As previously said, precisely because I had already talked about the project it was not correct to delete everything and redo from scratch. The fake programmer had access to the creation of the web page and the social promotion campaign that included advertising the project etc. Creating an ICO is not like asking for money, you are free to participate or not and if the minimum budget is not met, the sums of money are returned. So at the expense of asking for money and "running away" an ICO has the obligation to return the money if the minimum budget is not satisfied .. Here and in other social networks I have never pushed people to invest to buy BLKB so your statements do not they are correct. The images of the team and other errors were part of the site, in fact I noticed them after the ICO campaign ended where I asked the programmer for explanations and I fired him. the web page including the ICO phase was in the hands of the programmer and for my short time (I have a company to follow outside of this project) I realized these errors late. As mentioned earlier, I thought that the whole website was not yet officially published and I thought that the programmer had only activated the pre-ICO / ICO campaign at that stage. You are free to believe what you want, but that's how things went.

I'm sorry you're baffled but I'm not saying it wasn't worth the time and effort .. (1 year and a half of work I think that's not cheap) I just said that understanding address-based KYC is very delicate and it is not well seen by the communities and therefore recreating everything would have taken a lot of time, and since I am alone to carry on this belief, I did not think it was worth remaking a site, recreating a coin, etc. because I had already spoken of the project with many people and I would have lost more credibility to change everything and therefore I was forced to continue in this direction of changes ...., I reiterate that the concept of KYC on the address in the future will be necessary for a global adoption of cryptocurrencies and this is my belief. Another thing I have never asked people to invest their money or register on Blokbro, each person has to act with their own head and decide if it is a service that will be needed in the future. I honestly do not care that Blokbro (BLKB) makes an economic "boom" with speculation but I am interested in bringing greater security to transactions because knowing who you are sending cryptocurrencies to to buy something or for a simple exchange can only bring more security and transparency to transactions globally.

I understand your reasoning .. but I believe that a person who really wants to launch a bogus or scam project, first checks all the details without making mistakes, and second does not make changes repeatedly on the site because in this way he avoids leaving as few traces as possible .. another thing does not put its identity on the site ... I simply felt that for this small project it was enough to continue in this direction and see how people reacted because I know that the concept of KYC on the address is not well seen by the community and dedicate further time was not worth it. Regardless of the plagiarism and the mess made by the fake programmer, as I have always said, I'm not here to scam anyone and so much time to look for money. I wanted to see what the community thought. I have received a lot of criticism regarding the KYC on the address but I believe that in the future it will be necessary for the full adoption of crypto around the world. I remember that many people of a certain level in 2016/2017 (e.g. the CEO of binance) were completely opposed to the current KYC and had declared that they would never include it in their exchenge ... now instead we find that they have fully adopted it .

For the "plagiarism" issue and the whole debate, after a great clarification on your part, I admitted that what you say is right (I repeat my lawyer told me to clarify it, which I did). For point 2: I have not been able to realize why I do not dedicate my life only to this project, I have an activity to follow and many other work commitments. I asked this third person to build the site a certain way and we set a date for viewing. But he published the site and made the changes. when we got to the set date to view the result I discovered the whole mess. It is true what you say, I stated in my statements that I have mistakenly moved the HTML draft files, this is because when I discovered what happened I took the site off line and redone the work of the "fake" programmer .. in that situation he starts of his code mixed with mine. what was I supposed to do?! the name and the design and the token were already done .. what would you have done? I could have said at the beginning that a third person outside the team made trouble, but being the only person on the team it seemed obvious to me that mistakes had been made in moving files without blaming others not present in the site team. if I wanted to disguise and try to cheat people, I would have redone everything from zero taking care of every detail .. don't you think ?! I wanted to go on to see what people thought of this project of identification and verification of addresses .. but apparently, leaving out these messes, there is not much interest .. people prefer to be anonymous.

simply because I had commissioned the work of the web page to a third person paying for it. pity that the page published it immediately and I noticed some errors after a few months, just like the members of the team and other things that I went to correct. I think it is useless to continue explaining the situation, because you will continue to impute that it is a shady project and to continue to talk badly about it0. Everyone is free to think what they want.

