This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Since CryptoNote currencies are anonymous, the network must confirm the validity of transactions in another way."
AFAIK anonymity is not the problem here but the problem is, that the transactions are not "readable"/"understandable" by 3rd parties. Bitcoin transactions stored in the blockchain are anonymous, too (there are no names in it and nobody really knows the person behind an address), but you can verify it though. Sedrubal 2017-11-11 00:35 UTC
It is well accepted that CryptoNote/Bytecoin were first publicly disclosed and discussed in March 2014, that the 2 whitepapers were edited/created around March-April 2014, and that the 2-year blockchain history of Bytecoin from 2012 to March 2014 was faked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0 But the wiki page does not represent this faked backstory, and needs serious rework. Mbevand ( talk) 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
None of Bytecoin's citations are valid. They all point to broken links. Psyrkus ( talk) 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked for the expose to be white-listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (searchable phrase: "Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)". The answer appears to be a firm "No." Since the Article fails to meet WP:NPOV without that source, I wonder if I should add a template asking for reliable sources WP:RS, pending deletion since those do not actually exist in most cases: due to a historic lack of notability Wikipedia:Notability. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It is apparently explained away in the "Faked versions of whitepaper" section of the article. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone on reddit asked help for improving the presence of Monero on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia pillar of neutrality of point of view ( WP:NPOV) strongly discourages me to edit the page for other things than correcting factual errors. But nothing prevents me to propose a draft on the talk page :)
Monero as a probably consistently the highest volume of any CryptoNote currency. This is not officially the case because of the insane trafic on hitbtc - it is suspected to be fake, but still, factually, Bytecoin has a higher volume.
The core team repeatedly proved its dedication and Monero is well-regarded by important actors of the cryptocurrency scene such as Andrew Poelstra (andytoshi), Gregory Maxwell or Michael Marquard (Theymos).
Some texts to use as an inspiration for an article: https://xmrmonero.com/faq/en/why-monero-matters-prove-me-monero-not-yet-another-shitcoin
Sorry, I'm running out of inspiration at the moment :)
--
David Latapie (
✒ |
@) —
www 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not going to be touching it, but I think the unbelievably bad grammar in the CryptoNote Wikipedia page alone is reason enough for Monero to have its own page;)
The Monero Core team will gladly avail themselves to answer factual questions about Monero. Some key starting points:
The first post on the Bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
Our 2014 "Year in Review" Missive: https://forum.monero.cc/1/news-and-announcements/134/monday-monero-missives-22-year-in-review-january-5th-2015
The collection of Missives linked on that first post of the Bitcointalk thread also contain important changes / improvements etc. with links / references to external sources where necessary.
An SVG version of the Monero logo is in our branding pack: https://monero.cc/downloads/resources/branding.zip
David - I'm pretty sure Monero exchange volume *has* been consistently higher than Bytecoin. Starting points to verify this: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/#charts vs. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bytecoin-bcn/#charts (switch to 365-day or All time view, note the scale).
Fluffypony ( talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Monero should have its own Wikipedia page, it already contributed and diverted a lot from the original cryptonote code, also there is deep consensus it is the only cryptonote currency to come on a clean slate after various discrepancies, to put it lightly, on the cryptonote family of coins were exposed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0
responding to David Latapie My understanding is that WP:NPOV allows you to correct factual errors, so long as you "Avoid stating opinions as facts." If certainly raises eyebrows when somebody involved with a project does their own editing. That may have to do with notability concerns, more than anything (you are not supposed to link to primary sources). 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CryptoNote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Cointelegraph appears to use redirection URLs to link directly to primary (self-published) sources. Since it is not clear cointelegraph did any further fact-checking, I don't believe the dates listed. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not find the "forgery" interpretation of the back-dated PDF files convincing. One suggestion in that thread is that these "new" files with corrected dates and software versions, and a watermark: were produced after the initial expose.
At the risk of original research, I suspected something was wrong myself with the very steep emission curve (way steeper than Bitcoin). The thread in question was compelling enough to convince *me* that it was a pre-mining scam. If you read through that thread, you will see that many people also had their suspicions well: but failed to lay out all the reasons why. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 04:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
the section below is entirely WP:OR. We need secondary sources that say all this. Saying "X was first", cited to X, is WP:OR and not supported by X.
A bunch of these refs are also irretrievably dead.
