I wonder how many people still think barabbas and IE are the same person now. This post proves that they are different people, or that IE is an even bigger moron than I thought.
Only very idiotic people ever believed that fallacy. But a couple remain to this day, which once again proves Einstein's concept of human stupidity, of course. That is not nearly as important as the fact that, unless Bittrex does the right thing and issues refunds, investors in Bytecent -except for those few mining massively- are being robbed blind of a huge % of their investment... not necessarily by IE but robbed nonetheless. I hope Bittrex does the right thing, but I don't have much confidence that they will. I'm afraid that Bittrex will choose profit over ethics. That has been their pattern in the past. I understand Bittrex is a for profit endeavor but they will get their commission either way. I also hope they do the right thing. Those who want the refund should get it; those who don't, they'd go ahead. There's no lack of profit for Bittrex either way... |
|
|
|
He's simply a pissed-off bag holder and definately not the master mind of some diabolical plan to suppress VeriCoin's value.
I think you are quite correct with the description of the nature of my involvement in this process :-)) But please don't be surprised that the hard core cheerleaders come up with conspiracy theories to explain why this coin is so failed. It's never the lack of progress and incapable developers ... it's always something else, and depending on the level of madness it could be shady investors that try to push the price down or the international Jewish network that controls the world but jealous of VeriCoin's infinite success or the CIA or the Russian Red Army or the knee injury of Kobe Bryant or the climate change ... or the ebola virus ... everything has a role in the complete failure of VeriCoin - expect the wonderful developers and guys like Jay Jay and this trolling pants boy. I personally vouch for the total insignificance in the whole process of both the the Jay Jay and the pants-boy. Fair is fair. |
|
|
|
I wonder how many people still think barabbas and IE are the same person now. This post proves that they are different people, or that IE is an even bigger moron than I thought.
Only very idiotic people ever believed that fallacy. But a couple remain to this day, which once again proves Einstein's concept of human stupidity, of course. That is not nearly as important as the fact that, unless Bittrex does the right thing and issues refunds, investors in Bytecent -except for those few mining massively- are being robbed blind of a huge % of their investment... not necessarily by IE but robbed nonetheless. |
|
|
|
Your mendacity knows no boundaries... which in laymen's terms means you are the most rotten son of a bitch I have ever known.
Coming from IconicExpert, this has to be the most ironic post of the year on BCT hands down!!  Fucking idiot... |
|
|
|
|
IconicExpert just got me banned from CoinBlab. After supporting -and investing- in his Bytecent project and trying to, privately and publicly, help in many ways,
I became naturally critic of the disaster that the launching of Byutecent has become:
After trying to turn the low participation in its ICO, in which he offered for sale 3 million coins at 50k sat each and sold just under 160k, into a positive given the small amount of coins that would be available -therefore potentially increasing the price of the coin in the market-, the supposedly innovative and certainly restricted mining period started. 1440 coins is almost 1% of 160,000 coins, which is high for a daily rate, but nothing particularly notorious as far as inflation go... problem is that the mining started and only a few hours into it, there's almost 16,000 coins already mined instead. Instamined, as it were. This happening, simultaneously, with massive complains from downloaders of the Windows wallets unable to get their wallets to mine at all... even after a supposed "fix" (Mind you, this is the project in which, in IE's own words, you wouldn't "need a degree in computer sciences to install the wallet"... Wow.
Iconic had stated, many, MANY times, that 1440 coins would be the maximum mined coins daily. Not approximately. Not after some period of "normalization". Not in ANY case. Obviously, IconicExplorer lied. So, by the first 24 hours of Bytecent on its mining period, the coin will have around 200,000 coins available, having diluted the price by at least 20%.