As for the company, it is my company .. and I honestly don't know who used the e-mail .. maybe one of our collaborators who works in the office who is interested in the Blokbro project with whom I talked about "Plagiarism". I have talked and discussed with people and I am not surprised that someone has signed up to support me .. this does not imply that I have created the accounts. As for the team I am the only member as you can see from the website .. My website is completely different as you can see, ... but the timestamp of the page shows that there have been changes in the past. However, the programming behind the platform's functionality I managed and built, while the pagian web you found was handled by a third person who made that mess (and this is where the file modification occurred causing the plagiarism ) when I understood what he was up to, I proceeded to modify the site and dissociate myself from that person. When you take control of another person's casino this happens.

if that is the evidence proving that all those accounts are mine, sorry but I really think those are not acceptable evidence for proof. You should have proof that those accounts created them myself or that at least they come from the same IP. For the issue of plagiarism, it is right to have demonstrated and told the community about the fact, but we should also listen to the motivation that in my case was a mistake (I repeat, just show it to the public). it is true it is not a bank and it is a simple forum .. but I believe that showing the identity would ensure that people are real and more credible (this is what I think). If for you your evidence that I have all those accounts is enough for you to tell the world that they are mine, well do it people will evaluate these things, I repeat that they are not mine.

no, I repeat that metalceco is my only private account. prove that the other accesses are related to me otherwise you are making senseless accusations. It just seems ruthless. showing your identity is proof that you have nothing to hide and that you are not afraid to show yourself even if you discuss certain things ... I'm referring to you but in general).

Congratulations .. nice evidence based on fantasy, from you who do not even show your identity (turning a bit in this platform it seems that no one shows the true identity .. but what fear are you?! I thought this platform was on another level ) ... I'm not here to discredit you, indeed it's nice to accuse a project without evidence as in the case you are citing. So I'm a scammer, shady, deceitful, I just miss being a multiple murderer and I win the jackpot ... in fantasy anything can happen.

The whole debate for the term "plagiarism" is clear to me. What you are saying is not clear to me. metalcecco is my private and personal account (opened 3 years ago to seek help with the theft of BTC that I suffered through the support of Bittrex ...) The Blokbro registration is done on the project (I don't see where the problem is to have a 'private and public accout ... I also have them for both private and commercial social networks) This thing has already been said in the previous comments. the others should be users who follow me to whom I talked about this fact .. with your thoughts if they write other 5 or 10 people you will attribute these accounts to me .. Strange way of thinking.
To be precise, I am not deceiving anyone and I have explained everything clearly, this way of discrediting and continuing to say that a shady project is rather childish.

For clarification The term accusation is known to me but the term "scam" is a scam for profit ... alchè I'm not doing a scam to earn. as said the day after the publication, I apologized to Lafu both privately and publicly, also premising that there was an error in the publication of the files. With Lockness I had already apologized and in that case I asked for the copyright document without having any answer. Given that my lawyer did not tell me to continue but to clarify how I am, it is I who want to understand the right ... and rightly so if I find myself with a person who tells me one thing and you what about another I believe that it is interesting to understand what the right point of view is. In my case I had to file the copyright with the patent office because the system underlying the application that I created I wanted it to be patented, and I honestly thought that the copyright was based on this and that if it had not been filed (as fact from me) this right could not be applied (and here I thought that the word "Plagiarism" was not correct because it was connected to it). I have noticed that this thing varies from country to country, and it is true as you say in this case it is automatically protected by the copyright laws of the United States. (your explanation is exemplary to the detriment of others)

That said, clarifying the aforementioned word "plagiarism" whether or not it is correct in its use is not at all discrediting Lafu. I explicitly told Lafu that from my point of view he did not investigate and that in my opinion if he had analyzed the 2 projects he would have noticed that they are completely different and that therefore there was something strange. If he had then asked me why the similarity of certain things, which are not fully part of my project, I would have analyzed and confirmed the mistake without causing such chaos. I'm a beginner). but I understand this is the way we work here and I'm not here to dictate laws. As for Lockness, as mentioned before, I had already given the excuses and reasons for this fact and then fixed all the errors.

If Lafu claims he was discredited, that wasn't my intention ... and in your opinion, my project and I have not been offended, humiliated and discredited in public ?! Why is it that if a person claims otherwise she must be humiliated and offended? here too it is defamation ..

