Poor old perv nullius failing to pull together his biased sexually motivated brain farts into a cohesive and strong argument.
Pump the pillow harder nullius. No cyber sex from lauda tonight for you old man. Lol What a thrilling line of productive and rational on-topic debate.If I were “hacker1001101001”, I would be shouting from the rooftops that this is a false-flag “defence” designed to destroy my reputation by making it look like my best friends and associates are disgusting cretins. (Of course, if I were “hacker1001101001”, there would have been neither plagiarism nor ICO-bump spamming in this case; but I digress...)Nobody can control what others say about him online; and also, for my part, I don’t generally agree with or even like everybody who ever says anything favourable to me. Of course not. On the flipside, I surely do not speak for everybody of whom I may speak positively from time to time; indeed, I have on occasion said some good things about people who personally dislike me, intensely dislike me, and assuredly are not my friends. But this is beyond the pale—and it is indeed from “hacker’s” buddies. “hacker1001101001” has this obscene lunatic troll-alt persistently defending him day in, day out with twisted personal attacks on other people. He has had TEC hSHARE make literal shitposts with photographs of feces to smear others on his behalf, to describe only the most memorable of all TEC hSHARE’s posts—the epitome of classic “Techy”. (We drink to forget...) And—it’s all fine with “hacker1001101001”. “hacker1001101001” has willingly associated himself with these characters via TEC hSHARE’s so-called “Objective Standards Guild”, more properly called the Poo-Flinging Anti-Standards Guild. He certainly has not complained about the behaviour of his “Guild” leader and companions. A man is known by the company he keeps. It goes to character. ~ Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
I added the string, altough 24 excuses are picked randomly out of the 33 potential excuses, so there's always a chance this excuse won't be picked when generating a new bingo card. Thanks, mocacinno! Is there a way to bump it for a different random selection? Not that I would ask you to steal dev cycles from your Lightning work for a bingo game!I did not realize that there was already a “don’t remember” entry. It must not have come up on the random selection before; and in any event, it does not seem to match the post text in this case. 17 i don't remember that 1 1
You woke up a 2year old thread to bump your new thread? It is more of my own excuse to bump a thread that I have been wanting to bump anyway. OP is from December 2018; I was absent from the forum from April 2018 to January 2020. On the very same day that I returned, I found this delightful bingo game; and I red-tagged cryptohunter with reference to something he said earlier in this thread. I avoided bumping this thread over that, because that controversy really belongs in its own topic, q.v.So, when do I get to play bingo? Now, I suppose. :-) Your feud with that hacker guy looks very personal... I will not censor myself for fear that somebody may construct a twisted misinterpretation of my motives. * nullius shrugs. |
|
|
|
note: I made the source part more obvious. If you've used 3 different sources, it is better to show which data came from which source, for instance by adding a 1, 2 or 3 with a link with the lines in your table. I think that you misunderstood. wolwoo essentially made a Turkish version of a post by another user, CryptoYar, in an English-language forum. The substantial information, including the three source links, is presented by wolwoo as in CryptoYar’s post. wolwoo identified CryptoYar by name, and linked to CryptoYar’s post. This is near the end of wolwoo’s post:
(Better link to the post in question.)In my opinion, no. It seems to me that you did a sort of translation, although there was not much to translate insofar as the main substance of the post consists of names, dates, and numbers. You partly translated the original topic title. You omitted the only substantial text outside the table of information, at the beginning: Some people hold their crypto assets on exchanges, it is very dangerous, previously many exchanges have been hacked.
