cheatbuster's blog

No con, cheater, or fraud will ever be safe again!
By cheatbuster, 4 years ago, In English

The purpose of the blog has been fulfilled, the rank list has been finalized. Most who cheated were caught. Those who cheated and still qualified lost self-respect if not anything else. I hope people appreciate the sport and not corrupt it with incidents like these in the future to come. Following the events that spread hatred towards specific people, and given that the involved ones might be targeted again, I'm removing the list — just remember: cheating is not necessarily a crime, but harassing someone is. Okay, guys. Farewell.

  • Vote: I like it
  • +272
  • Vote: I do not like it

Comments Comments (38)
| Write comment?
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +7 Vote: I do not like it

God! That must have took some effort to check and find all these gems. Good job. Now, let's hope authorities take proper action against the same.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +24 Vote: I do not like it

    all these gems

    More like: all these germs

    → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +72 Vote: I do not like it

Not sure why this post is being upvoted when it’s just a list of names with no evidence. Sending it to Google is fine but posting in public like this is basically witch hunting.

Not sure if I’m missing something here.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    Your point makes absolute sense, but it was not possible to attach around 50 submissions to a single thread. I hoped if someone wanted to verify, they'll go and see the corresponding submissions. But for the record, here are a few (selected based on distinctness in obfuscation):

    Oakenshield
    taneKaku
    Jaimehta1912

    All these matches are from problem A. The way I found them was through the prototype leaked solution that was posted earlier in another blog: https://mirror.codeforces.com/blog/entry/90042

    Just open a submission, find the number 15709090909091 and if found, look at the flow of control, templates and obfuscation around it. Most will match.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

      Hello mr cheat buster

      The num you are talking about is used for inv and there is obvious way to solve the implementation problem so anyone who solved it will have same type of control flow and that number you are talking about .You can check top 10 ranking .

      The codes you shared are obviously to avoid plag but you can't claim that anyone with a template and a number in the code is cheater.

      When you mention someone in a cheater list without a prof it affects them in many ways specially when they are practicing hard .

      Thankyou & Happy Contribution :-)

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        4 years ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

        Well, hello there mr/mrs hellomrcheatbuster (seems like a wellwisher?) :)

        The num you are talking about is used for inv and there is obvious way to solve the implementation problem so anyone who solved it will have same type of control flow and that number you are talking about .You can check top 10 ranking .

        I am aware that the number isn't a random one, and neither did I claim it to be one. What I claimed is that it is a necessary condition, that if it is not there in the code — the code doesn't match the leaked prototype at least. So it does serve as a good function to filter the solutions that 'most probably aren't plagiarised with the prototype'.

        The codes you shared are obviously to avoid plag but you can't claim that anyone with a template and a number in the code is cheater.

        Again, I never claimed that anyone with a template and a number in the code is a cheater. I claimed that anyone with the number, possibly a template or obfuscation, is a cheater if his solution matches the prototype (see my last sentence: "Most will match.")

        When you mention someone in a cheater list without a prof it affects them in many ways specially when they are practicing hard .

        I tried my best to avoid any false positives, that's the reason why the list is small. And since I very well understand the hardwork that goes into practice, I would not want it to go in vain because of cheating (not claiming that cheating doesn't require hardwork). Also, if there were no proof I won't exist in the first place. You may go through all the 50 solutions and then argue if any is wrongly mentioned — I'll remove it without any hesitation.

        Why you guys are in hurry , Google is rejecting manually .

        Everyone appreciates help, I hope Google does too :)

        Good day, wellwisher.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          4 years ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          Well, you have definitely failed in avoiding false positives. The numbers 15709090909091 and 29621140472879 are inverses of 11 and 719 mod the maximum no. of ticks respectively. I can outline the exact logic I coded which in a cursory glance is different from the cheaters' solution. Also, in your opinion what part of my code is obfuscation? I have had the same template since the beginning of 2020, you can check my submissions on CF. I wish I could convey how disgusting it feels to be falsely declared a cheater, even by a literal nobody.

