|
Bitcoin Maximalist: The protocol is the law. The code is a means to that end.
Ethereum Maximalist: The code is the law. The code is an end in itself.
Bailout Maximalist: There is no law. The code is a tool for social justice.
|
|
|
|
disintermediation
The Ethereum Classic community just wants to be left alone to be free to assemble and worship and speak as they please.
It's the Ethereum Reformation. The Classic Prots are sick of Pope Butarin bailing out his cronies. They don't want or need anyone between them and their Holy Blockchain, interpreting which transactions are valid or ethical or whatever, and reverting written history as convenient or expedient. |
|
|
|
 This is what happens when a contentious hard fork is forced through without the consent of the socioeconomic majority. Apparently, a significant number of ETH are were owned by Bitcoin Maximalists. I speculate the leakage will continue in flows resembling the transfer of matter between a black hole and companion star. A staggering amount of energy will be released. It should be a specular show as the market absorbs the current dumping by Bailout Maximalists, then crosses the tipping point into sustained higher hashrates mining ETC (IE the unforked orginal branch). |
|
|
|
If someone said to me that they would deliver 300 widgets within one year in exchange for payment today, fail to deliver such widgets due to "uncontrollable events" and subsequently file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then I would not trust that person in the future. I don't think it would be a good idea to prepay widgets from another company who is run by the same person as the company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
The "best efforts" of HF were clearly not good enough.
Wow, such powers of deduction! People say Benedict Cumberbatch is the best Sherlock, but you've got him beat.  HF was forced into Chapter 11 by some greedy idiots who believed getting lawyers involved would either (depending on the particular dipshit) teach HF a lesson by convicting them of some imagined crime, or result in massive windfalls being distributed from some secret stash/hidden mine. The "best efforts" of HF were clearly good enough to convince the bankruptcy court Chapter 11 reorganization (rather than Chapter 7 liquidation) provided the best chance of providing relief to creditors. But at least you stopped the bashing with your overused scam cudgel. So that's progress. I take back the accusation of bad faith; it seems you are teachable after all. Perhaps you could be a little more understanding and less absolutist about the widget provider in your hypothetical situation. Are you really saying someone's trustworthiness depends on factors outside of their control?  That seems absurd to the point of asinine. What if the "uncontrollable event" was the widget maker getting hit by a bus and spending the year in a coma? ZOMG FUCKING SCAMMER AMIRITE? I think you need to reconsider and walk back the blanket claim with some additional nuance. Now that you understand "best efforts" here is another useful term of art: force majeure. Here's where this is going: was the price drip and difficulty spike a good enough excuse for the late/non deliveries and cashflow crisis? We reasonable customers could only trust HF would make best efforts to make our very risky gambles pay off, not expect market-defying miracles No Matter What. The sense of entitlement required to expect and require 100% Guaranteed success, on pain of distrust, is almost unfathomable. |
|
|
|
It would be better for Vitalik to step down and let someone else take over as lead developer. The problem is who is willing to take over? No one. The sane minds who are willing to work with the technology would be rather joining the original Ethereum classic. I do not know how long Vitalik and his friends can stay for long denying the truth about themselves and the situation.
No replacement for VB is a feature, not a bug. That feature of ETC is precisely why I invested. ETC should be decentralized and leaderless like BTC, lacking not only a governance structure but the possibility/feasibility of one as well. Devs who govern least govern best. VB should signal his intention to begin extricating himself from the flaming quagmire of conflicting interests and morass of hubris in which he's presently entombed. |
|
|
|
Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not used exclusively for fraud and/or scams and/or similar, however Chapter 11 bankruptcy can be used when this is the case.
My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.