I advise You should keep your crypto assets in your personal wallet because the exchange is not safe. If you want to do this right, I suggest just doing a straight-up translation (including that prefatory text), and beginning your post with a notice similar to what translators have prepended to translations of my posts—including making the author’s name a link to his profile (or an otherwise appropriate link, for sources outside the forum). For example: Subject: Bitcoin: Bir Sosyal FenomenIt is not only mindrust; I quote that because it is the Turkish version. You can see the same or similar format used in Russian, Romanian (where the translator added a longer preface), Croatian, Indonesian, Filipino, and for another essay, Hindi. I have also seen the same format in forum translations of posts by other original authors. It seems standard and customary. It is also a standard courtesy to contact the author of a post before using his work, request his permission, and work with him to handle the translation of any difficult content (probably not an issue here). Many authors will be pleased to receive such communications—not all, but many. I know that for my part, I much appreciate it when a competent translator wants to bring my work to another language! I don't want to be accused of plagiarism I doubt that you will be, given that you identified the author by name, you linked to his post, and (insofar as I can see in your Turkish post) you did not imply that you produced this work yourself. I make the foregoing suggested improvements because it seems you really want to do this right. Plagiarism is a matter of stealing credit for another’s work. If an ordinary reasonable person reading your post would not assume that you wrote it yourself, and would not think that you claimed to write it yourself, then I do not think that you plagiarized the other post. |
|
|
|
The thing is that he is not even giving a sob story. In his mind, he has done something heroic Indeed. And in some ways, that is the worst part. which he will continue to do now that he knows about HD wallet. He has already challenged that he has more accounts. AND he is opposing the flags with his puppet accounts. Of course, he may attempt to adapt and become more evasive in the future; and of course, there are other ways to catch him (which I will try to avoid too much describing, for obvious reasons). I observe that anyone with the requisite skillset to get away with this type of thing in the long term could make a lot more money doing something more productive. But if he was caught with such simple mistakes, he probably lacks the skills for any real achievements; and scumbags are often economically irrational, anyway. Lets just hope that all the higher ranked member accounts are caught. Also, If i was in the fillipino section, I would be very wary of giving merit to any new accounts. Because from the way he talked, I am pretty sure he'll be back cheating with additional accounts. It also seems that for people like him, it is much easier to get merit in the local section as people tend to trust each other and have a lot of close interaction there.
Bitcoin_Arena did a great job but every upstanding member of the fillipino community should spend sometime digging through this dirt and find more links to this stupid cheater's-circle parasiting on the forum and other people's opportunity. This is how bad people poison a community. It is like the stage in urban decay when ordinary social relations break down, and people become afraid to talk to strangers. Strictness toward wrongdoing is not only about punishing the wrongdoer. It is also about protecting the community at every level, including community trust. It is terrible if, as I think you are quite correct in observing, Filipino users need to be careful of whom they merit—just as on the general forums, I do a background check on new or unrecognized accounts before sending merit. The person operating “Polar91” is a parasite as you observe, and a parasite on Filipino community trust worst of all. The solution is to tear out this type of wrongdoing root and branch, so that normal community relations can be restored. To that end, the Filipino users who have expressed outrage at the person behind “Polar91” are doing as great a service to their local forum as they are to the forum as a whole. I hope that with the assistance of investigators here, they can get rid of this problem, and focus on building a helpful community that welcomes new Bitcoiners. |
|
|
|
Fun tool! Feature request: Add, “I just don't remember when I did this shit!”(Also, accusations by the plagiarist that those who advocate against him are mentally ill. But it would require quite an advanced AI to track that across threads.) For all types of wrongdoing, the “I don’t remember” ploy is a classic. Alas, the bingo card generator does not recognize this: Snip
I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done. I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.
Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know. I just don't remember when I did this shit!(Red boldface enlargement is supplied by me.) Thanks to mocacinno and o_e_l_e_o for the laughs. Though in all fairness to excuse-making plagiarists, I think that bingo is the wrong game here: Their handiwork deserves a drinking game. |
|
|
|
One can't become more naive, workless and mentally effected due to effects of Lockdown and Quarantine more than the OP. Seek doctor's help. Flies into a rage at being called out for his own wrongdoing. Remorselessly turns around and accuses his accusers, sneering at them with disgusting self-righteousness and self-satisfaction at his own feigned ethical superiority to those who caught him with his hand in the cookie jar. Projects his own demons onto others.Whether his reaction is more consistent with psychopathy (here dropping his mask), or an extreme reaction to narcissistic injury, I will leave for someone with a medical degree who has examined “hacker” in a professional setting. I am not interested in fixing his mental health; that is his problem. I am interested in protecting the forum from sockpuppeting spammer plagiarists who lie, lie, lie, change their stories, and then lie some more.
It is beyond my knowledge how this plagiarist, fraudulent bump account and spam service got the second chance. Together with quotation of the 2019 complaints that lenience to “hacker” was unfair to other users who were banned to plagiarism, that should be /thread. Or in rather less eloquent terms, my whole OP could have been reduced to this:LOLWUT. Leniency was misguided. Ban him. Instead, I wrote an OP which anticipated every even minimally substantial objection thus far raised in this thread. For unfortunately, attempts to express oneself succinctly seem to be against this forum’s moderation policy: https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.phphttp://loyce.club/archive/posts/5422/54228988.htmlWith size=5pt changed to size=larger:This coordinated effort to go after hacker1001101001 only began once he started being openly critical of Lauda. Since then it has been a nonstop procession of all the same clowns that come after anyone who ever says anything that is not glowing praise for Lauda, working overtime to find or manufacture any justification whatsoever to exercise their retribution against this user. None of this is new, nor is it a threat to the user base even if it was. This is just more of the same abuse of any system they can get their hands on to punish people who openly disagree with them.