I like your argument and congratulate you on your work, but I would like people to understand that common sense often prevails over many things.

Finally someone who speaks politely. Regarding point 1: I argue that plagiarism is a work reproduced in whole or in part and its authorship (authorship indicates the appropriation of the work and this is sustainable through copyright) is erroneously attributed to others and not to the author and therefore having violated the copyright, the term Plagio can be used (source: https://www.sba.unimi.it/Strumenti/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20to%20regulatory%20current,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi). In my case I have not violated copyright because it does not exist, so point 1 would be sustainable
Regulatory requirements: "
Plagiarism is a case considered in the context of copyright, although it is not explicitly mentioned in Law 633/1941 (PDF document Law on copyright) "source: https://www.sba.unimi.it/Tools/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20to%20regulatory%20registration,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi.
In my case I have not violated anything because from my investigations the copyright of Lockness.io does not exist and therefore the term plagiarism is not correct.

I am also waiting for an answer to the article section:
Why am I in the scam section? if you don't show the facts that it's a scam, that's wrong too.

So if I can, even from my point of view there are many things that are not right and are unjustly thrown against my project .. or am I wrong?
I understand the work that Lafu has done and in part it is to be admired (I never said that he has not done any work), but I think his research was light and not thorough .. I believe (this is my point of view) that he used a software that determined the same words in another site, when he saw that certain writings were the same as now he has made the statement. also from my point of view, she did not check that the projects were the same (and they are not) and she did not check the copyrights. That said, I never said Lafu didn't do any work. The Blokbro project and application is completely different from Lockneess.io and what was reported in certain parts of the Whitepaper and the roadmap could not be attributed to Blokbro because they are completely different, the next day I apologized both privately with him that publicly and I admitted that I encountered an error posting parts of HTML files (precise the lockness formats are in .Jpeg or .png format for the roadmap and in .PDF for the whitepaper ... I created the HTML + css + javascript files and to get an idea of the layout, error my leaving a draft part in the final code). do you really believe that for small pieces of text, mistakenly left, they helped me on the development of the project ?! The whole data identification and security application, that's very complicated, and the whole system I created was very complex. Certainly not 2 written in HTML. Lafu did not check the functionality of the project, he instead (I believe) took parts of my site and subjected them to a control with a software or with microsoft Edge which in turn gave him the same contents of Lockness .. when he saw this then he analyzed the page without investigating whether the sites in question had the copyright deposited and that the projects were the same (in my case it is and I also gave him the access credentials without him asking me beforehand If he had understood these things he would have also understood that I have nothing to hide. if I wanted to be "shady" as they defined me, do you really think that I would put the data of the project and my data associated with it in the profile? I think a little common sense would have made everything less complex.
Moreover, as they defined me with the term "shady", if I were really shady I would not put my data and the whole website in the profile that shows all the associated data and in this case I have nothing to hide. while (it is not a criticism because this site allows it) the users who are discussing with me do not report their data. why?! I repeat the Bitcointalk site allows it and that's fine ... but from my point of view if you want to be more credible and support your motivations, showing who you are makes you more credible.

I have never spoken badly of Lafu and other users, while they have reputed me with many adjectives both me and the project .. and from this point of view they come out much more brilliant while I sink .. I'm not here to determine this. discussing, as in these cases, does not cloud Lafu but rather makes people grow.
So if I support my thinking about "plagiarism" and you support yours, who is right? it's not a question of compensation or anything, but what's the right point ?!. Having a lawyer in the company I asked him and quickly explained all this and his answer and as mentioned above and I rely on what he told me. you define plagiarism when the work is associated with someone else and not the author (the author is defined as the one who has copyright) I believe that informing the public in the correct way, and not because you are a legendary or master user, appreciated by the Bitcointalk audience. So how do we solve all of this? what I asked was to simply remove this page.

First, be careful with the words "idiot", I have never offended anyone. I repeat metalcecco is my private account, Blokbro represents the project and the whole community (I don't understand where the concept is not clear to you and I don't understand the problem) The word "plagiarism" is referred to in conjunction with the violation of the Copyrhigt ... precisely we are talking that I have not committed copyright infringement and therefore this word "Plagiarism" cannot be used because it is related to copyright infringement. "Plagiarism - plagiarism occurs when a work is reproduced in whole or in part and its authorship is wrongly attributed to others and not to the author". So you are accusing it of plagiarism that it is not, and you are publicly defaming it causing a lot of damage .. also whoever exposed this article has inserted it in "accusation of scam" and here is another problem because the Blokbro project is not a scam ( if it is a scam you have to prove it by being concrete).
source : https://www.sba.unimi.it/Strumenti/17608.html#:~:text=In%20base%20alla%20normativa%20vigente,Settimio%20Paolo%20Cavalli%2C%20Alberto%20Pojaghi.

Metalcecco belongs to me personally while Blokbro is from the company that I am CEO and I also represent my community ... the other authors can be parts of my community that I spoke to. When I wrote in German it is because first the form was in the German section, then they moved it and I didn't notice it. Plagiarism is the violation of copyrhigt. A work or website is required to specify whether it is copyrighted and if it is copyrighted, anyone can ask for access to the document that must be deposited. "With the term plagiarism (or piracy), IN COPYRIGHT, we refer to the appropriation, through total or partial copying, of the authorship of a work of the genius of others. The term derives from the Latin plagium (reduction into slavery or theft of someone else's slave) [1] and in this meaning it is reflected in the English plagiarism and in the French and German Plagiat. " (source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagio_(diritto_d%27author) in this case the copyright is not deposited, anyone can use information and photos of the site and no one can say that it is plagiarism. Defamation, on the other hand , occurs when someone publicly comments on untrue facts or offends or causes damage to the company or person. In this case Lafu, without checking this information and without listening to my reason for error, points to the fact of plagiarism by writing it publicly, also causing damage to my project. I am not here to ask for damages on the project (although I could) but I am here to make you think about this fact and I ask for the removal of the article. I have 3 months to file a complaint and have the authorities intervene, but I believe that the matter can be resolved without this.Thank you for your attention

you see that you do not understand ... you can write that I am a paglioccio, that the project is senseless and other things ... but you cannot write "Blokbro plagiarized some Content, nearly the same Roadmap and few things from the Whitepaper from LockNess" because precisely the copyright is not there (I also reiterate the mistake made when creating my HTML draft files as already explained above). Like it or not, this is defamation against me and my project because you published that I plagiarized another website that does not hold copyright and you would be punishable by the law article 595 of the criminal code (simple defamation can be punished with a maximum of one fine, aggravated defamation is punished with imprisonment from six months to three years or with a fine of not less than 516 euros.
Social defamation is particularly serious because the offense can be read by an indefinite number of people. The same fate would happen for the editor-in-chief and the author of a defamatory article published in an online newspaper. Outraging someone on social media is like doing it in a public place, in front of everyone.) First you had to make sure that the Lockness site had a copyright. I don't want to get to this, I have already asked moderator Cyrus to delete the page for the good of both of us. but currently I have not yet received an answer from him. I will wait until 08/08/2022 after this deadline if the page is still online I will go to the police station and file a complaint with the authorities. I believe you now have a big picture of the whole thing.

The Copiright must be deposited. Lockness entered the word in the Food .. they did not deposit anything. The code I used was to get an idea for the page leyaut .. that said, you can check the whole site .. it's genuine.

Add: If you take a good look at things you will notice that Lockeness's Whiterpaper is in PDF. so stop talking nonsense, I have not copied and pasted the HTML files .. those I created and used as a draft of the Layout while I was creating the site .. accidentally there are parts left as already explained above
Conversation with Lockness, see photos

I admitted that there was an error in the handling of HTML files .. more than admit this I don't know what to say. Locknes has no copyright deposited, accusing me of plagiarism you are acting incorrectly and defamatory punishable by law.
Negative scores no longer interest me ... you are slandering me unfairly.

