem. He advised that the citrus trees, after infection, essentially get a fever from the bacteria. The trees get sick. They become clogged-up inside. The fluids that normally circulate within the trees slows down, as the bacteria does its work.

Think of Bitcoin today. The flow of Bitcoins in the “tree” or network, is slowing down as well. Bank transactions are now faster — and safer. Is this a sign of disease? Bad code? Poor planning? Growing pains? Does it matter if the network fails?

Citrus greening is here for the foreseeable future. So are slow Bitcoins. Antibiotics, genetic changes and insecticide are for citrus. Rewriting code is for crypto. In both cases, many of the “trees” die out.

In other words, with cryptocurrencies, we cut down the bad “crypto-trees.” If they no longer bear fruit we try to fix the code — the genetic structure of the coin. Or we try to increase the size of the transactions — grow stronger limbs and roots. Or give the cryptocurrencies oceans of water — ever-increasing amounts of electricity.

Buildings, warehouses, Bitcoin “factories” are fast becoming “monuments” to tokenism. It’s almost nuts. Why are we so wasteful when there are better options? How hard would it be for a third-rate dictator to walk in with his gang army and take over one of these Bitcoin Mines?

Which brings me back to Bytecoin. Still easy to grow. Still private. Still secure. Still working. No Bytecoin factories are required. Just your CPU and maybe a cup of coffee.

Bytecoin, for all its bad press, is a privacy original. The first mover in the CryptoNote — CryptoNight sphere. It is the rootstock — before the other subspecies thereof, forked from it.

And don’t let them fool you. Don’t let the forkers tell you: “Oh, but we have improved the code! It is almost unrecognizable as Bytecoin now.” Did you hear that? They said “Bytecoin.”

What are they really saying? Here’s is what they are saying: “We couldn’t do this on our own. So we copied. Tweaked. Sat back and waited.”

It was — it is the same with Bitcoin. It was a rootstock cryptocurrency, but now it is something different. Almost unrecognizable. Too many cooks (developers) have spoiled the stew. Too many forkers about.

There is no debate about Bytecoin rootstock. It’s called CryptoNote. It has similarities to Bitcoin, but it not a fork thereof. It stands on its own.

The primary debate about Bytecoin, however, is about the “tree.” When was it actually planted? It seems that the original growers cultivated the tree for a while, let it bear fruit, then allowed others (us) to assist with the cultivation.

Since the planting, Bytecoin Tree(s) have been growing in private orchards everywhere, far from the public eye. They are also relatively young trees. Only about four years old, but ancient in technological terms.

The main cultivator(s) of Bytecoins, like Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin, remain(s) a mystery. We know the stewards of Bitcoin today, since the deed to the Bitcoin Orchard was handed over to a select group. We do not know the original creator(s) of Bitcoin, however.

Similarly, we still have no idea who runs Bytecoin. We can watch them work from afar. They have not disappeared like Satoshi Nakamoto. We can read short bios, but are they real people? We can see the results of their handiwork. We can also read the articles that accuse the Bytecoin developers of hoarding, but it seems nobody has been able to find the money.

Bitcoin, by comparison, was planted in 2009, in an orchard just off of Crypto-Main Street. Everyone can see the orchard, the pickers, the fruit market — every single piece of citrus. Even the large numbers of “oranges” just sitting in wallets, not moving, can be seen. What’s more, and this is troublesome, with Bitcoin, the biggest orchards are being “outsourced” to China.

This China angle has many worried. As some have stated: Bitcoin is a great token currency for Kings and Dictators, but not for freedom loving individuals. The Chinese government is not known for their forward thinking either. Rather, for tight monetary controls, to name a few problems associated with the ever-growing Chinese control of Bitcoin.

In any event, Bitcoin has an army of followers. Advocates in many countries. Users everywhere. But when does the other shoe drop? Shouldn’t you diversify? Why wait?

In comes the privacy-centric, Bytecoin. Cash is king.

Why do I say rootstock when talking about Bytecoin? Because Bytecoin, like citrus trees, has what are called forks — or grafted “friends.” It is a meaningful word. Other growers used the hardy rootstock of Bytecoin, grown from the original seed and attached a bud. Their bud. Their name.

Monero, Aeon, and DigitalNote are a few examples of the forkers. These few remaining Bytecoin grafts have yet to succumb to disease. They have edited the original Bytecoin code in order to exist. They are the “second-handers.” And they are very successful at it, so far.

Grafted orange trees produce sweeter fruit. They taste better. People buy taste, and they do not care about rootstock. The problem may come when the forked varieties of Bytecoin meet up with disease.

Naturally, the grafted “friends” blame the bad rootstock when a fork withers and dies. And yet, the original rootstock of Bytecoin has persisted. It’s almost an embarrassment. One wonders if a certain unnamed cryptocurrency exchange is/was being paid to refuse deposits and withdrawals of Bytecoin in order to stifle trade and kill the mother.

The lesson Florida Citrus Growers are learning now is about “sour.” According to my entomologist friend, the rootstock citrus trees — the trees grown from seed — seem to be more resistant to disease. But they are “sour-root” trees. Nobody wants sour orange juice from the “sour-root” trees, no matter how tough the tree.

The same can be said for Bytecoin today. It lingers at the periphery. Always there. Always waiting for the next cryptocurrency developer to take a swipe at it or maybe copy it again and ostensibly, make it better. But we all know what is under the hood. The engine of Bytecoin.

Have we been fooled?