That's ridiculous.  (I am just getting started in an experiment to work on shortening my posts)In the overall context, that is really the appropriate response. I would try honing my own Laconic wit, but it seems “ μολὼν λαβέ” may also be deleted. Funny, moderator deletes more on topic posts from genuine people and leaves the ones from trolls from this very thread too. I wonder how effective the report on plagiarism would be. Seems there is on going moderation bias by somebody.
Are there new infractions?
OP could you list the end date of hacker's 60 ban.
Op could you list new sins after hacker's 60 day ban.
[...]
OR ALL THE SINS YOU HAVE PREDATE THE BAN HAMMER iRRELEVANT; READ op. (And please fix your caps lock.)
double jeopardy Read the subject line, at least, before making fallacious quasi-legalistic arguments (surprising, or perhaps altogether unsurprising since you also fail to recognize the formality of a quasi-legal demand). The word “appeal” suggests in concept that I am seeking review of the old case, not opening a new one; and the subject line, at least, should not constitute grounds for your characteristically childish, vindictive personal snipes based on rote repetition of arrant nonsense. wall of text wall of text Unappealing, that is. Anyway, this is not a court of law. It is an Internet forum, which cannot tolerate the presence of plagiarists who run massive sockpuppet spamming operations and then repeatedly lie about it. I strongly suggest that the administration and staff reconsider a precedent that surely can be cited with “but you unbanned this guy!!!” arguments by garden-variety copy-paste sigspammers who didn’t run organized multi-account paid ICO-spam operations.
[— nullius is evil waaaah—insult, insult, insult —] Off-topic trolling > /dev/null However, I do agree with this if I cherry-pick it wildly out of context: Only context and a full and complete review of a persons entire history can provide you with a sensible objective consistent and fair course of action. Absolutely! Lenience for a plagiarism committed by a multi-account sockpuppeting spammer is inconsistent and manifestly unfair to everybody who has been permabanned for a single copy-paste. Be fair: Ban the professional spammer.I hereby advocate only that “hacker1001101001” inclusive of all his many alts must be held to the same standard as numerous others who have been properly permabanned for plagiarism. Or for spam. Or both.[/list] |
|
|
|
Signing time: 2020-04-16 22:58:41; timestamp block height: 626332The timestamped file:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
I am Bitcoin Forum user 976210.
To provide evidence that this is not an old message previously signed
and forward-dated, I will hereby cite a few of the most recent posts by
theymos (weaker evidence, especially since he hasn’t posted in a few
days), and the ten most recent Bitcoin block hashes (stronger evidence!).
To prevent this message from being altered and backdated in the future,
I will timestamp it with Peter Todd’s OpenTimestamps service. This in
itself will provide security incomparably superior to the forum tradition
of “quote and archive”.
I will NOT hereby state the signing time, or the identity of the signer.
You should obtain this information from the PGP signature on this message.
- ----
# Most recent posts by theymos
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=35;sa=showPosts
Other / Meta / Re: delevic was banned by mistake
on: April 14, 2020, 09:49:55 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5239709.msg54222870#msg54222870
Other / Meta / Re: Theymos, may be a custom title please.
on: April 13, 2020, 08:04:20 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5239632.msg54215408#msg54215408
Other / Meta / Re: delevic was banned by mistake
on: April 13, 2020, 06:56:20 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5239709.msg54215057#msg54215057
Other / Meta / Re: [table] limits on Bitcointalk (?)
on: April 10, 2020, 08:34:50 PM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1782341.msg54196225#msg54196225
- ----
# Ten most recent Bitcoin block hashes:
0000000000000000000eb9f27a36e02843d2689982534049f76b3983ed85b1bf
Block Height: 626329
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 22:56:31
00000000000000000007fc5d607402a0c94209654343f3b811988c50e7f9f00b
Block Height: 626328
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 22:47:43
00000000000000000001df6cfcd7438741da5ba537e49012fee1f0d657203c27
Block Height: 626327
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 21:37:24
00000000000000000010189e996a082c2b14b9153a48fcdfe2d52941b4d8e4ab
Block Height: 626326
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 21:30:09
00000000000000000006a6f44f8fd73b795566419e4f53a86898b15970068fdf
Block Height: 626325
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 21:25:43
00000000000000000002ec00babeff6e29c34bc9dfaac9c5ab3d4adc4c5b4f7c
Block Height: 626324
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 21:25:05
00000000000000000007656fb4e3e2793d338ec69a38a3dba3f440dd376b5145
Block Height: 626323
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 21:03:54
000000000000000000022df72f795f4a931eaf95d8a585a2666bd2608f753d7e
Block Height: 626322
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 20:55:55
0000000000000000000b076ad877866dd3c58b79d3f4a6d7b9bdd2a24b74c7cb
Block Height: 626321
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 20:54:02
0000000000000000000584d979e0b41ce2cce0d598ff7535a5ae079978ab0435
Block Height: 626320
Timestamp: 2020-04-16 20:52:34
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iHUEARYKAB0WIQSNOMR84IlYpr/EF5vEJ5MVn575SQUCXpjjIQAKCRDEJ5MVn575
SRAYAQDoE7P4NcORiTsgwQvFBjUTQ2KhISGYPZ60K7xvRm3QgwD/VUDdpyca+xO6
PKkKUJx5kvNaBhPZTWVou0dSIXu0rwY=
=BjCn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To verify the timestamp, you must save the signed statement with Unix line endings ('\n') and a single final line-terminator on the last line. (No blank line at the end.) Exclusively for ease of checking that the file is saved correctly, here is its SHA256 hash: c17a2370bafe895eaec2df0e055c019066cb7527e085679c3baeb893fd6329ca AE9wZW5UaW1lc3RhbXBzAABQcm9vZgC/ieLohOiSlAEIwXojcLr+iV6uwt8OBVwB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|
|
|
|
Cross-reference: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie.
