Alas, the logs don't record the content of a post. They just record whose post it was.

On the other hand I could post an incriminating list of attempted FUD from time to time :-)

You know how much I'm gonna enjoy waking up in the morning and checking out the Deletebot log to see what crud has been rinsed from the forum while I rest?

Oh, the joy of sleep!

It's the weekend?

Ouch, Deletebot just nabbed McHammer. :-o

Yes I understand all this.
But it's just of no consequence to either the Blocknet or XC.
He doesn't own them. He doesn't control the coins. His business doesn't either.

So unless there's reason to believe that (a) that lien does in fact pertain to Dan, and (b) it also pertains to the Blocknet or XC, it just looks like a continuation of the smear campaign or a gross invasion of privacy.

I've downloaded it, but I haven't gotten python running on Windows yet.

Do you know how to get XSTerminate to run on Windows?

I'm not in a position to tell.

But you can read my full response to Leewilson in a FUD thread.

Basically his/her post was an argument based upon that alleged tax lien document, rather than just a presentation of the document.

The argument presented was Lee's usual overextension of hypotheses beyond what the facts can support. Its claim, in a nutshell:
- a tax lien against Dan puts all the Blocknet's funds (and BLOCK) at risk [incorrect: they do not belong to Dan and will not be under Dan's control.]
- therefore Dan is unethical.

So it was yet another piece of insinuating, conspiracy-theorist-style FUD from Leewilson attempting to masquerade as legitimate argument.
Oh, and it was an attempted doxxing. Delete on sight.
And Lee is banned here. Delete on sight.

So Lee's post failed on multiple counts, and should stay in a FUD thread where it belongs.

Ah, so now you want to paste your source?

Thank you. I'll address it.

Let's start with the things that Prometheus states that are factually incorrect:

- "XC is nearing completion". Nope. It hasn't even launched publicly yet. Its a vision of a truly mobile-friendly currency integrated into real world point-of-sale and commerce systems. XC hasn't even completed its initial mobile app, never mind blockchain 2.0 services and everything else.

- "Util is Metcalf's project". Nope. Everyone knows very well that if Dan shifts emphasis even slightly away from XC, all hell would break loose. The 1000+ hours he's personally invested into XC? Gone in a swift dump. XC is Metcalf's project. It's his baby, really.

- My impression of this portion of the conversation between 00Smurf and Prometheus is that Prom is clearly pitching to Smurf. He's making his offer as attractive as he can. And it appears he's mistaken about Dan or perhaps only vaguely aware and stretching the truth in ways that seem ok to him but in fact are way off the mark.

- "We're building our own supernet". This is interesting. The conversations are dated later than when talks about the Blocknet had begun, and they place Util at the centre of the "supernet". This entails that Prometheus did not know Dan's actual plans about the Blocknet.


So, to summarise:
- Prom's picture: Util = his own supernet, Dan "on his team", XC nearing completion.
- Dan's picture: Util = merely a participating coin in the Blocknet, Dan strictly freelance, XC not even launched yet.

Interesting differences of perspectives here. It looks like Prometheus was acting on a combination of partial information and his own intentions for Util. Turns out these diverge sharply from the facts of the matter: Util is not the Blocknet, Dan no longer does any code reviews,  and XC has a long timeline.

So let's not put any weight on Prometheus's claims about Dan being the Util dev. He only said that because he wanted Util to be the Blocknet.
Util isn't the Blocknet. Therefore Dan isn't the Util dev.

Thanks. Much appreciated.

It's gonna be really simple around here. I suppose it should always have been:

There's just insufficient reason to allow claims against the Blocknet's legitimacy a place unless they have real backing.


Above all I prize constructive criticism. Almost nothing else can help to spot weaknesses and blind spots in the ideas behind a project. There were some very rewarding moments in the first 30-odd pages of this thread. People had real questions and expressed them frankly and without emotively loaded terms (e.g. most FUD) and/or overextended hypotheses (e.g. Leewilson).

I'm well trained in rhetoric and can spot it a mile away. Fudsters, you'll not fool me, and I'll not be tolerant.

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

Yes I can see how this might confuse our friend friendfromnobody.

On the other hand, the paragraph above alludes to several other developers, so it's a mystery to me why the poster has latched onto Dan.

Add to this numerous public statements that Dan only reviewed and offered advice based on the review, and I fail to understand friendfromnobody as anything but a fudster.

(Thirdly, it makes sense to me that whoever wrote that paragraph would want to use rhetoric that enlarges Dan's role as he's the only public figure associated with it, and his reputation has obvious appeal. Unfortunately this kind of irresponsible writing seems to have happened a lot with Dan's code reviews. Perhaps it's for the best that he's no longer doing them.)

Anyway, moving on...

friendfromnobody, you've had your chance but have brought nothing to substantiate your remarks.

You're banned.


Future users: if you come here and make claims that look like FUD and are not promptly backed up by solidly, verifiably substantiated sources, they will be deleted promptly.

After the past week I have very little patience for your nonsense.

Also, don't chance it. I know what FUD looks like and since I'm the moderator, that makes me the judge. Don't chance it.

Either contribute constructively or don't contribute at all.



(First prize goes to constructive criticism, as always.)

One more chance.

Bring some new and *legit* information or get banned.

Don't let your next post be more empty remarks.

Hmm... is someone digging up old FUD here, or do you have something new to discuss?

Crunch time. Contribute something new or get banned.

How I plan to celebrate the ITO's success if Bittrex gives us the thumbs up:

We've been frank and apologetic about this. We dropped the ball and did not report expenditures as they happened. Again, we apologise.

This does not constitute anything resembling a "scam." It's an oversight. And the premine was not dumped. Dan did not treat it as his private stash of wealth. It was used, as promised, for development.

This is testament to our ethical intentions. It does the exact opposite of you assert.


No he has not. It is incredibly easy to make this claim about anyone because English is not a formal language and there is always space to interpret statements in multiple ways. Therefore it is always possible to mount a claim about someone being "deceptive". But there are insufficient grounds to assert this claim unless you've also eliminated all the ways in which the statement can interpreted as being truthful.

Thus only way to attain a realistically grounded interpretation of anything is to read charitably and critically. Uncharitable reading latches onto any possible way to interpret a statement as untruthful, and from that point onwards is blinkered toward alternative readings.

Oh, and "dodging" questions has to do with denying either
- the legitimacy of demands that personal information be disclosed, or with
- refraining from addressing the same repudiated questions repeatedly.

You have insufficient grounds to attribute a refusal to answer a question to him being deceptive, because the above reasons cannot be ruled out.


More uncharitable reading there? As above, in order to attain a reliably realistic interpretation of a post, one must interpret both critically and charitably.

Why? Because there's no case to be made from the mere possibility that a statement could be dishonest. A legitimate case for someone's dishonesty does the opposite: it undermines all reasons why the statement could be interpreted as honest. This is foundation-level epistemology.

Any allegation that does not achieve this is either unfounded FUD or a smear campaign.


As above, the perception of him being deceptive has everything to do with your uncharitable and insufficiently critical reading of him.


Pretense of being an unbiased third party? Why pretense? What grounds for this claim?
Pump and dump? Again, what grounds? Prometheus is frank about calling himself a “pumper” but is vocal that this does not make him a “dumper,” as his statement details.

Neither does being a “pumper” make him a scammer. He does not abandon coins after a pump, as is the case with KeyCoin, a coin formerly pumped by him which has just completed KeyTrader with his funding, long after the pump.

Furthermore it is clear from the screenshots that he actively recruits talented developers to create real technology.

So it appears that Prometheus aims, primarily, to profit from his coins, but creates projects with real innovation that outlast a pump and are funded to continue onwards and retain a fair market value. Ultimately Prometheus appears to be an investor who supplies the necessary capital for a coin to gain recognition and the momentum to stand a chance at long-term success. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9422694#msg9422694


"Excuse"? "Caught"?

You don't get "caught" by a fact that is already known on both sides.

What you do get is frustrated beyond the ability to continue conversation with an individual as intolerably belligerent as Longandshort. And then you just get out, in desperation.

Dan's statement affirms that he was unable emotionally to deal with the persistence and brutality of the onslaught against him and simply shut it down.

After shutting it down, he then issued his statement to reconfirm the truth.

Call it "lying"? That's like an attacker calling his victim's cries of anguish "cowardly." Brute.


A "lie"? Be careful not to overextend your claims beyond the grounds they're based on. We don't know if Loljosh launched the chain, and neither does it matter to anything.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Loljosh launched the chain. Or maybe Loljosh showed Dan how to launch it. Or maybe Loljosh just delivered the QT code and Dan asked someone else how to launch it. Is this a problem? No. It does not impinge on Dan's ability as a developer or diminish his reputation. Dan's track record, pace of development, and reliability/professionalism is beyond doubt, based on XC alone, never mind his contracts outside of crypto.

It pretty much makes no difference what Loljosh did or didn't do. XC is real, and its privacy tech is so far ahead of anything else out there that it's completely irrelevant whether, when, or how he learnt about launching a chain.


I'd seriously love to hear a defense for continuing with this smear campaign. It's been soundly repudiated.

This is either an attempted doxxing, or, if the documents are fabricated or apply to a different individual, a continuation of the smear campaign against Dan and the Blocknet.

Lee do you realise how unethical either of these alternatives are? You deserve to be sued.

As for your claims about its implications for the Blocknet, they are, as is your custom, inflated and speculative (which is to say, their correct denotation is either "FUD" or "conspiracy theorism").


Are you joking? In what world do Blocknet tokens belong to Dan? They don't. Moving on...


That's backwards. You'd only have no reason to lie if you wereinvested in the Blocknet or a participating coin. Someone with a stake in the Blocknet who came out with this information would be intrinsically believable. You're in the opposite position here, thus you are not believable.

Furthermore your post history is a string of paranoid hypothetical suspicions with manifestly insufficient basis given the facts, so you're clearly biased against the Blocknet and Dan.

This makes you a prime candidate for not presenting the facts truthfully.

Get lost, troll.

+1. They're a great bunch of people and a fantastic company.

My estimate puts it as a success.

Official figures from exchanges will be passed on to Bittrex, and they will evaluate the ITO according to their criteria. If all's well, they'll release the funds.

Once it's been ascertained that the ITO is a success.

Leewilson, since your intentions are quite obviously set against the Blocknet, I wouldn't trust your evaluation of a single thing.

Try to realise the degree to which your hypotheses are extended in some of your posts. You go very far beyond what your information can reliably support.

Now kindly dox Dan on a FUD thread somewhere. You're not welcome here.