CryptoNote technology was first described in a whitepaper CryptoNote v 1.0. [4] unreliable source An updated version has been released under the name CryptoNote v 2.0 [5] unreliable source later. The Bytecoin cryptocurrency was the first one where the underlying cryptographic protocol has been implemented. CryptoNote was at first developed in Java for faster launch, and then re-written in C++ in 2013. [6] unreliable source
CryptoNote is based on many early works and protocols and takes into consideration several issues raised formerly. Below is a list of the most important papers and events that influenced CryptoNote: [7]
The author of the white paper went by the name Nicolas van Saberhagen, although like
Satoshi Nakamoto (the author of the Bitcoin white paper) that name is likely a pseudonym. Saberhagen's true identity and location remains unknown. Some have claimed that the real creator is someone in the Bitcoin community.
Adam Back,
Nick Szabo and even Satoshi Nakamoto
[14] himself have been floated as possible suspects,
[15] but there is little to no evidence actually supporting those claims.
Stanford Bitcoin Group’s possible involvement in creation of the CryptoNote protocol has also been discussed. [16] Prior to CryptoNote cryptocurrency protocol, the domain cryptonote.org hosted an encrypted message application also named CryptoNote. [17] This application was developed by the members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group but had not received wide recognition. This website currently hosts the CryptoNote technology.
References
CN2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There are what see to be spurious claims of non-notable systems. There would seem to be requirements within Wikipedia:Notability to have a higher standard than some vague or miniscule reference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I just cut the extensively unsourced or primary-sourced sections. Any expansion should be with the sources from the AFD - David Gerard ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Bytecoin (BCN) has been the first CryptoNote implementation, and very likely by the same authors of CryptoNote protocol itself, after that many forks of Bytecoin have been created included Monero. With Monero creation started a huge denigratory campaign against Bytecoin from Monero community itself, and it's incredible this continues till now that Monero unfairily have surpassed it in popularity, removing all mentions of Bytecoin from CryptoNote page. That it's absurd! A cancel strategy to hide the true CryptoNote story and how Monero community continues to hide its true story of unfair competition against the original project of which it is a derivation whose community tried every dirty move to gain notoriety to the detriment of original CryptoNote based altcoin. - FredBoron ( talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Since CryptoNote currencies are anonymous, the network must confirm the validity of transactions in another way."
AFAIK anonymity is not the problem here but the problem is, that the transactions are not "readable"/"understandable" by 3rd parties. Bitcoin transactions stored in the blockchain are anonymous, too (there are no names in it and nobody really knows the person behind an address), but you can verify it though. Sedrubal 2017-11-11 00:35 UTC
It is well accepted that CryptoNote/Bytecoin were first publicly disclosed and discussed in March 2014, that the 2 whitepapers were edited/created around March-April 2014, and that the 2-year blockchain history of Bytecoin from 2012 to March 2014 was faked: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0 But the wiki page does not represent this faked backstory, and needs serious rework. Mbevand ( talk) 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
None of Bytecoin's citations are valid. They all point to broken links. Psyrkus ( talk) 17:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I asked for the expose to be white-listed on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (searchable phrase: "Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)". The answer appears to be a firm "No." Since the Article fails to meet WP:NPOV without that source, I wonder if I should add a template asking for reliable sources WP:RS, pending deletion since those do not actually exist in most cases: due to a historic lack of notability Wikipedia:Notability. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It is apparently explained away in the "Faked versions of whitepaper" section of the article. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 04:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Someone on reddit asked help for improving the presence of Monero on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia pillar of neutrality of point of view ( WP:NPOV) strongly discourages me to edit the page for other things than correcting factual errors. But nothing prevents me to propose a draft on the talk page :)
Monero as a probably consistently the highest volume of any CryptoNote currency. This is not officially the case because of the insane trafic on hitbtc - it is suspected to be fake, but still, factually, Bytecoin has a higher volume.
The core team repeatedly proved its dedication and Monero is well-regarded by important actors of the cryptocurrency scene such as Andrew Poelstra (andytoshi), Gregory Maxwell or Michael Marquard (Theymos).
Some texts to use as an inspiration for an article: https://xmrmonero.com/faq/en/why-monero-matters-prove-me-monero-not-yet-another-shitcoin
Sorry, I'm running out of inspiration at the moment :)
--
David Latapie (
✒ |
@) —
www 18:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm also not going to be touching it, but I think the unbelievably bad grammar in the CryptoNote Wikipedia page alone is reason enough for Monero to have its own page;)
The Monero Core team will gladly avail themselves to answer factual questions about Monero. Some key starting points:
The first post on the Bitcointalk thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
Our 2014 "Year in Review" Missive: https://forum.monero.cc/1/news-and-announcements/134/monday-monero-missives-22-year-in-review-january-5th-2015
The collection of Missives linked on that first post of the Bitcointalk thread also contain important changes / improvements etc. with links / references to external sources where necessary.