Obligatory link explaining the subtle abuse of symbols in the title of my hereby post. The self-styled wannabe “hacker” fails basic coding shibboleths.
`1001101001` is 10 bits. Therefore, from the set of all people who make Internet usernames consisting of a simple English word appended with ten binary digits, there is a 1/1024 chance that the digits could just be a coincidence. Stop pumping conspiracy theories, marlboroza!
Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?
I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time ) Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future. Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions. Quoted for total lack of remorse, and hypocritical self-righteousness about a purported ethical duty to protect the confidentiality of fraud spammers. Honour among thieves? Reductio ad absurdum: “Yes, officer, I was involved in the drug-dealing and stolen-goods fencing businesses and had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment...” LOL.
|
|
|
|
Reserved for summary of evidence.
At present, I think this is the best capsule summary that I have seen thus far: What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?
I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.
As I said, that was the only level of contents I could produce on the forum back then to reach my atlcoin signature bountys post requirements weekly
OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then.
Ok, yes they were targeted reviews but as I said I use to follow many ICOs back then on telegram
Again funny for you, I already agreed I was involved in posting for ICOs and following them even on telegram, which I left when I got to know it is forbidden on the forum.
I agreed being paid, please read the above info.
I agreed about my involvement in the service and me not been engaged in it from long time, as soon as I was aware of the rules around it and I even discouraged such practices thereafter.
They are not alts connections as you try to frame it here, they are just simple one side ETH transactions, and it doesn't prove I own those accounts or have anything solid to do with them.
none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions. The accounts are not connected to me or I am not much aware about the info of the owners of those addresses.
Yes there are transactions between me and those accounts. Marking it red and violate doesn't indicate anything other than me being in business with them around 600 days ago. I worked with this type of services back then, which I have accepted many times in this exact thread.
I have done business with them and I am not obligate to explain each and every transaction from my wallet ( most of them I don't even remember ) also, that doesn't prove anything more than me paying or receiving funds from them and you repeating the same question again and again like a dump.
Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service
Let me see if I got all this right : " I was not involved in any kind of paid promotion" "I agree it looks like bump but I was filling my signature post count" "Ok, they were targeted reviews" "I agreed being payed" "I don't have anything with those accounts, those are one side transactions" "I have no idea who are owners of those accounts" "Yes, those are transactions between me and those accounts, I did some business with them" " Yes, I was involved in bumping business and many users worked AROUND me"  Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic?(Textual decoration in that last paragraph is added by me.) |
|
|
|
Reserved for list of connected accounts.
N.b.:There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here. (Text decoration is added by me.) |
|
|
|
|
Reserved for thread metadata (cross-references, forward-references, etc.).
|
|
|
|
On or about 15 May 2019, #1021758 “hacker1001101001” was issued a 60-day temp ban and 2-year signature ban for plagiarism, as discussed below. I presume that the reason for avoiding a permaban was the user’s purported history of forum contributions, including allegedly fighting against scams (!). Well, as it turns out, the user’s biggest contribution to the forum was either personally to wield a fraudulent spam sockpuppet army— or by his own admission, to be involved with others in ICO-bumping, i.e. fraudulent paid spamming. I might do it on weekend, but if anyone has time and will, please do. [...] There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here.Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?