I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up. No bankruptcy court is going to grant an insolvent scam's motion to be put in Chapter 11 (keep some key execs and reorganize) rather than Chapter 7 (fire management and liquidate everything ASAP). You are calling every bankrupt business a scam, yet that is not the definition of the word. Are you familiar with the legal concept of "best efforts?" You don't seem to be. Here you go: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-does-best-efforts-mean/If Person X at Company Y put in their best efforts, yet the firm fails (due to business conditions out of their control), it's not a scam. You may wish to expand the definition of scam until it comports with your subjective, incomplete, counterfactual "understanding" but that demonstrates nothing more than your inability to converse in good faith. A scam requires (criminal) intention to not honor obligations. HF did no such thing. They wanted to be the Intel of BTC, not your punching bag and object of hivemind defamation. Let's look at the story of VIAcoin and btcdrak. He went against the Gavinista hivemind by opposing XT/Classic. So now those dead-enders use VIA's (relative) lack of success to bash him with the "scam" cudgel: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4vgwe7/so_on_the_expiration_date_of_the_hk_stalling/You might not be using bold letters and screaming incoherent rage like ydtm, but the basic action is the same: ydtm: "VIA didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM" you: "HF didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM" Some people call everything that they don't like reading "spam." You two do the same thing with the other handy bullet word of character assassination. Ironically, if HF was a scam, they'd have kept most of the BTC instead of spending it on hardware development and business expenses. |
|
|
|
This is still escalating and I predict the peak will be Vitalik stepping down from the foundation and the development team. After that we will see the original chain live on and the fork will die because no one will be mining it anymore. All the start ups and companies will not touch the Ethereum fork with a 100 foot pole. It is possible that Vitalik's career in crypto is over after this. Sorry he is not cypherpunk level.
Heads must roll, and responsibility flows uphill. Accountability for the Bailout's consequences cannot be evaded, only diffused. The DAOsaster isn't the reason why VB must step down. Rather it was VB's leadership in the conspiratorial|hubristic|catastrophic reaction to The DAOsaster which entails a scalp being redeemed for bounty. https://soundcloud.com/worldcryptonet/ethereum-a-classic-tale-of-two-chains
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1XiAwSpXbIChris Ellis' testimony cuts Team VB to ribbons, and many suspect worse, even more damning revelations still to come. |
|
|
|
I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings [...] eliciting a pile on [...] by [...] Quickseller in July 2015. It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.
The negative rating that I left was in response to what I learned in this thread. I found it obscene that cypherdoc could receive $30,000 (3,000 BTC @ ~$100/each) for promoting a company that turned out to be a scam. If you are receiving that much money, or if you have a substantially influential reputation then it is your job to ensure that said company is legitimate. I do not care that the courts ruled in your/his favor, just like I do not care that people thanked dooglus after he was paid ~$24,000 (35 BTC @ ~$700/each) for helping steal $2 million from bankroll investors from a scam bitcoin casino. You only disregard the court rulings because they failed to confirm your bias. If the rulings agreed with your worthless dipshit opinion, you'd be all "See, I told you so." But they didn't, so you go into full sore loser mode and start whining about sour grapes and newfound process concerns/objections. The company has not "turned out to be a scam." You have been bamboozled by GMAX and the local hivemind into believing something that is not true. Fact: Bankruptcy court put HF into reorganization under Chapter 11, which is not done for scams. Fact: Nobody has been charged with (much less convicted of) anything, outside of pro forma adversary cases. Fact: The only significant adversary case, against Frap.doc, was terminated. Fact: PMorici eventually moved to dismiss his own case. All of those facts contradict the "HF turned out to be a scam" groupthink prevalent here. Check your premises (and prejudices). Pro tip: Most risky start-ups fail. Clue: No court has ever accepted, nor ever will accept, GMAX's novel "windfall entitlement" legal theory. |
|
|
|
ETC has no future. Is any smart-contracts on it? ETC without contracts useless.
BETH has no future. BailoutEdition is just Vitalik's useless vanity project. This was known before the fork. Where have you been? Too Big to Fail is Failure Guaranteedhttps://medium.com/@EdanYago/too-big-to-fail-is-failure-guaranteed-9b00a50faef1Ethereum has value for one reason and one reason only — it is the turing complete, smart contract protocol. In other words. ETH’s value is a direct result of the value of smart contracts and Ethereum’s position as the premier protocol for them. On June 17'th, The DAO, a smart contract running on Ethereum was savaged. We must now choose to respond in one of two ways:
1. We can learn a lesson and build better smart contacts in the future
2. Or, we can reverse the flawed smart contract and pull the rug out from under Ethereum forever
There is something far bigger than The Dao, or even Ethereum, at stake here: the very idea of immutable smart contracts. The core promise of smart contracts was brilliantly articulated by The DAO. They are designed to operate “solely with the steadfast iron will of unstoppable code.” The core idea here is that the code is the contract, and that it does not require or allow human intervention or interpretation. It is automatic and “autonomous”. Deterministic outcomes based on code — that is the value.