I -and others- suggested to IE to relaunch more appropriately -and fairly- or issue refunds. He refused. I and representing those others frustrated and unhappy with this absurd outcome, expect Bittrex to take matters in their own hands, as they are the escrow of the project, and make refunds available before this disaster hits the market since, obviously, IconicExpert is beyond convincing, be it because of his peculiar personality that lands him in trouble more often than not, be it because he is directly benefiting from the "instamine". I don't know which and, at this point, I don't care. I don't believe Bytecent is a scam -and that why I invested in it and supported it- but it is not, in my view, a viable project in its current state.
With IconicExpert being able to ban their critics -much like if it was a censored thread here in BTCT- much less.
Pity, because it could have been a very interesting project -it could still be- but IE insist in tainting it. Sad indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep. Those forums are very serious... but full of jokers, indeed. Like pants-boy above ^^^. Those interested are quite likely to get the lowdown on this project... more or less...
|
|
|
|
|
We all know very well that Loolz is quite incapable of ever posting anything that has a semblance of intelligence in it, so it cannot surprise anyone, can it?
|
|
|
|
It is comforting to see that you are eloquent enough to write the above sentences, however your behavior and posts seem to be in contrast with kenotic activity. I'm quite comfortable discussing the ethicality of my actions. I'm also quite comfortable, at present, with my actions, because I perceive them to be ethical. Happy to consider the possibility that they're not, of course. First of all, you have vested financial interest regarding blocknet and it is very hard to detach oneself from financial position and be unbiased observer. For instance, one of your latest post was about the blocknet price:
DO NOT POST SESC LINKS
and yet the price did go down. So you think that I'm trying to hype the price in order to deliver a return on my investment? What I stated is that "it's unclear whether it'll go down again at all." I do not believe that this constitutes hype in any sense. Neither do I believe that it's necessary to be an unbiased observer before one can give predictions on the price (not that I gave a prediction, mind you). All that's necessary is to disclose your bias (which in my case is obvious). You cannot make these type of statements and consider yourself an ethical person. You remind me of a HBS professor of ethics who was on the BoD of Marriott before they did a Chariot project that screwed their debtholders big time. I believe that the statement above is ethically quite alright. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with it as far as I can see. However I'm quite open to be shown what could be wrong with it. Can you spell it out for me? Even writing books about ethics doesn't mean your actions are ethical. Of course. Knowledge about ethics doesn't necessitate acting ethically. But my reason for talking about ethics here wasn't to prove I act ethically, it was to explain why I act the way I act. I think I act ethically, but anyone's welcome to engage me in discussion about ethics and thereby potentially change the way I decide to act. Your mendacity knows no boundaries... which in laymen's terms means you are the most rotten son of a bitch I have ever known. |
|
|
|
give it a day or too, the truth will be twisted to come out in a positive light for xc/blocknet
l'll start early. The truth is that Prometheus approached us yesterday, saying that his dev was in a rough patch and asking whether we could possibly take on Util. He did not want to drop the coin but was at a loss as to how best to go forward on his own. Since the Blocknet has a lot of resources, and since Util's tech will be valuable to the Blocknet, it makes sense for us to take it on. That's all really. But I know you all won't be persuaded. What a piece of rotten, dictatorshit you are... Wow. Simply amazing... |
|
|
|
|
And back again at setting new several months' market lows. Is it even possible that the stooges continue ignoring the obvious? I mean Supernet rebounded from stee losses and so did all of James' holdings... except Vericoin that continues setting atl's. The message couldn't possibly be louder or clearer: YOU ARE GOING IN THE WRONG FUCKING DIRECTION!
The arrest of Defcom hasn't sent you a clear enough message? The market has. The dismantling (and arrest of responsible parties) of over 400 TOR websites with "decentralized" goods and services, neither? The market is getting it... until what level are you going to continue "taking it"? 4000? 3000? 2000? the hundreds?
I just wonder what level would it take for even the nutcases to start jumping ship... amazing. Simply amazing...
|
|
|
|
|
And the "accumulation" continues...
Especially Fayoling's...
Wow.
|
|
|
|
Barrabas aka iconic expert did you read this?