I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time ) Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future. Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions. Whereupon I am hereby acting independently, and separately from marlboroza’s Reputation thread. I have not requested any other person’s support prior to creating this thread. Although I am relying on marlboroza’s thread as to fact, that thread discusses trust issues, and this thread appeals to the administration to review the “hacker1001101001” case for the following reasons: - Separate Argument A for a ban: I presume that the leniency granted to the user for his blatant violation of the forum’s strict anti-plagiarism rule was based on the false premise that the user was allegedly a good contributor who perhaps made a naïve mistake. Whereas the user’s actual major contribution was spamming—and the user was obviously not naïve as to his plagiarism offence, given that he was deeply involved in other wrongdoing.
(N.b., I do not buy the general argument that a newbie user may naïvely plagiarize without realizing that it is against the rules. Plagiarism is wrong. Schoolchildren who get busted for plagiarism are punished for cheating. Nobody has any excuse for not knowing that it is wrong to rip off somebody else’s words, and pretend they are one’s own. It is akin to an argument that newbies may not know that theft is wrong. However, since an ICO-bumping paid spammer was obviously never naïve or innocent, this argument need not be reached here.)
Since the leniency for plagiarism was based on a false premise, it should be reviewed and reversed, resulting in a permaban on the user including all of his past, present, and future accounts. It is a well-established principle that bans apply to the person, not merely the account. - Separate Argument B for a ban: ICO-bumping is spamming per se. Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence. I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question: “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand? (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)” The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”
I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers. As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.
Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period. ICO-bumping has always violated the forum’s anti-spam rule on its face, by the definition of the word “spam”; and anybody who may potentially allege a failure to understand that `ICO-bumping == spamming` would be either lying, or mentally retarded. - Investigative suggestion: The forum’s administrators (and global mods?) have access to IP evidence. If the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths is so careless with leaving around blockchain evidence, then it is probable that he did not properly hide his IPs when sockpuppet-spamming.
N.b. that unconnected IPs for different accounts would not prove a negative, since it would be trivial for anyone smart to [deleted so as to not give an instruction manual on how to evade IP checks]; however, positive linkage of accounts by login and/or access IP addresses would be strong evidence that the accounts are all sockpuppets. Morever, it would probably be more efficient for admins/staff to review the IP logs than to wait for marlboroza to continue painstakingly sifting through blockchain evidence.
This evidence is only relevant to including the user’s alts under the same ban. It is irrelevant to the matter of banning the user, who is an admitted spammer previously temp-banned/sig-banned for plagiarism.
Prior discussion of the “hacker1001101001” ban appeal: You are English-speaking people so hate plagiarism, and here you cover the offender.
This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?
You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist? I have no complaints about punishment, it is really cruel but fair. QFT. Well, I speak English, and I do not excuse the offender! Although to my knowledge, forum admins and staff did not publicly state the reason for granting leniency to the user, the opinion of many people supporting such leniency was that the user had allegedly made good contributions. I don’t want to pick on iasenko here, although I disagree with him; I will simply quote his post as representative of this line of thinking, because he stated his opinion clearly and concisely: He has many scam investigations and accusation against shady projects with plagiarized whitepaper or fake team. So he was doing quite good for the forum. Just see his last started topics and you will see what I'm talking about.
It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment. The reason for the 2019 ban of “hacker1001101001”:Snip
I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done. I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.
Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know.
I just don't remember when I did this shit! Dagnabbit. Plagiarist’s Bingo (forum thread) needs support for, “I just don’t remember when I did this shit!”In the thread about his ICO-bumping, the user’s evasiveness and excuses for his spamming evoke the Rules of Spam. In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs, blacklisted from their careers, and retroactively stripped of their academic degrees for plagiarism.Surely, an enormous forum spammer and his whole sockpuppet-spammer army do not deserve mercy—not for plagiarism, and not for spamming.
AcknowledgmentsThis thread would not have been possible without the tireless investigative work done by marlboroza, the investigation by Lauda which brought marlboroza’s investigation to my attention, and support and contributions from too many people to list succinctly without risk of inadvertently missing somebody. I must thank everybody who performs such investigative chores in the interest of protecting the forum community against the type of implosion when net.abusers take over. |
|
|
|
May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection
Moderators are useless.  I rarely complain about moderation; but in this case, I must point out that moderation is not only useless, but counterproductive if a complaint about the permitted level of off-topic trolling and thread derailment is deleted, while the off-trolling itself proceeds unabated, and the thread is repeatedly derailed. I respectfully request that moderators reconsider this policy going forward, delete future posts which are blatantly off-topic or self-evidently attempt to drive the thread off-topic—and don’t delete posts that reasonably criticize a moderation policy that permits trolling. Thank you. I also request that moderators and administrators consider a rule against scatological content. It makes this thread unpleasant to read, for normal human beings who do not wish to see pictures of poop. So-called “NSFW” images are categorically forbidden, even tasteful images that would not disgust anybody who is not generally disgusted by the human body or by sexuality. By comparison, why should TEC hSHARE, with his disturbing coprophilic fixations, be permitted to turn this thread into a sewer of literal shitposts that are obviously intended to shock and disgust with graphic imagery? Not deleted by moderators who deleted Lauda’s opinion that “Moderators are useless. ”:~ I KNEW IT! You ate a Payday bar back in April 3rd of 2016! These peanut fragments submitted as exhibit #2 prove it! Just wait until I start counting them!  I am so hot on your trail I can feel it!