This value, of deterministic outcomes is 100% dependant on being able to run on a protocol that can be trusted to operate according to deterministic rules known in advance. That is what Ethereum must be. What is being now suggested is to go and change the protocol level rules, retroactively, because of an exploit discovered in one contract on the application level. To do so, would destroy the very trust that makes all contracts on the application level possible.
A lot of people have been pointing out that Bitcoin also forked in the early days. This is true but also very misleading. Bitcoin only forked when the protocol was broken. Never when the protocol worked as intended but the results were uncomfortable.
Another argument made in favor of forking is that consensus is created “by the community”. That “the miners can vote”. This is even more subtle and misleading. Miners are not meant to be the final arbiters of transactions and contracts. By design, they are supposed to be dumb slaves of the protocol rules. A dumb lottery validating transactions according to deterministic rules. If they need to employ good judgment, we are at the mercy of their good sense.
It comes down to is this:
1. If smart contracts must be interpreted by humans for their “intent” instead of by code for their programming
2. Then smart contracts cannot be autonomous and automatic
3. And instead can be retroactively reversed by the community, the courts or governments
4. In which case it’s hard to see what value smart contracts actually have
5. Which means that it’s hard to see that Ethereum should have any value at all
The only way for Ethereum to be able to recover from this event and thrive in the future is for it to stick to its principles. This is the hard choice. And it is the only choice. |
|
|
|
... being a lying, slandering disengenuous sack of shit devoid of the concept of arguing in good faith carries an "externality of reputation damage" also
Where are the lies? Be specific, because making an allegation requires at least one example. Where is the slandering? Where is the disingenuousness? Where are the bad faith arguments? You are throwing out wild accusations with zero specific instances cited. Is the nebulous nature intentional, to make it difficult to refute the claims, or are you just drunk?  I can't tell if you are talking about Frap.doc's behavior wrt HF or to the blocksize debate (where some of your charges possibly have a base in reality). |
|
|
|
Satoshi is dead.
So is Vitalik. He buried is own grave when he acted as a central banker by doing a rollback to get funds back from someone that didn't do anything but use the smart contract. He didn't steal, he used the existing smart contract code. The fair thing should have been to let the DAO fall, but no, they were too greedy. Now Ethereum is dead thanks to that. You can stay in denial all you want tho. No one is going to trust "smart contracts" that can end up in a rollback. It started when he got involved with the DAO. He trusted the slock.it developers to produce solid code. Why did also were not they strict with the security audits? He has only himself to blame. This. The callousness of youth. I have to think someone a bit more experienced in finance, and less in code, would have seen the importance of security and proper functioning code. In fact, when the 'code is the law', shouldn't you take the time to make sure the code is beyond reproach? And the final insult? The flaw was known..Stick a fork in Vitalik and VitalikCoin. They're done.
The Ethereum Foundation developers acted reckless when they pushed their hard fork, I warned them in a pull request that the precuations they took were not sufficient. I was ignored and they continued without properly fixing the problem.
They have already admitted they were in a rush and claimed they did not have time to properly prevent it. Instead of properly fixing it in the code, their primary strategy became to convince everyone no one would use the old chain, which was not sufficient to fix the problem or accurate. It was also arguably potentially illegal considering it could be seen as a form of market manipulation.
They have yet to take proper steps to fix it claiming it only affects us, but the people who lost are companies which have decided to only support ETH. The Ethereum Foundation did not give the information needed to these companies to prevent these attacks.
They claim we need to hard fork to fix this problem, but in reality we will not hard fork to fix their mistakes because it would costs us our ability to connect with old clients that are in our network.
They have already disconnected themselves from these clients, so they should just take the steps needed to fix this issue. They likely refuse to do this because of the public perception of hard forking would be negative, and that is not a valid reason to avoid fixing the problem.
Suggesting our community effort to continue the chain is a scam because the Etheruem Foundation and BTC-e was negligent is absurd. They should be ashamed of their behavior and tactics which are both unprofessional and reckless.