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            4 years ago, # ^ |
            ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

            Well said, Problem A only required modular arithmetic and the steps to calculate the values are unique, of course its gonna look same.One thing for sure is the author doesn't know how to solve problem A.I urge him to look for submissions from other countries as well, and for sure he can find many more solutions that will look same, solely because that is how you need to solve the problem XD.

            PS: I just saw some solutions from the list and some of them are similar to neal_wu's solution so i think he was the one who leaked the solution XD

            → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            4 years ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            I apologize for the inconvenience and possible damage caused. Most probably, the false positive was the structure of code that was similar to many actually plagiarized ones. Anyway, I'll go over the 49 other solutions again to verify.

            → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              4 years ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

              Rechecked all the solutions. Removed 4 on the grounds of even a little uncertainty. The updated list has 46 usernames. Justice may be blind at times, but it doesn't mean it can't see its own flaws.

              → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

I dont think this is good to announce someone publicly cheater without having proper proof and also I had seen even top 50 ranked coders having same code(though few of them have) ,,It maybe that u hadnot seen question and had assumed that all solution needs to be different

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

    Hi, thank you for the concern. I agree that the solution doesn't need to be different. But everyone on the list has more than 90% match with the leaked solution, up to obfuscations.

    I don't think this is good to announce someone publicly cheater without having proper proof.

    Didn't you yourself mention a few from the list on your blog? I understand, it might seem that 50 is a big number compared to that and it's likely to have an error in judgment. The silver lining is: I've spent a good amount of time, manually inspecting these solutions, you can be sure once you go through all of them. Hope you agree :)

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +5 Vote: I do not like it

      If u dont know about me then I will let u know that to whoever I named on blog,I first warned them twice and then created a blog and they have already accepted their guilt once but doing still same thing but In ur case it doesnt seems to be same,,,And I had seen that many submission seems to be copied but we dont know any of them cf id ,,so whats the point then?

      → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -61 Vote: I do not like it

Why google and codeforces are wasting their time and money to make their plagiarism checker more strong and accurate when we have some people who have enormous time to check all these submissions manually. Codeforces should take all unrated account and make them plagiarism checker.

It's an irony that people who are ashamed of writing these blogs on their real id are exposing people's real id without a single proof.

Don't get me wrong, you've done a great work but rather than making a new id (specially for exposing cheaters) you should have posted it from your real id.

You are no different than these cheaters. Your path may be different but you guys are no different.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -46 Vote: I do not like it

    LOL If this guy had put this much effort and energy on his coding skills, he even wouldn't have need to write this blog. I guess all these cheating blogs are written by pupil/newbies, because they are the only ones who are affected by cheating. So their are two ways to improve for them, bring others down by checking all the codes to detect cheating or improve themselves by practicing harder. I will choose the later one anyday as both require the same energy, atleast I will have my personnel growth.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

      its not like that bro,,Cm also write this blog,,Sometime we knoew the cheater perosnally and We didnt want to spoil our relationship outside cp,,so we use alt Id btw Cm and expert gets affected by this cause Nowadays many people are reaching Cm just by cheating and there are a lot example of them

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +34 Vote: I do not like it

      you're saying that lol. Your last contest submissions are skipped because of cheating and that's why you are defending them. 114023318 114040179

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

      Oh! then according to you I am a newbie, seriously grow up man.

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

      You are saying this because you yourself are mentioned in the list. Also your last round submissions are skipped which confirms you're a pathetic cheater.

      Not only that you became 6* by cheating on Codechef. One can check his submissions on codechef and confirm. You've plagiarized once on codechef but still continued to cheat.