In a sense, Bytecoin was never sour. It was the “Mandarin Orange” of the cryptosphere. As it turns out, the mandarin orange may just save the Citrus Industry. It is a sweet original orange and it is one of the more ancient species of the fruit. Best of all it is highly resistant to pests and disease, just like Bytecoin.

Who would have thought? A type of fruit — one of the originals — might save our juice? A rootstock, if you will.

Bytecoin is the rootstock of privacy and security. Maybe it’s one of the “core” cryptocurrencies still growing and still producing “low hanging” sweet fruit.

Sure, the original Bytecoin growers are keeping their distance, but you can see that their orchard is well-tended. The trees are all trimmed and a new batch of fertilizer has recently been applied.

Maybe our mysterious Bytecoin developers just need to say “Hello” more often. It’s amazing how far a little wave of the “digital” hand will get you.

Is Bytecoin Making a Comeback?

Bytecoin - Copy

Over a year of relative silence and now Bytecoin is making a comeback?

Many cryptocurrency enthusiasts noticed on or about May 17, 2017, when the following “blog” was posted on the Bytecoin website, the value of said currency jumped. This may have been a coincidence, however, since a lot of other cryptocurrencies also surged and then unceremoniously lost over half their gains.

Here was a recent headliner:

Untraceable Tokens

Cryptocurrency market has been developing drastically, bringing more and more innovations to explore. The Bytecoin team understands the importance of keeping a finger on…

The point was: “activity.” We finally had some. But why the delay?

Many of us had written-off Bytecoin when they stopped minding their forum. It became bloated with advertisements and there did not appear to be much activity — or easy to find information.

Others of us have read the profanity laced debates on the other forums about the alleged deeds of the bad Bytecoin developers. Was it true?

Here is the link:

 Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)

Bytecoin allegedly forged the dates on their whitepaper(s) in order to make it appear as if they had completed a fair release. Meaning, to be fair, you must work hard and allow every “miner” access to your product at the same moment. (Not fair to the developers.)

Bytecoin creators may not have fairly given away their invention and instead, allegedly mined over 80% of their own coins before letting anyone in on their plans. In any event, the coin languished. Relegated to the heap of junk coins, but it never quite died. Just hung out. Waited.

Months went by. Then years of anemic trade. Few if any improvements came. Bytecoin’s Github account was boring. Then lately, after bit of a screw-up — more activity. Somehow a bit of mining software allowed someone to mine extra Bytecoins. This was fixed (allegedly), but still, Bytecoin was accused of not taking action quickly enough.

Actually, the accusations flew.

Monero supporters hinted the Bytecoin developers intentionally mined extra coins using a flaw in their system. Bytecoin supporters then retaliated. Monero supporters knew of the flaw, they said, and took advantage of it. They created more Bytecoins and used that as leverage to expose Bytecoin’s flaws. Why? To sew distrust. Make Bytecoin look bad. Turn the community against them. All of the above.

Once the dust settled, it was back to the business of smear. Monero, with all of its improvements of the CrypotNote or CryptoNight Protocol (Algorithm), against Bytecoin — which dared to rear its scammy head once again. It was the original CryptoNote against the (allegedly) new and improved CryptoNote.

The Bytecoin pre-mine allegations are still there as well.

These days, ICO’s (Initial Coin Offerings) and pre-mines are commonplace. The results are mixed. Some developers fly the coop with the cash and some actually continue to tweak their coins. Some monitor their Github accounts making changes to at least let us know that they are still around.

Monero was not pre-mined, according to their documentation. They were a community driven program, forked originally from Bytecoin and after a some early growth pains  (community internal disagreements) a certain sect ended up with the keys to the code. Today, Monero enjoys a relatively stable existence, enjoying recent valuations, even if they do not have the best “wallets” or mascots.

If Bytecoin did “pre-mine,” within the last week they may have covered their initial expenses. In other words, the pre-mine has helped to support the development of Bytecoin. Unless, like the Monero supporters claim, Bytecoin will simply dump their coins and leave everyone hanging. So far, they appear to sticking to their guns.

Bytecoin has experienced a massive resurgence on one exchange especially: Poloniex. But the trading, other than having lined the pockets of Poloniex, since they charge for the service of trading, is missing something. And that is the ability to deposit or withdraw any Bytecoins. Currently, you can only trade Bytecoins with other cryptocurrencies on Poloniex. All I have been able to verify so far is that Poloniex is performing  “maintencance.”

If Poloniex finally re-enables Bytecoin it could be seen as a vote of confidence. Perhaps we should all realize that Poloniex just wants to earn a profit, however. Keeping the customer happy and the money flowing is a no-brainer. If they think Bytecoin is too much of a distraction they could delist it.

One hopes that Poloniex is watching Bytecoin closely. Certainly they can see who owns the most of Bytecoins on their exchange. If a large player has made some attempt to dump or trade enormous amounts of Bytecoin, they should know about it.

Where will Bytecoin go from here? Your guess is a good as mine. We have a nice, easy to use software wallet.  One which has always worked for me — and apparently renewed interest in the coin itself.

Volatility is an issue now. Bytecoin, if the past is any teacher, may be cutting its teeth on the “whales” right about now. Big ups and downs. Money is certainly changing hands.

The question is, are the users getting pummeled at the expense of the anonymous developers of Bytecoin or are unrelated parties just having fun with all the investors trying to pile on?

As always, time will tell. If privacy and security gains traction, Bytecoin could be sitting pretty.

 

(Note: This author is not associated with Bytecoin.org or any of its developers.)

%d bloggers like this: