It's funny, the line of defense from the start of all this up until now have been:
1. Those skype screenshots are fake. Dan is not working with Prom nor is he the dev of Hal.
2. When the screenshots were confirmed to be true, the defense turned into: Oh, Dan must of have not known that he was engaging in unethical behavior
3. And now you're saying that all evidence were hearsay anyway
What's going to be the next defense now that I've explained why the evidence is not just hearsay?
The defense, as in Dan Metcalf's defense, has always been that he did no coding on HAL. Dan's defense has never been any of the things you stated above. In other words you are ignoring Dan Metcalf's own defense. Here Dan explains his position. You need to deal with that. http://www.coinssource.com/interview-with-dan-metcalf-regarding-recent-blocknet-concerns/ |
|
|
|
Oh, Dan must of have not known that he was engaging in unethical behavior There is no evidence that Dan did anything unethical. There is only people like you saying he did something unethical but not saying exactly what is was. If he did something unethical then you should be able to state what it was in a sentence or two. |
|
|
|
There's obviously some severe fudding happening to you and your community.
But it's nothing personal.
People do not like pr0metheus and bobsurplus. You've just been caught in the middle of a war.
Yes..there has been not one scrap of evidence that Dan has done anything wrong. What we have is Dan, who has told everyone exactly who he is from the very beginning and been open. On the other side we have a bunch of cowards posting anonymously on the internet. |
|
|
|
Additional points to ponder:
- removing the sell wall will allow the market to stabilise before the end of the ITO.
- selling below the ITO price on Poloniex makes no sense, because if the ITO doesn't make its minimum amount then refunds will be given at the price BLOCK was bought at.
Can you clear up whether the ITO raised 850 BTC or not? When will we know if the project is going ahead? |
|
|
|
I thought the ito ended today?
It ends at 23:59:59 PDT. That's 8am GMT tomorrow morning. According to the OP. The ITO will run for 7 days beginning October 29, 2014 at 5am PDT and ending on November 5th 23:59:59 PDT Di that get changed I had thought it ended at 5 am PDT on the 5th? |
|
|
|
Unfortunately most of the focus has not been on the enormous potential of the Blocknet. Dan M seems to understand this potential. IBM also understands the enormous potential of such a thing. Most people here get caught up wanting one coin to succeed and other coins to fail. Dan M has on the other hand proposed that various coins work together. From the recent interview. What do you foresee the future of Blocknet being? How do you plan to progress forward after all these attacks have occurred?
Dan: IBM is about to launch its own Blockchain project and when they do, all of these altchains will have no chance to compete unless people unite together |
|
|
|
From what I understood they'll put a buy wall at ico price during 48 hours but they're not going to cancel the launch whatever will happen. After 48 hours, they will pull back the wall and price could go up or down as for any coins out there.
I wonder will Block be trading normally on Polo while this is going on? And can we bid higher than the wall on Trex while it is going? |
|
|
|
refund will start in 5 hours?
What refund? They have sold more than 850 BTC worth of Block already |
|
|
|
Dan Metcalf is done in crypto. Harakiri. And it is a good thing for crypto. A very good thing.
. That's always possible, but I'm not so sure. The thing is that for any crypto technology to really makes it's mark it won't depend upon what happens on this forum. I mean , anyone can join this forum, and post what ever nonsense they like, but that is hardly going to have any long term effect on whether something like the Blocknet is successful. I don't think people realise how big something like the blocknet could be. IBM does, but of course their version will have an NSA backdoor  |
|
|
|
Dan said he wasn't involved with Halcyon:
Dan said he was not the Halcyon dev nor did he write any of it's code. Do you or do you not have any evidence he did? If you do just come out in a straightforward manner and show what this evidence is? All you did was come out with another rambling post. What you did not do was provide any evidence that Dan lied. Prometheus said in the chatlogs that Dan was the dev of hal and promotheus do not deny the chatlogs. So Dan lied. This is exactly what people need to realize. The chatlogs are real according to Prometheus' statement. Which means Dan lied. What lie did he tell. None of you seem to know what lie was told though you're all sayinga lie was told. Or an alternative would be that Prometheus lied about Dan being the dev of Hal. Ok...so Dan lied...but he didn't lie. Which one is is it? Can you make up your mind.  |
|
|
|
Dan said he wasn't involved with Halcyon:
Dan said he was not the Halcyon dev nor did he write any of it's code. Do you or do you not have any evidence he did? If you do just come out in a straightforward manner and show what this evidence is? All you did was come out with another rambling post. What you did not do was provide any evidence that Dan lied. Yeah, Dan has been trying to twist words from the beginning. RichardT's post sums it up. It's possible that Dan didn't write any code himself for HAL. But that wouldn't be surprising as he outsources what appears to be a large amount of his work. He also could have designed their anon solution on paper and had someone else code it. Prom said that he was the one who came up with the general idea behind it. So if you think Dan being this close to HAL and Prom wasn't one of the people pumping it, dumping it, and then leaving all the bagholders high and dry you're naive. We're never going to know all the specific details of who owned what, who was paid for what, and who coded what. But the writing is on the wall. Everyone knew the implications of that chat coming out. That's why every XC support was calling bullshit on it from the start. But now that it's known to be true, magically XC people accept it! Oh, no big deal guys. We always knew Dan "one of crypto's best" was involved with the seedy underside of professional pump groups. It's always been obvious that XC was never a good project run by ethical people. But reading the thread there were many, many XC holders who honestly believed that XC was some how different and 'above' all the altcoin bullshit that goes on. Some of them have probably woken up. Others are still deluding themselves hoping that the pump groups will save them by pumping their bags one last time so they can get out. Altcoins are the purest form of capitalism where those at the top create a structure that funnels the money from all the less connected, less informed, and in some cases the simply less intelligent people. Some people like this, other people think they're at the top when they're really just the ones getting dumped on time and time again because they don't know any better. Another long rambling post but still no EVIDENCE that Dan lied. |
|
|
|
Some of us here are not kids and we remember all the scams through history ...
 |
|
|
|
Isn't Blocknet scam?
That's the worst part..they are scammers..it's virtually almost been proven. Only a mad person would disagree with that. This video explains it all, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-gIn fact that video proves they are scammers. |
|
|
|
his tweets
" I am not just launching a coin, I am launching a movement."
I don't like this coin, yet after reading that, I find myself buying some. |
|
|
|
|
Is anyone really going to want a blockchain network not backdoored by the NSA?
Sure...you could use it for just about anything...but what good would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised this hasn't garnered more interest. Here we have IBM getting involved with blockchain technology...and...?
|
|
|
|
Dan said he wasn't involved with Halcyon:
Dan said he was not the Halcyon dev nor did he write any of it's code. Do you or do you not have any evidence he did? If you do just come out in a straightforward manner and show what this evidence is? All you did was come out with another rambling post. What you did not do was provide any evidence that Dan lied. |
|
|
|
Spoetnik's wild trolling ?
Bull fucking shit.
I helped to post facts period.
What you wrote here was not facts . https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=836324.msg9377973#msg9377973According the the actual EVIDENCE what you say cannot be trusted. It would have been a very simple thing to go and check whether what you heard was true, but instead you posted false information and then tried to defend it. |
|
|
|
So Dan was lying multiple times trying to cover up yesterday but now he's decided to come clean??? So everything is true basically???
Rather than babble on with a long post short on facts can you succinctly state what lie was told by Dan. It's not clear at all from you OP, which goes on and on and on without actually stating what you think was a lie. Just state it simply. 1.Dan said this........................ 2. I think that is a lie because....................... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