At this stage it may be wise for some of our community members to reach out to different press outlets and try to clarify the situation because too much misinfiromation is being spread around to cover up the shoddy engineering being rushed out to recover funds for special interests. This is ontop of the poorly implemented soft fork, Ethereum Foundation negligence in accepting roles in the DAO without vetting the code and failure to reach consensus on a fork.
https://np.reddit.com/r/EthereumClassic/comments/4v2d6j/btce_dear_clients_btces_official_standpoint_on/d5vr668
lol rekt Emerging evidence shows Team Vitalik planned in advance to use replay attacks to steal an amount of ETC sufficient to destroy the original chain with market dumps. Expect the legal discovery process to reveal exactly how Coinbase and BETH Foundation conspired to obtain by force/fraud ETC and use them to destroy the original chain via socioeconomic attacks. |
|
|
|
After ETH Classic fork, we have to be more careful about the hard fork. If one chain is not removed carefully, the bitcoin will die.
Ethereum Classic is not a fork. Ethereum Classic is defined by its LACK OF A (DAO Bailout) FORK. FFS, the conceptual poverty around here is getting awful. Where do these idiots who believe not forking makes ETC a fork come from? Perhaps they're just BETH trolls, like that pumpertits buffoon who goes around say the DAO attacker stole 9000% of all ETH in existence. |
|
|
|
One of the most common misconceptions is that Lighting Network type payment channels are orthogonal to the blocksize issue. They are not. This by the way is made clear in the Lighting Network paper itself. https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf. The Lighting Network paper authors propose a 180x gain in efficiency over the same transactions on the actual blockchain. Edit: Monero's adaptive blocksize limit and tail emission are a hidden gem in Monero that is very much under appreciated. This creates a market based solution to the blocksize issue that is not dependent upon any future assumptions of the cost in real terms of computing power, digital storage and bandwidth. Of course LN isn't 100% orthogonal to blocksize (TANSTAAFL). The point is payment channels decouple tx from Layer One's linear scaling. 180x is a good start; we may discover more optimizations as the tech develops. Sidechains (and payment channels on sidechains) also provide additional tps capacity without proportionate blockchain bloating. Agree with your Edit. Actual Widespread Adoption could force this obscure issue into the limelight (currently occupied by "immutability"). |
|
|
|
the dream of ethereum is dead in any case.
Au contraire, the forking off of VitalikCoin and its hubris/moral hazard/centralization/dictatorship has *SAVED* the dream of ethereum. With the single-point-of-failure voluntarily self-exiled to the BailoutEdition, ETC may spread its wings unencumbered by the nasty legacy of the DAO's ignoble TARP. ETC is ready for prime time, now that it has demonstrated true decentralization and antifragility in the face of adversity. |
|
|
|
I have a couple of pointed but (hopefully) fair questions for you. 1. Have you noticed an outsized, disproportional amount of outrage directed at HF, compared to other 3rd gen (28nm) ASIC companies which failed for the same reasons, such as the "All-Star" Cointerra team? 2. To what extent do you think any such exaggerated outrage is the result of HF pushing back against the hivemind's lynch mob (as opposed to other companies' passive acceptance/indulgence of community risk-free money-printing-machine entitlement syndrome)? 3. Do you believe HF's defenders should just STFU and acquiesce to Popular Opinion, or stand up for what they know to be true, no matter how unpopular? Cheers, -iB  1. I 'spose. 2. Probably some. 3. The latter. I guess.  Bitcoin could have gone to a buck, big deal. And then what? All his passionate advocacy would have been for naught? I still don't see the risk you say he took in all of this exactly, except maybe to his reputation. And isn't that why we're really here? Thanks for the honest answers (esp. #3, which encourages my obstinacy ). I already told you the "then what" if BTC had gone to a buck: Frap.doc would be S.O.L. It's only fair he enjoy the reward, since he embraced the risk. Especially since that reward came with the externality of reputation damage. |
|
|
|
Does bitcoin have a 3x or 5x move left in it? I've given up completely on a 10-20x parabola.
Without a 3x or 5x increase in the 1 MB blocksize limit I do not see the fundamentals to support that; nevertheless It is quite possible we see a manifestation of the "greater fool theory" driving such a move. Bitcoin has a potential 3000-50,000x increase at 1MB, because the market values demonstrated stability, immutability, scalability, and antifragility above all else. I'd like to be wrong here but it seems AM is casually/causally linking tx/sec with blocksize, which constitutes a fundamental type error. Given the fairly orthogonal relationship between Layer 1 and Layer 2 tps (courtesy of Lightning-type payment channels) that purported linkage may prove to be invalid, and a worse-than-useless metric of utility/utilization. EG, a mere 3x or 5x Layer 1 blocksize increase would move us approximately 0% of the way forward to 10k/sec Visa-scale goal. |
|
|
|
You sure have a way with rhetorical flourish, hombre. I really do enjoy it, mostly. Question: Do you think this was an honest statement at any point, regardless of the current market value of bitcoin: This refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think. ...that very risky bet.
