Bitcoin Forum

Coincidence?


I think not... ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96169.0

How is it, that after both members (which many people have monitored all day) have been absent from the forum for the past 7+ Hours......


SUDDENLY SHOW UP WITHIN MINUTES OF EACH OTHER ?
(Times shown are MST, My Local/Forum Time)


http://members.shaw.ca/bitlane/bcx_dm.jpg

BCX and DannyMaddox awfully quiet.  ::) ::) ::) ::)

It's obvious this is being ran from a single-computer operation, so you may need to address them 1 at a time, so there is proper notice in place for WHO needs to be signed into to WHAT Forum Profile......

It's time for you to go fuck off......

Maybe? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91958.0

AAwww...and after that heart-felt PM that you sent to me this morning, asking me to keep things private, I had thought we were finally making progress.

Does this mean we can't be friends after all Danny ?

Why is it that DannyMaddox and BitcoinEXpress can not be ONLINE at the same time ?

Thankfully, it only takes a SINGLE FORUM ADMIN to confirm if there is a problem. Dial-Up Internet keep disconnecting ?

PM?....Care to share?

One of them is always offline when the other is online. LOL

at least use two computers... ::) ::) ::)

Or 2 browsers, but that's way too advanced.
Don't worry. Mr. Maddox went away for good. Now just his female alter-ego will be around.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96169.msg1061271#msg1061271

You do realize, if THAT is the case, then BitcoinEXpress is not only pretending to be a woman, but a lesbian at the same time.

http://members.shaw.ca/bitlane/bcxl.jpg

...a WIFE....huh ?

If a mod could verify that both accounts logged from the same IP, that would be evidence.
Otherwise, I would expect at least one to be using a proxy.

Edit: bad grammar  :o

+1 MODS can one of you verify if this is or isn't true????

Wow lots of honesty I read out of that last post. You sound really butt hurt.  ::) ::) ::)

Well, THAT solves THAT.
At this point, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't simply take your word, because if you know that person is not you, then that is good enough for me.
CASE CLOSED.

damn since the orig thread got locked i'll post my reply in this one.   The OP of the locked thread rang of some truth.  The impression i got was that bcx was projecting himself onto "paul holcomb" in order to distance himself from "danny maddox".  I wouldn't be surprised if he were actually stalking a random asian woman from the internet.  I'm not real sure the facebook page danny maddox is him tho, the page doesn't give me the impression that thats rlly him, mostly bc it doesn't have any epeen on it.   anyway, what happens when you fake 51 attack a philipino lady?

Hey.....

Did Litecoin Win ?

Exactly. How could I be so blind as to the current state of things and completely overlook the out pour of support for you, from the community at large.... and what you have accomplished over the last few days. It's quite silly of me actually.

Which Forum Profile were those PMs sent to ?

Did you answer them from the DannyMaddox account ? or the BitcoinEXpress account ?

Well, I for one would personally like to commend you for your efforts, as this couldn't have been an easy undertaking.....all for the good of Litecoin.

From Multiple personalities, forum accounts, Facebook profiles to alleged bomb threats and child wellfare concerns, yet you still found the time to help the block chain by galvanizing it with a little bit of elbow grease and some Amazon EC2 power at your disposal.

For this, I thank you good sir.

I'm not gonna lie.... I am quite impressed that you were able to 'hold it together' for as long as you have and are still standing tall and sticking to your guns...
(those big, greasy, TRANSPARENT guns....)
THAT is TRUE commitment.


Good for you !

I think I just realized something. Once the smoke cleared from all of the turmoil, something suddenly became very evident to me....

It's come to my attention that Litecoin, in it's early stages of adoption, may in fact be susceptible to a 51% attack.

Clearly, this is unacceptable and we should all do our parts to help in any way we can. ......by any means necessary.

Because of this unforeseen and inherent flaw, I have been led to believe that the SolidCoin Development Team may have very well stumbled upon the road to a proper solution with SolidCoin 2.0's infrastructure and it's defense against 51% attacks of it's block chain.

NOW, if we could only convince THOSE WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH A SOLUTION TO HELP, we may very well be on our way to a secure cryptocurrency.

Remember folks..... the end will justify the means and by any means necessary, we need to ensure that Litecoin WINS.