Unanswered QuestionsIn my last post on page 12 of this thread, I backlinked marlboroza’s unanswered questions to hacker1001101001 from page 10—in which marlboroza was quoting his own question from page 9. Whilst skimming past the off-topic trolling, I had somehow completely missed another important, on-topic post by marlboroza from page 11, which I believe deserves to be here on page 12 (with highlighting added by me). I didn’t realize that OP had quoted Lauda’s deleted post, until I wrote the above and had reconstructed the quote myself. May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection
Moderators are useless. And, off topic conversation continues. Just look at this waste of sperm: possible ico bumping
"possible" 1051 characters, I ignored all spam and off topic parts of last post and there is exactly 17 on topic characters. I am not sure from where are all these shitposts and conspiracy theories coming from, but last time I checked, this is what is in topic: What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?
That is important part. And first reply was: I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.
That is also most important part. Hacker lied several times and denied everything then he was exposed then he confessed. After deeper study of hacker's address, there is unignorable number of transactions going to and from various bump accounts, now some users like TECSHARE and bonesjonesreturns are trying to bury my discovery in the sea of off topic deflective shitposts.Why is TECSHARE trying to deflect this topic, "ico payed review sevice" is fraud business, there is significant number of users who are fighting against these fraud services and I don't see him doing this in any other topic (this is for example one topic about the same subject https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238597.0, which is, bump service, nah, you won't see tecshare there) I also think that two of marlboroza’s substantive posts from page 9 deserve to be here on page 12. They have not been answered other than with evasiveness by hacker1001101001 ( more evasiveness), whereafter they were buried by his off-topic troll buddies. [— snip by nullius —]
Ok, back to topic. For those of you judging geniunely, none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions.
But you said you were payed and here is you paying someone: Interesting address ( https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5). So, red marked address is hacker's address:  Transactions TO green marked addy (0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5) can be found in hacker's transactions: https://etherscan.io/tx/0x12eb3157346ef9b814f68a186c2f899886be3d36a942386f9234140ec7f526aehttps://etherscan.io/tx/0xa051c04e9baa9bc65c7824c49f21c3f976cf95185636fba54ec5ef52734ff01dhttps://etherscan.io/tx/0xa9a0bfbdfb0f63deabf03549c5fd989a4d575743237b4332969a18775abe93e6https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7bb2aad7eb8fb1f7d80cfa85e9e99122a26836fb14f361b3ac519890f27110d5https://etherscan.io/tx/0x6f8deff8b46ff20dead3bf2af1792966c743c87c4e94a323f51025ba22be5a4dhttps://etherscan.io/tx/0xb7e0535a7718bc5c6b80d183b46d59fef518e86aa58649f968683da0129779ffAnd as for purple marked address (0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854, https://etherscan.io/address/0x7523b772bdb993fe7eec2dd03e97564753710854), it has only one transaction from hacker but:  Each address has more transactions FROM hacker: https://etherscan.io/address/0x89e4c4454bf048edf2536bb6387c2760dd429e8ehttps://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xd6ae5106df28742e8729b13d5497b07c0ee9f0c3https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840&p=2 [1] https://etherscan.io/address/0xf4e98bac953ee81ee3438aa97bda0ccfe63c95e5https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ff4b05829785e012a2df60eefcbda7e6b1d3f49https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x6446df84035f8083191ce2a27c76d4b5f5c11c10https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0xf9960f024fa69014dfcccc4dc63222295856e091https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x4ed83e973c3e50cfbe483398ab17e347ebd244ce&p=2https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x0c0369267e791283651899acf23636535d955019https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5(CTRL+F hacker addy 0x15ba9083b4c96421827ae85d7a7d211f5862fcde) I am so lazy to look into this deeper, one of addresses previously mentioned [1] was used by account farhan28 (who is banned btw https://bpip.org/profile.aspx?p=farhan28 and looking at posts it is just another payed ico bump account) ##PROOF OF AUTHENTICATION##
Bitcointalk Username:farhan28
Telegram Username : @farhan2894
Campaign :Twitter
Spreadsheet # : #1555
Ethereum Wallet Address : 0x391FBB990900cCcac5fa7E96F01211cC93cE2840 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4405290.msg43396614#msg43396614There is one transaction from hacker https://etherscan.io/tx/0x7d8f5884c950f8cf66f310a08cb755dc6f7285956c3f4acea6094688e96beae8 and 3 transactions from this addy 0x9d1e86f60308a24b0a017eaa0918066d8fb9a7f5 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x56248063d9406ad46267b9bd021e88a191daebdefed0951d274ca74ae8489367https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc8f3d40471890811ef3263994ff3da59665b01cf3b644538f3770b0aa20d3651https://etherscan.io/tx/0xc61f9e17262e7c8a12036feaca7e0f4c6b7fbc5fa3bb318ce6d56f6b61b92c4d(scroll UP, I have already marked it as green in screenshot above) Further, that ico bump account farhan28 received so many payments from this address 0x5af75bf78984f3e22cfcccb52bf62f529bcb440b (ctrl+f here again https://etherscan.io/txs?a=0x391fbb990900cccac5fa7e96f01211cc93ce2840) and I previously mentioned that address on first page of this topic, just after hacker denied everything.