What risks did he take again? Accepting bitcoins?? Thanks for the gracious compliment, old hoss.  The flourish is just a fun decoration; I pray you never suspect I'm substituting mere style for actual substance. As to your very pointed, albeit fair, questions: 1. Frap.doc (through no fault of his own <--- IMPORTANT POINT) wound up as both a (potential?) creditor and (former) subcontractor of HF. He was "in the same boat" as the rest of us Batch One customers, waiting on pins and needles as BTC price collapsed and diff skyrocketed. Did he do a Perfectly Impeccable job of communicating every nuance of the situation? Of course not. Was he obligated to? Not at all, IMHO. Does that rise to the act of lying by omission? Again, not IMHO. IIRC Frap.doc was near the top of the order queue, so he got his hardware and started mining ASAP. Thus his refund concern was negated, although it was valid until the time he got his miners. IOW, Yes - Frap.doc was, as a customer, in the same boat as the rest of us, and he really did try to get more info, not only on his own behalf but for the community as well. His limited, former role as forum spokesperson does not change that; it's a separate issue in every sense except emotionally. 2. Accepting BTC rather than USD was very risky, despite the local attractor around ~$100 holding for months prior to his compensation agreement. If BTC had dropped to $1.00, he'd be out of luck (and spared the indignity of attempted violation by Katten's ravenous money-sniffing blood funnel). Now I have a couple of pointed but (hopefully) fair questions for you. 1. Have you noticed an outsized, disproportional amount of outrage directed at HF, compared to other 3rd gen (28nm) ASIC companies which failed for the same reasons, such as the "All-Star" Cointerra team? 2. To what extent do you think any such exaggerated outrage is the result of HF pushing back against the hivemind's lynch mob (as opposed to other companies passive acceptance/indulgence of community risk-free money-printing-machine entitlement syndrome)? 3. Do you believe HF's defenders should just STFU and acquiesce to Popular Opinion, or stand up for what they know to be true, no matter now unpopular? Cheers, -iB |
|
|
|
if it takes a fork to get you guys to buy ethereum in any form...im happy for y'all  Forking Vitalik and his centralized entourage off ETH is *exactly* what I needed to see in order to invest in the project. Thank you so much for creating the BETH bug-zapper branch, which will now contain all the hubris, moral hazard, and mutability in a toxic waste dump that keeps ETC safe from such nauseating subjectivity. And here's BTC big wig Wlad van der Laan to back me up: https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/756767464919330816The moral hazard here is that the hardfork 'undid' a user error, not fixed a script/system-level issue https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/7567727898357227522008-ish moral hazard, too big too fail, so bending the higher-level rules instead https://twitter.com/orionwl/status/756773583507034112from now on Vitalik and al have the responsibility to decide on rule exceptions,case by case That good-looking fellow you see on the water skis, approaching the ramp, with a shark lurking in the water beyond? His name is Emin Gün Sirer. He was a respected name in crypto until he went all-in on the DAO bailout, forcing WVDL and fluffy to cut him a new asshole. Oh well. Peter Principle FTW. |
|
|
|
livecoin
ETHEREUM CLASSIC NEWS
Created 30.07.2016 00:38
Dear clients, when the Ethereum Classic (hereinafter ETC) appeared on the market, we announced that we were going to add it with ETC deposit to our customers’ accounts. But when we started working on integration, we encountered an unpleasant surprise. Because of the ETC architecture particularities and its direct relation with the genuine Ethereum (ETH), the transactions between these two coins are connected in one way or another. This relation is neither expected nor common practice in cryptocurrency.
When we adjusted the ETC in test mode, we found that we had no funds in ETC, since the transactions in ETH and ETC are associated and funds had been withdrawn by our clients in the process of normal deposit-withdrawn of ETH, we assume that it was sent to Poloniex, because at that time, trading on ETC occured only there.