      His codechef handle- ghost_zen

      → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
← Rev. 6   Vote: I like it -23 Vote: I do not like it

There is one guy named pratyush baweja imdywmwbeiwutb who sell solutions of all contest including codejam,kickstart,cf,cc,leetcode etc on telegram with name anonymous. You can find him on linkedin also. Telegram group link

![](https://imgur.com/zVC4M81)

![](https://imgur.com/R8bG2vb)

→ Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +65 Vote: I do not like it

Wow ! I went through the submissions of some 15-20 people mentioned here.And I think the main part of all of their codes is too similar for this to be a coincidence.The flow is exactly the same.
Also,almost all of them have done the variable declaration in exactly the same fashion as that done in the leaked code.Those declared 'int128' in original code were declared 'int128' in copied ones, and those declared 'long long' were declared 'long long'.
Also,almost everyone printed the answer in the checking function itself ,when they could have as easily done it in the main function. Everyone reaching to the exact same implementation finally is quite strange.
Some of them have not even erased the ' cerr<<"Problem" ' part ,lol.

IMO,what has happened here is as clear as day.
BTW, nice work cheatbuster.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

    Thank you for the positive response. I hope these people meet justice. But cheating will exist nevertheless. My part is done this time. Adios guys, until the ghosts arrive again ;)

    → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +21 Vote: I do not like it

Out of 46 mentioned people, 39 people have been disqualified . Now only 7 people are left. Hopefully they'll also be disqualified soon.

Now the codejam ranklist is changed. So, you can't find them. In case anyone wants to see old ranks, you can check Clist.

Clist has old ranks before disqualification and one can verify that now only 7 people are left from Super 46.

Great Job cheatbuster and also Codejam team obviously.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +22 Vote: I do not like it

    I had mailed 12 hours ago to google about rajanarora1999,kavishlodha123 and few more similar codes. Surprisingly google replied after 6 hours and all of their codes were manually rejected. Google codejam team is working amazingly to remove cheaters. I never got reply from Codechef even after mailing alot of proofs. Hope codechef team learns something from codejam team.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      4 years ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -35 Vote: I do not like it

      You don't need to specify names again.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        4 years ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

        Don't cheat first to get your name specified... Mr Perry_Prasad_Platypus aka kavishlodha123.

        Link1 Link2

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          4 years ago, # ^ |
          ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +44 Vote: I do not like it

          Firstly, I am not defending my act and I already got my lesson. I don't cheat otherwise and will never cheat again.

          Talking about codejam, I got some bugs in A and so I shifted to B. Then when I moved back to A there were just too many submissions and I thought something like this was asked before so I googled. And the first result was that YouTube video. If, it would have been any other round, I won't submit but it was codejam and cheaters won't be caught as usual and if I don't do it, I won't qualify. I have already regretted about it. Everyone makes mistakes and learn something. I have already told I don't cheat and I won't cheat so stop mentioning me again and again. There are 46 people in the list and I am one of the most mentioned.

          In these last 2 days, I saw comments like "Another candidate master exposed", let me tell you I earned it without any cheating. And people abusing me through cf messages. Random newbies justifying why I they are still newbie because of me.

          I have been ignoring these but now it's too much. Downvote as much as you can, I stopped caring.

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            4 years ago, # ^ |
            ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +31 Vote: I do not like it

            I guess he is talking sense, you guys shouldn't target specific people on the basis of their rating. It's similar to why the mob shouldn't pass justice onto those who are condemned. The objective of the blog is to dispirit the idea of cheating, not bury the people who are accused. I hope they learn from their actions and enjoy CP for what it actually is — and grow as a community :)

            → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              4 years ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it +13 Vote: I do not like it

              true I agree with him Perry_Prasad_Platypus,everyone do mistake ata some point of tym and I had seen his submission and he is genuine guy,I believe he has got lesson from mistake and will not do this again.

              → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            4 years ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +17 Vote: I do not like it

            When Perry_prasad searched on google he be like, I came looking for copper but found gold XDXD

            PS: Don't take it seriously, I understand your situation :)

            → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

Auto comment: topic has been updated by cheatbuster (previous revision, new revision, compare).

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    4 years ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    cheatbuster You can use clist to see previous standings according to ranks. I guess 39 have been disqualified as mention in one of comments.
    RESPECT
    cheatbuster

    → Reply
»
4 years ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Death Note anyone? ... "Justice"...

→ Reply