Alles, was Sie sagen, ist absolut richtig, und ich hatte gehofft, Sie würden dieses Argument vorbringen. Wenn der Hacker die Unternehmenswebsite geklont hat und auch, wie Sie sagen, das Bestätigungszeichen, wenn der Käufer diese Adresse eingibt, um die Einzahlung vorzunehmen, informiert ihn das Wallet, dass die Adresse nicht verifiziert ist oder jemand anderem gehört, und schützt sie vor Betrug oder unbeabsichtigter Fehler. All dies wird möglich, wenn die Wallets den Request-API-Aufruf bei der Eingabe der Adresse implementieren, indem sie automatisch den Verifizierungs-„Check“ durchführen. Die einzige Möglichkeit, die der Hacker in diesem Fall hat, ist, meine Datenbank zu erzwingen ... aber das finde ich unmöglich. Ich habe die Registrierungsdatenbank für Benutzer auf einer defragmentierten privaten Blockchain mit 6 Servern entworfen, die von einem Lese-Masternod für die API-Anforderung verwaltet werden, die nur ein Leseergebnis zurückgibt. Während das Schreiben in zwei Phasen erfolgt, wird die erste Phase bereits in der Registrierungsphase vom Nutzer bearbeitet und die zweite Phase wird mit dem Abschluss der Verifizierung durch den Admin abgeschlossen, der diese an den Write Masternod sendet. Wenn das Ergebnis positiv ist, dann sendet der Schreib-Masternod die Datei an einen der 6 Server, der einen Teil der Datei entrahmt, entschlüsselt und behält, und sie dann an einen anderen weitergibt ... also bis zum 6. Server (diese Phase ist zufällig), alle 3 Minuten wiederholen die Daten, die die 6 Server gespeichert haben, den gesamten Vorgang. Um die vollständigen Daten zu haben, müssen Sie 6 Server gleichzeitig plus den Write Masternod hacken, alles in 3 Minuten, wobei Sie die genaue Reihenfolge der defragmentierten Datei auf den Servern kennen. Ich habe versucht, Ihnen so einfach wie möglich zu erklären, wie es funktioniert ... Also alles, was Sie gesagt haben, ist richtig, aber nur, bis eine gute Akzeptanz durch die Brieftaschen besteht.

بالنسبة لقضية Locknes.io ، أجري القليل من البحث ، ولكي أكون صادقًا ، فإن الموقع الذي لا يقبل حتى ملفات تعريف الارتباط والمعلومات الكافية عنه مريب للغاية ، وقبل كل شيء ، يخضع للعقاب بالفعل. علاوة على ذلك ، لا تتضمن السياسة الجديدة المعلومات الموجودة على ملفات تعريف الارتباط وزر الموافقة فحسب ، بل تتضمن أيضًا زر إلغاء الاشتراك ، الذي لا يزال يجعل الموقع يعمل مع قيود (أعمل على إضافة زر إلغاء الاشتراك). Lockness.io ليس لديه أي شيء. يفتقر القفل أيضًا إلى الارتباط بالخصوصية والسياسة. هذا المستند مطلوب وشروطه وأحكامه مشبوهة للغاية.
منذ عام واحد ، حصلت على أفكار تخطيطية من Locknes وقمت بصياغتها بتنسيق HTML للحصول على أفكار. لذلك حدث خطأي مع كود HTML

أضيف: أنا أقوم بالتحقيق في حقوق التأليف والنشر الخاصة بهم ... إذا كانت المستندات المذكورة أعلاه مفقودة ، أشك في أنهم قد أودعوا حقوق الطبع والنشر ... أطلعك على آخر المستجدات

Für den Fall Locknes.io recherchiere ich ein bisschen und ehrlich gesagt, eine Seite, die nicht einmal die Annahme von Cookies und ausreichende Informationen darüber hat, ist sehr verdächtig und vor allem bereits strafbar. Darüber hinaus impliziert die neue Richtlinie nicht nur die Information der Cookies und des Zustimmungs-Buttons, sondern auch den Ablehnungs-Button, wodurch die Website jedoch trotzdem mit Einschränkungen funktioniert (ich arbeite daran, den Ablehnungs-Button einzufügen). Lockness.io hat nichts. Auch Lockness fehlt der Datenschutz- und Richtlinienlink. Dieses Dokument ist OBLIGATORISCH und ihre Geschäftsbedingungen sind sehr verdächtig.
Vor 1 Jahr nahm ich Layout-Ideen von Locknes und erstellte Entwürfe in HTML, um Ideen zu bekommen. Dann passierte mein Fehler mit dem HTML-Code

Ich füge hinzu: Ich untersuche ihr Urheberrecht ... Wenn die oben genannten Dokumente fehlen, bezweifle ich, dass sie das Urheberrecht eingereicht haben ... Ich werde Sie auf dem Laufenden halten