Going forward we examined the situation in detail and came to the conclusion that either the ETC developers or Poloniex had to take over at least a minimum function of notifying all the other exchanges trading ETH to protect their ETC funds from loss. The quantity of such exchanges is not so high, no more than 15. We believe that to send 15 warning letters was quite capable. We have not received any notification concerning protection of funds in the ETC from anyone. We do not believe it is a fair way of doing business from the side of the ETC developers, and from the exchange, which was first to put in the ETC trades.
At the moment we may add trading pairs with ETC, but we do not see any sense in this as all the ETC funds are already withdrawn by our clients who have been aware of this network features. In addition, according to our opinion, due to the relation of blockchains with ETC and ETH there is a risk of fraudulent manipulations, and we are not willing to risk our clients’ accounts.
The ETH civil war certainly has clarified which exchanges are run by professionals who understand crypto, and which are run by clueless amateurs. Why is Polo the only competent exchange? Why are the incompetent exchanges claiming ETC (the original, bailout-free ETH chain) is not worth trading? Are they blind to the massive volume on Polo? If ETC are worthless, why did somone bother to take advantage of supremely incompetent exchanges like Coinbase and Livecoin in order to acquire them? The replay attack was thoroughly discussed in the Bitcoin Grand Schism threads; we called it the GavinCoin Short back then. How could a freaking exchange OP, of all people, not be be aware of that primary concern for any contentious hard fork? Holdout exchanges must promptly deliver ETC to their customershttp://bitcoinagile.com/787810/holdout-exchanges-must-promptly-deliver-etc-to-their-customers_streamAbstract: The Ethereum hard fork has created two Ethereum blockchains and two forms of Ether tokens. The exchanges that have not yet distributed to their customers Ether tokens for the Ethereum Classic blockchain are already risking substantial legal consequences. Any exchange operator who believed Vitalik "Just The Tip" Butarin deserves the exquisitely deep screwing they are now enduring. |
|
|
|
...
The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court.
...
You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward? Not that I really give two shits one way or another, but it seems like you have your finger on the pulse of all things Lowelife and inquiring minds wanna know. Just for academic and entertainment value. ^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.
[snipped for the love of mercy] If you read the original thread, and I know that you have, it becomes immediately obvious the good doctor made out like he was taking as much a chance as anybody. When, in fact, he wasn't; in fact, he was swimming in it while everybody else was taking a proper bath. You two are simply repeating the same arguments from over a year ago, as if nothing has happened since then. Please try and keep up. You need to respond to the factual findings and determinations of two separate courts, which both declined to validate your accusations despite the pleadings of very good lawyers from very powerful law firms (in front of a very experienced judge). Use of the term "victim" is uncalled for, unsupported by the facts, and emotionally manipulative. But appeal to sentiment is all you have left, isn't it? I'm not in touch with Frap.doc, although he did say he'd take me out for a drink if we ever meet IRL, despite our mutually antagonistic history of silly blocksize flame-warring. How many times must it be explained that Dr. Frappe never hid his role as a compensated endorser? Do you think repeating the word "shill" can magically make it true? Drawing attention to the amount of BTC he earned ("ZOMG 3000 BITCOIN?! GREEN JELLY NAO!!1!") as his bog-standard 10% commission is another act of emotional manipulation, because you leave out the context. The context of his 3k LeBron stash is, way back when BTC was only ~$100, he made a very smart decision to ask for compensation in BTC rather than USD. Now you want to hate, because he won that very risky bet. Give me a break; the class warfare material jealousy crap is so Free Shit Army it burns. There is a word for deciding an outcome before all the facts are known; that word is "prejudice." Your prejudgement has now been repudiated by the appropriate court. Now you want another bite at the apple. Sorry, but you had your chance and failed. There is entertainment value here, but your insistence on repeating debunked allegations long ago crossed the line into sore loser territory. No less than Katten Muchin sharks tried to claim the LeBron stash was obtained by other-than-legitimate means. They failed. And you think you're going to succeed? GTFO noobz. You have no power (much less expertise) here, other than to subject anyone so foolish as to not Ignore you to an infinite amount of piling-on, lynch mobbing, hiveminding, circle jerking, and groupthinking. You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward? *I'm* merely reporting what the fucking court said. Stop trying to make *me* the focus of your failure to gather and analyze information properly. Your current conceptual failure mode is not my fault; I'm trying to help you L-E-A-R-N. What a thankless task! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