An SVG version of the Monero logo is in our branding pack: https://monero.cc/downloads/resources/branding.zip
David - I'm pretty sure Monero exchange volume *has* been consistently higher than Bytecoin. Starting points to verify this: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/#charts vs. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bytecoin-bcn/#charts (switch to 365-day or All time view, note the scale).
Fluffypony ( talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Monero should have its own Wikipedia page, it already contributed and diverted a lot from the original cryptonote code, also there is deep consensus it is the only cryptonote currency to come on a clean slate after various discrepancies, to put it lightly, on the cryptonote family of coins were exposed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0
responding to David Latapie My understanding is that WP:NPOV allows you to correct factual errors, so long as you "Avoid stating opinions as facts." If certainly raises eyebrows when somebody involved with a project does their own editing. That may have to do with notability concerns, more than anything (you are not supposed to link to primary sources). 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 03:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CryptoNote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Cointelegraph appears to use redirection URLs to link directly to primary (self-published) sources. Since it is not clear cointelegraph did any further fact-checking, I don't believe the dates listed. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 07:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not find the "forgery" interpretation of the back-dated PDF files convincing. One suggestion in that thread is that these "new" files with corrected dates and software versions, and a watermark: were produced after the initial expose.
At the risk of original research, I suspected something was wrong myself with the very steep emission curve (way steeper than Bitcoin). The thread in question was compelling enough to convince *me* that it was a pre-mining scam. If you read through that thread, you will see that many people also had their suspicions well: but failed to lay out all the reasons why. 198.48.133.157 ( talk) 04:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
the section below is entirely WP:OR. We need secondary sources that say all this. Saying "X was first", cited to X, is WP:OR and not supported by X.
A bunch of these refs are also irretrievably dead.
CryptoNote technology was first described in a whitepaper CryptoNote v 1.0. [4] unreliable source An updated version has been released under the name CryptoNote v 2.0 [5] unreliable source later. The Bytecoin cryptocurrency was the first one where the underlying cryptographic protocol has been implemented. CryptoNote was at first developed in Java for faster launch, and then re-written in C++ in 2013. [6] unreliable source
CryptoNote is based on many early works and protocols and takes into consideration several issues raised formerly. Below is a list of the most important papers and events that influenced CryptoNote: [7]
The author of the white paper went by the name Nicolas van Saberhagen, although like
Satoshi Nakamoto (the author of the Bitcoin white paper) that name is likely a pseudonym. Saberhagen's true identity and location remains unknown. Some have claimed that the real creator is someone in the Bitcoin community.
Adam Back,
Nick Szabo and even Satoshi Nakamoto
[14] himself have been floated as possible suspects,
[15] but there is little to no evidence actually supporting those claims.
Stanford Bitcoin Group’s possible involvement in creation of the CryptoNote protocol has also been discussed. [16] Prior to CryptoNote cryptocurrency protocol, the domain cryptonote.org hosted an encrypted message application also named CryptoNote. [17] This application was developed by the members of the Stanford Bitcoin Group but had not received wide recognition. This website currently hosts the CryptoNote technology.
References
CN2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There are what see to be spurious claims of non-notable systems. There would seem to be requirements within Wikipedia:Notability to have a higher standard than some vague or miniscule reference. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I just cut the extensively unsourced or primary-sourced sections. Any expansion should be with the sources from the AFD - David Gerard ( talk) 16:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Bytecoin (BCN) has been the first CryptoNote implementation, and very likely by the same authors of CryptoNote protocol itself, after that many forks of Bytecoin have been created included Monero. With Monero creation started a huge denigratory campaign against Bytecoin from Monero community itself, and it's incredible this continues till now that Monero unfairily have surpassed it in popularity, removing all mentions of Bytecoin from CryptoNote page. That it's absurd! A cancel strategy to hide the true CryptoNote story and how Monero community continues to hide its true story of unfair competition against the original project of which it is a derivation whose community tried every dirty move to gain notoriety to the detriment of original CryptoNote based altcoin. - FredBoron ( talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)