Sincerely,
bitlane

Hard-coding a protection against a 51% attack defeats the whole purpose of a decentralized currency. This is absolutely not what is needed. If it were to happen and the actual features of ltc changed as they were changed for scamcoins, a lot of people would leave ltc, including me. Blowhimselfhardexpress is and always was against ltc apart from his personal gain. He is an early adopter of BTC, so he wants in on ltc. So much has been clear now. Him arguing for such a hardcoding-feature is yet another attack on ltc's future success. He's indeed a pychopath that gets busted again and again by the community, but isn't resting to make up ever new lies and attacks on people. Do you honestly believe anyone stills listens to what you have to say toward the security of Litecoin? Are you just insane? Nobody fucking cares for your ideas now, even if they weren't meant to destroy/hurt ltc. You're out of the game, the ltc train has long left without you. You lost. Get over it.

Of course and the Litecoin community is forever in your debt because of selfless actions such as the ones you described.

Between the multiple split personalities, Facebook accounts, Gender confusion, Job Masking, Legal Misdirection - not to mention what you may or may not do in your personal life - It is commendable to see such an upstanding citizen such as yourself, make the required sacrifices, all for the greater good of Litecoin.

You were right about 1 thing - Litecoin Wins !

Fixed that for you. I don't believe you that Coblee was in on it more than telling Btc-e that an attack from you is unlikely, communicating with you anymore than necessary. You are not important enough to plan anything with in advance. Also, don't mix up your former, perhaps even pre-ltc involvement with your recent engagement with ltc. These are two different things. Say you opened a bar or started a club once, sold it or left it, that doesn't give you the right for free drinks with the new owners.

I have no doubt you are in contact with some hackers who are interested in cryptocurrencies, but I'm guessing it will rather be the solidcoindudes and some DDOSboys than litecoin devs. Btw, did you hold many Scamcoins lately before BTC-e closed trading for SC? Again, as seen before you try to get out of this self-made mess with a trick called benefit of the doubt. You are hurting the reputation of Coblee by referencing the good old days and trying to make everyone believe you he had this attack coordinated with you before hand. Fact of the matter is he reacted to it, but just like the BS you spread on BTC-e, some people will always be tricked to believe you, freak out or panic sell. Fear is a powerful weapon, even for rational people who can't shake off feeling of doubt. This already is enough for you. It won't be good not enough to get out of this though.

psy/thymos

Please could you get the Browser User Agent ID for both Danny Maddox and BitcoinExpress?

No need to get theymos involved.

The following is information I gathered personally. Only admins can get this information from the forum, and I'm not an admin.

BitcoinExpress: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/14.0.1 <-- FIREFOX
DannyMaddox: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/5.0) <-- INTERNET EXPLORER 9

As you can see they use the exact same OS. Both the IP's I got are from CA.
And a SEO/SEM professional using IE? Really? LOL

I might add, useragent can be changed to anything. Proof? https://www.dropbox.com/s/jl1gsr849yrcks1/Useragent.jpg

Thanks NT 6.1 I think is Windows 7.  Agreed about the latter point though.  

And yes.... so can IP.  Might of been nice if both were from same exotic UA.

True that. When I use my android tablet I use a desktop browser UA most of the time because I hate being served mobile versions of websites.
I only answered to satisfy the curiosity of AndyRossy.

Thanks for the answer :).  I still willing to bet they're the same person.

I can give you one more detail that matches between the 2 strings. Besides the OS being the same, NT 6.1 (Windows 7), those UA strings belong to a 32bit OS.  ???

Yep, I understand, tis why I didn't quote you, as I figured you already known  :)

Agreed. But I don't think IT is entirely stupid either.

Bitlane as one of the people from the ex-solidcoin staff, I can assure you, there is no way to fix this 51% problem unless you centralize the chain, or throw out the entire Blockchain concept and start thinking in much more creative terms...

This is something that SC people knew a while back... but LTC fanboys casually swept under the rug. Now it's all coming back to bite you guys in the ass, and you're wondering why?

Seriously guys just use BITCOIN......

As long as I can gain more bitcoins by mining litecoins and trading for bitcoins, I will continue to mine LTC.

I've made over what I would have made mining btc by mining ltc and trading for btc.

WAI CANNA U GUIAS JUSSA MAKE A DA MICROSORFT BETTA? YUSE NOT GUNNA WIN. ISS IMPOSSIBRU.

You supply a decoder with that?