Ay Emilio poor little misguided soul, yes I am aware of IE's launching his own coin. I have even invested a very modest sum on it. You never tire of making a fool of yourself, ah? Why would it be that you are always caught on the side of the crooks? You know the Black Hand, Prometheus... You must be a (very little) crook yourself, no other explanation. |
|
|
|
You can't change the ICO every 3 days people will get pissed.
My suggestion is to get the platform working ASAP then extend the IPO until we get the fund needed.
Now, going back to the original idea, coming out with a product that everyone can see, test and value AND let the market decide the price of the coins as it was originally planned, can be done, achieve great results and get the thing moving within 7 days, instead of collecting a paltry amount that will do good to no one at all.
What if, the current ICO stands as it is, and the trading of the coins can start etc. Development will proceed, and after a while when there is something to show (a demo or something), hold another ICO with the price the markets have decided between the two ICO's. The time between could be a month, or 6 months depending on how fast the development goes. That sounds like a viable option ... if these guys can afford to proceed with only 300-350 BTC, which would be more of a VC offering than a real ICO, leaving the bulk of the coins (roughly 8 million) to be offered in the real ICO. Sensible option, if they can afford it, otherwise it is hard to imagine that 350 BTC would be enough to even start something as complex and costly as Breakout Gaming. And without Breakout Gaming, there's no reason whatsoever for BRO to have a value above those 350 BTC ... for the whole 12.5 million coins. I'm sure your very sensible suggestion will be rightfully evaluated and hopefully, assumed. As i remember there have already been investments into the Breakout Gaming. ICO funds are meant for marketing and coin development. Good point. That being the case a very interesting situation presents itself: Let's assume that only 2 of the 10 million offered in the ICO, sell, which now seems like a high probability. What happens then to the other 8 million? The term "private sale" is very wide and, since the community evidently won't be able to buy it -why would they when they could have bought it much cheaper?-, who buys those 8 million? If it is in any way, shape or form connected with Breakout Gaming, it would be equal to a premine, since the left hand would pay the right hand, so, essentially, either those 8 million coins and bergstake are destroyed or the coin has a monumental premine of over 80%. |
|
|
|
Hi crazies. Nice little discussion you're having here. Just to let you know I'm not hiding (might've guessed that from my identity being public and all ;-), and that as a result I'm bound by both public opinion, and the total ease with which authorities will find me, to be honest and legit in all my dealings.
Then there's my personal standard of ethics. I will never, ever, remain involved with a project I do not believe to be ethical. If, at any point, I come to believe that one of my projects is engaged in illicit dealings, I will be the first person, and the loudest voice, to proclaim it.
Mark my words. And stone me if I do not live up to them.
Bye for now.
That is the problem, precisely. You would be the first to admit, I believe, and not without a sense of personal pride to boot, that you are a rather peculiar individual... or person, whichever applies... Therefore your perception of ETHICS would be rather peculiar and most certainly quite distinct from what the average individual/person perceives as ETHICS. Which, translated into layman's terms, means that you find ways around the concepts of robbing people because, you know, maybe they needed the lesson they got and for the money they paid, they got a bargain. Kinetically. Now I believe the authorities would be a bit less receptive than I am willing to be when you lay down your explanations, you little dictator you (sorry I haven't gotten around to find the proper, kinetic, translation to exercise arbitrary power and silence dissenting voices; I'm sure there's quite another way to put it though). |
|
|
|
I might not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen according to you, but I know where all those guys live, which is more than you do.
Who are "all those guys"? I have only mentioned two and it seems they cannot much hide where they live... if anyone is interested in looking it up. Authorities, here and abroad, will be looking them up and watching, I'm quite sure. And we will all find out soon enough. |
|
|
|
For any doubters whatsoever, I have 3 suggestions:
1. is to ask you the man himself. I am certain he will have a straight forward and concise answer covering all of the points you bring up.