I understand that bump whore accounts are receiving money from bump services, but account hacker has large number of transactions TO such accounts, and, as he is giving his best to deflect this topic I have no other reason than to believe hacker is behind one of such service or he was filling addresses of alt accounts while receiving money from bump service. I am not sure, but I would place my bet on "behind bump".
Beyond Good and EvilI really like the thought of that assuming arguendo part and attempting to rank such levels of evil on a world-wide scale including living and presumably dead people in such competition. But, the second part of that proposition is that you are correct, you presumptively evil bastard. Your admitted (even if merely hypothetical, but I know that you are really admitting something deep down on the inside) level of evil is not even relevant to this thread. You could be like the worst level of evil, and hacker might be evil like a mouse and even the most minimal level of evil, but the thread is not talking about either you or even that other pointed out evil cat one. It is about little intsie winsie teenie weenie evil of hacker, to the extent any evil exists in hacker.... I am not even going to presume any evil in hacker personally, even if he may have been mean to me one time, but the topic of this thread happens to be about hacker and perhaps whether any evil actually exists therein. QFT—and with the brief note that whatever I may or may not be admitting “deep down on the inside”, I do not merely admit, but proudly proclaim that I am “evil” in exactly the sense described by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals. I would like to elaborate on that, but an extended discussion is off-topic. :-) Also, sorry, ENOTIME now. :-( |
|
|
|
Stop being scared of me scammer supporters. That needed a Cats and Coffee [C&C] warning. Add “scared” to the list of words misunderstood and misused by members who also do not know the meanings of the words “objective”, “standards”, “guild”, “testimonium”, “libertas”, “iustitia”... Actually, I think that it would be easier to list the words that they do know. Anyway... JollyGood, you yellow bastard.Sig spammers and scammers. Not interested in protecting this forum at all
Milking it for every satoshi they can. New theory: The gang of sigspamming fake scamfighters has a few alt/shill/whatever accounts post without paid signatures, because our unlimited rapacity and greed for money money money makes us—um, I’m not sure how to conclude this one. Surely, it is a brilliant strategy for “milking it for every satoshi”. Unless you allege that my PGP fingerprint and Latin motto are paying me? (It is real Latin, a quote from Seneca—not Bitch Latin.) What part of lauda is a proven scammer did you miss? Scamming, and proof thereof. There dear pervo coward nullius you got a mention Lovely, just lovely. Thanks. Jolly good also went around slapping yobit sig spammer with red trust but when it was pointed out he was not punishing dt working with yobit he ran away. Setting aside the grossly dishonest mischaracterization within the four corners of that quote, you missed the part where the thorough documentation by JollyGood and others made me realize that it was time for me to step up and announce that I myself would tag said DT1 member first. The Yobit campaign was then shut down almost immediately; and I was kicked off DT almost immediately, due to another DT1 who suddenly found a shallow pretext for very vocally excluding me within about two hours of vehemently arguing against me in the Yobit thread. Somehow, I doubt that all these events were purely coincidental. For obvious reasons, I had considered creating my Yobit thread under an alt, and simply calling on DT members to do the right thing. I did not do so, because I thought that it was important to take a stand on that issue with the reputation and credibility that I had built in my name—and most importantly, to lead by example in announcing my intent to tag a DT1 member before tagging members of his campaign, damn the consequences to myself. Although I think that there are sometimes legitimate reasons for using an alt account to address potentially explosive controversies ( e.g., scam_detector in the alia case), I am not like you, Mr “bonesjonesreturns”. Anyway, that is irrelevant here except insofar as it rather contradicts your above-quoted mischaracterization of me as a “coward”; and I wanted to take the opportunity to commend JollyGood for his yeoman’s work in the Yobit case. Now, let us please refocus the thread to its subject:
Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this: |
|
|
|