2. Or maybe contact the CoinsSource POD service that signed off on him. Weren't they already paid to do something in regards to looking into the dev? Or does five stars come from sending them an id and a payment. Hell, they even said that Dan was a reputable businessman. That statement can't be made without some research right?
if all else fails
3. or call the toll free Lien Unit phone number provided on the form. I am certain if you explain the situation fully to them, that someone is claiming Dan Metcalf who is currently in control of ~600btc and possibly ~250btc more shortly from a coin ito is the same as a lien you saw. Give them the lien serial number and information on the form. I am certain they will clear it right up.
I am certain and without a shadow of a doubt that they are one and the same. I could provide that info and without doxxing. But continually being chastised for clearly doing the right thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mind you I did this for free as well with no dog in the fight. It weighed on me heavily and seeing more and more people sucked in to the quagmire of filth and deceit all with the change for it to vaporize at any second made up my mind. I could have sat back and said nothing and regretted the rest of my life. Or I could have sat back and secretly used to info to my advantage or called it in myself. Instead I gave it to the community and now I wish I had earlier. I tried to warn everyone multiple times and hinted at this for some time just hoping someone would figure it out all by themselves. Like I've alluded to before, thousand of people invested in this coin and thousands in xc and not one figured this simple thing out. This all should have been brought to light before blocknet was even a whishper instead look at what you have done. Do not shift blame, hate or negativity at me. You are the ones responsible for this mess. You were horrible stewards for your community.
A simple thank you was all that was necessary.
I do this type of research and plenty that is much more involved on a daily basis. If you are unable to figure it out and/or put eyes on it yourself with the single document I provided then I really am not going to hold your hand to baby step you through it. This is like someone providing a free mac wallet for a coin and you expecting they teach you how to build it. You might be surprised to find out, that research involves more than googling something. I am guessing you could find a copy of that document at least in 2 or 3 locations
If you want to send me 3btc to work on this a couple of more days and put together a report then do it. If you think that is high, to bad. That is about a rough after tax rate including hotel and food that I could make doing it otherwise. If you want me to teach you how I research I usually charge a student the first month of their pay so ~15-22btc, but I rarely take on a student.
If you want to continue to doubt the authenticity of the document then find an escrow and put up some btc.
So you have the proof, but don't want to provide it, and you say you did this research for free, yet now want 3 BTC to prepare a report. Hmm. How about this, just show the proof that the tax document is connected to the XC dev, and we won't need your report. You save time, I save BTC, and you stop the whole scam in it's tracks, thereby doing the community a service which you so righteously proclaim is your goal. Because here's how it goes otherwise: 1: We ask Dan, he say's "No, that's not me"2: We ask CoinsSource, they say "Actually, we contacted the dev and are awaiting verification. Currently no PoD stars have been awarded. Our article is based on an informal interview in IRC." 3: We contact the tax department and tell them we've found a guy called Dan Metcalf, who may, or may not be the same guy they're looking for, and that our guy is a coin dev who has got some bitcoins. We could say "Would you mind going and arresting your Dan Metcalf for us so we can see if it's the right guy? We're not quite sure you see, because there's more than one Daniel R Metcalf in Marshfield, and the guy who gave me the tax information removed the address and doesn't want show me how it's connected to the coin dev. Oh, one more thing, we have no reason to suspect that our guy has done anything illegal, we just want to make sure he's not the guy you're looking for." The condescending tone of your reply to my simple request for proof of the connection smacks of someone who has no proof, instead you attempt to deflect the issue citing your hurt pride as the reason you provide none. Has Dan actually denied being this guy? Then obviously he is not this guy either, right?: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=42275474&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Mj7i&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1415552014018%2Ctas%3Adan%20metcalf%2Cidx%3A1-1-1I'd like to see a link to his "denial". Maybe he denied it when he was "frustrated"... he tends to do that often. Firstly, I don't know if he has denied the tax lien or not. Why would he when there has been no connection shown? The address on the document has been redacted, and there are 6 Daniel R Metcalf's in Marshfield alone. Secondly, that is atcsecures LinkedIn profile. Common knowledge for months. Do you deny you are IconicExpert? Firstly, didn't you posted just above that Dan had denied being the same person in the documents? I am confused... Secondly, I don't know if it has been posted or not, if it has, it has. That is indeed the infamous Dan Metcalf and, according to the documents, he's the same individual. Thirdly: I believe IconicExpert is quite busy with his own coin project about to launch, tomorrow I think. At this point only people affected by profound retardation -or very unethical agendas-, choose to believe that lie that has been denied and demonstrated for months... and in frustration or not, the only, evident, repeated, obvious answer is NO, I am not. But you are more than welcome to believe anything you want... although I personally identify myself much more with Batman... You sound very confused I must say, where did I post that he denied owing the taxman $70k? I just said I didn't know if you cared to read my post. And if you think he has denied it, where is the proof that this guy: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=42275474&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Mj7i&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1415552014018%2Ctas%3Adan%20metcalf%2Cidx%3A1-1-1 is the same Dan Metcalf as the one mentioned in the tax lien here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=841223.msg9476089#msg9476089There is no address on the tax lien. So there is no proof. I know which address I can connect to the dev, but is it the same as on the tax lien? This is just too stupid... and I mean YOU, specifically. The tax liens contain the last 4 digits of Metcalf's social security number. There's no denying possible. No running around the bushes, no more bullcrap that can deny the facts no matter how many people post here or anywhere. BUT, beyond the assertion of his delinquencies with the IRS, the illicit (in the real world) and unethical (in ANY world) business/employment relationship with "pumper" Prometheus (and no pumper makes any profit unless they dump, so "Pumper" actually means "Pumper AND Dumper"), have been clearly demonstrated and admitted by both. Case closed. Dan Metcalf is history. And so is Synechist, the dictator/liar/manipulator, as soon as the law gets a hold of his identity. Everything will be cleaned up sooner rather than later by the same agents that threw Defcom in jail. And quite possibly with the same results. You joker, I know nothing about US social security numbers, wouldn't recognise one if I saw it. You saying this number is on his LinkedIn? Or the XC thread? Or you just wanna take a pop at me? No joke. But no matter from where you are, ID is ID everywhere. And yes, there's a clearly visible ID number there, in the tax liens documents. That's why Dan Metcalf cannot deny he is that Dan Metcalf. On the other hand, it would be very easy to irrefutably deny it if he wasn't, get it now? Not the sharpest knife in the kitchen but you stand corrected and that's a start. By the way I just found out (I don't frequent the XC website) that "Synechist", the blabber mouth dictator/liar/manipulator is some ARLYN CULWICK, out of the UK. He may feel out of reach of Federal authorities in the US but I would recommend to him to take a look at the arrest of "Defcom" and particularly at the agencies involved in the investigation that landed the lad in jail. It names two -and there are others not named-, with clear jurisdiction over the United Kingdom, so sorry little dictator, they will be on to you like flies on shit. Edit to correct: Actually it seems the lad hails out of South Africa. Other than that, South African agencies work with the US Federal Authorities just like the European agencies do. You are (geographically) far, but by all means within reach, little dictator. Edit to correct 2: Actually, upon a bit research, it seems Mr. Culwick is a current resident of Oxford, England, having left Johannesbourg in search of individuality of some short... |
|
|
|
You can't change the ICO every 3 days people will get pissed.
My suggestion is to get the platform working ASAP then extend the IPO until we get the fund needed.
Now, going back to the original idea, coming out with a product that everyone can see, test and value AND let the market decide the price of the coins as it was originally planned, can be done, achieve great results and get the thing moving within 7 days, instead of collecting a paltry amount that will do good to no one at all.
What if, the current ICO stands as it is, and the trading of the coins can start etc. Development will proceed, and after a while when there is something to show (a demo or something), hold another ICO with the price the markets have decided between the two ICO's. The time between could be a month, or 6 months depending on how fast the development goes. That sounds like a viable option ... if these guys can afford to proceed with only 300-350 BTC, which would be more of a VC offering than a real ICO, leaving the bulk of the coins (roughly 8 million) to be offered in the real ICO. Sensible option, if they can afford it, otherwise it is hard to imagine that 350 BTC would be enough to even start something as complex and costly as Breakout Gaming. And without Breakout Gaming, there's no reason whatsoever for BRO to have a value above those 350 BTC ... for the whole 12.5 million coins. I'm sure your very sensible suggestion will be rightfully evaluated and hopefully, assumed. |
|
|
|
For any doubters whatsoever, I have 3 suggestions:
1. is to ask you the man himself. I am certain he will have a straight forward and concise answer covering all of the points you bring up.
2. Or maybe contact the CoinsSource POD service that signed off on him. Weren't they already paid to do something in regards to looking into the dev? Or does five stars come from sending them an id and a payment. Hell, they even said that Dan was a reputable businessman. That statement can't be made without some research right?
if all else fails
3. or call the toll free Lien Unit phone number provided on the form. I am certain if you explain the situation fully to them, that someone is claiming Dan Metcalf who is currently in control of ~600btc and possibly ~250btc more shortly from a coin ito is the same as a lien you saw. Give them the lien serial number and information on the form. I am certain they will clear it right up.
I am certain and without a shadow of a doubt that they are one and the same. I could provide that info and without doxxing. But continually being chastised for clearly doing the right thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Mind you I did this for free as well with no dog in the fight. It weighed on me heavily and seeing more and more people sucked in to the quagmire of filth and deceit all with the change for it to vaporize at any second made up my mind. I could have sat back and said nothing and regretted the rest of my life. Or I could have sat back and secretly used to info to my advantage or called it in myself. Instead I gave it to the community and now I wish I had earlier. I tried to warn everyone multiple times and hinted at this for some time just hoping someone would figure it out all by themselves. Like I've alluded to before, thousand of people invested in this coin and thousands in xc and not one figured this simple thing out. This all should have been brought to light before blocknet was even a whishper instead look at what you have done. Do not shift blame, hate or negativity at me. You are the ones responsible for this mess. You were horrible stewards for your community.
A simple thank you was all that was necessary.
I do this type of research and plenty that is much more involved on a daily basis. If you are unable to figure it out and/or put eyes on it yourself with the single document I provided then I really am not going to hold your hand to baby step you through it. This is like someone providing a free mac wallet for a coin and you expecting they teach you how to build it. You might be surprised to find out, that research involves more than googling something. I am guessing you could find a copy of that document at least in 2 or 3 locations
If you want to send me 3btc to work on this a couple of more days and put together a report then do it. If you think that is high, to bad. That is about a rough after tax rate including hotel and food that I could make doing it otherwise. If you want me to teach you how I research I usually charge a student the first month of their pay so ~15-22btc, but I rarely take on a student.
If you want to continue to doubt the authenticity of the document then find an escrow and put up some btc.
So you have the proof, but don't want to provide it, and you say you did this research for free, yet now want 3 BTC to prepare a report. Hmm. How about this, just show the proof that the tax document is connected to the XC dev, and we won't need your report. You save time, I save BTC, and you stop the whole scam in it's tracks, thereby doing the community a service which you so righteously proclaim is your goal. Because here's how it goes otherwise: 1: We ask Dan, he say's "No, that's not me"2: We ask CoinsSource, they say "Actually, we contacted the dev and are awaiting verification. Currently no PoD stars have been awarded. Our article is based on an informal interview in IRC." 3: We contact the tax department and tell them we've found a guy called Dan Metcalf, who may, or may not be the same guy they're looking for, and that our guy is a coin dev who has got some bitcoins. We could say "Would you mind going and arresting your Dan Metcalf for us so we can see if it's the right guy? We're not quite sure you see, because there's more than one Daniel R Metcalf in Marshfield, and the guy who gave me the tax information removed the address and doesn't want show me how it's connected to the coin dev. Oh, one more thing, we have no reason to suspect that our guy has done anything illegal, we just want to make sure he's not the guy you're looking for." The condescending tone of your reply to my simple request for proof of the connection smacks of someone who has no proof, instead you attempt to deflect the issue citing your hurt pride as the reason you provide none. Has Dan actually denied being this guy? Then obviously he is not this guy either, right?: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=42275474&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Mj7i&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1415552014018%2Ctas%3Adan%20metcalf%2Cidx%3A1-1-1I'd like to see a link to his "denial". Maybe he denied it when he was "frustrated"... he tends to do that often. Firstly, I don't know if he has denied the tax lien or not. Why would he when there has been no connection shown? The address on the document has been redacted, and there are 6 Daniel R Metcalf's in Marshfield alone. Secondly, that is atcsecures LinkedIn profile. Common knowledge for months. Do you deny you are IconicExpert? Firstly, didn't you posted just above that Dan had denied being the same person in the documents? I am confused... Secondly, I don't know if it has been posted or not, if it has, it has. That is indeed the infamous Dan Metcalf and, according to the documents, he's the same individual. Thirdly: I believe IconicExpert is quite busy with his own coin project about to launch, tomorrow I think. At this point only people affected by profound retardation -or very unethical agendas-, choose to believe that lie that has been denied and demonstrated for months... and in frustration or not, the only, evident, repeated, obvious answer is NO, I am not. But you are more than welcome to believe anything you want... although I personally identify myself much more with Batman... You sound very confused I must say, where did I post that he denied owing the taxman $70k? I just said I didn't know if you cared to read my post. And if you think he has denied it, where is the proof that this guy: https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=42275474&authType=NAME_SEARCH&authToken=Mj7i&locale=en_US&trk=tyah&trkInfo=tarId%3A1415552014018%2Ctas%3Adan%20metcalf%2Cidx%3A1-1-1 is the same Dan Metcalf as the one mentioned in the tax lien here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=841223.msg9476089#msg9476089There is no address on the tax lien. So there is no proof. I know which address I can connect to the dev, but is it the same as on the tax lien? This is just too stupid... and I mean YOU, specifically. The tax liens contain the last 4 digits of Metcalf's social security number. There's no denying possible. No running around the bushes, no more bullcrap that can deny the facts no matter how many people post here or anywhere. BUT, beyond the assertion of his delinquencies with the IRS, the illicit (in the real world) and unethical (in ANY world) business/employment relationship with "pumper" Prometheus (and no pumper makes any profit unless they dump, so "Pumper" actually means "Pumper AND Dumper"), have been clearly demonstrated and admitted by both. Case closed. Dan Metcalf is history. And so is Synechist, the dictator/liar/manipulator, as soon as the law gets a hold of his identity. Everything will be cleaned up sooner rather than later by the same agents that threw Defcom in jail. And quite possibly with the same results. |
|
|
|
If this coin is dead - why are people accumulating so much this past week? Look at the charts. Someone has a pump in mind, IMO.
Accumulating? where? Bittrex has 171k coins and the only increases in the top 5 wallets are due to staking. Furthermore the volume is minimal (much less than 1 BTC per 24h, on average... and that includes both unloading AND "accumulating". To think that this coin would even remotely attract the attention of any whale, let alone P&D group is just... optimistic. |
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who barrabas is... As long as he's not here spreading FUD, which he really isn't, then it's fine. And if he is, the OP can manage the thread so it's not a big deal. This thread has been clean and drama free up to this point, let's keep it that way.
Unfortunately, Einstein had it right all along: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