This is worse than “trust abuse”: It is total corruption of the trust system. The strange thing was that particular lunatic member DT member had never really engaged with me before he was sending PMs to selected DT members campaigning against me. I encourage—no, I call upon the recipients of such PMs to publish the PMs in Reputation. It is whistleblowing.A person who is engaged in corrupt practices, and sends unsolicited communications in furtherance of corruption, has absolutely zero reasonable expectation of privacy. The DT system was never supposed to be subject to backroom campaigning—let alone backroom strong-arming, replete with ultimatums demanding that people change their votes or else. Who knows also what else is going on. Bribes? I think that we may safely assume many quid pro quo deals. I also think that people who engage in backroom DT campaigning, bribes, or coercion of any kind should be administratively blacklisted from DT. I hope that theymos will consider this. Of course, for such administrative cleanup to work, the evidence must be brought forth in the same manner as done in Scam Accusations. When there is evidence of corruption, the people who would police forum scams via DT must be subject to no less a searching public inquiry than any scammer.I was told by a DT member that he was being excluded by another DT member just because I was on his trust list  He was given an ultimatum to either exclude me in exchange to be added in his trust list or if he was going keep me included on his trust list he would remain excluded on his. This is one of the handful of ultimate betrayals because DT rank was never supposed to be used for these types of reasons. Agreed.
Where are decency and common sense? The only time that I have ever politely requested in private that another individual change her own trust list, with no significant attempt at persuasion, was when I asked Lauda to remove me from her inclusions list. (She politely ignored my request.) The only time that I have ever tried to PM- persuade someone else to make different trust-list decisions was when I was publicly debating the same issue with the same person—and I was not the one who started the parallel PM discussion! Besides that, um... I once politely asked someone to confirm my inference of why he had excluded me. I often express my own opinions of other people, just as I did before democratic DT existed—and without ever directly urging people to change their “votes”. And I have been generally complaining for months that the trust system is broken—in public and in private. Where the hell do people get the idea that it be acceptable to issue PM-ultimatums demanding changes in another person’s trust list!?
I promise that if I ever receive such a demand, I will publish it, and I will both red-tag and exclude the person who sent it to me.
It is a backroom demand that you change your vote in a quasi-democratic system. If that is not textbook corruption, then nothing is!I urge those who are receiving such demands to think carefully on all that I just said. For I called it: Well, I infer that was his purpose in neutering the effect of feedback, and essentially democratizing DT in a convoluted way.
My prediction as to the latter is that it will destroy the trust system. In the long term, it will put DT under control of those who optimize for gaining control of DT by any means necessary, and devote unbounded time and effort to doing so. That is a bad criterion. [...]
Something analogous happened in American history. [...] Then rose “political machines” with gangsters, party politics in the worst modern sense, special-interest groups, etc. They sometimes used outright ballot-stuffing and fraud; similarly, we have circles of alts to Sibyl the system. Otherwise, they are just expert manipulators of mass opinion [...]
So as for my prediction of unintended consequences. Intelligent people may argue over this. The future will show who’s right. Told you so. (And after my return to the forum in January, it took me all of 76 hours to figure that out.) |
|
|
|
May I remind everyone this topic isn't discussion about
1) Lauda
2) Nutildah
3) TECSHARE's trust list
4) JollyGood
5) yobit
6) Insert any other deflection What, I don’t merit a mention? If trolls aren’t spamming personal attacks about me, then it means that I must be slacking off... ...probably because I keep losing track of this thread. Because it keeps being derailed by trolls, and I currently have no time to wade through many pages of deflections to see if anything was said about the thread’s subject. Or by the thread’s subject. Have marlboroza’s questions been lost in the noise? The silver lining is that Jay’s posts are always worth a read. Bookmarked to catch up on later.
Mr. Payed Review, you still didn't address something here, instead of bad attempts of you and your objective standard guild buddies to move this into some other direction, address this: |
|
|
|
Who are the main competitors to Monero? I mean technology wise. Is there another crypto with a better privacy technology? Bitcoin transacted via the Lightning Network, using onion-routed transactions and other privacy features. (All done over Tor for network-layer privacy, of course—of course, all on your own node and not with a custodial wallet.) Or other advanced Bitcoin privacy techniques; but I will leave it at Lightning. Transacting off-chain is strictly superior to using cryptographic techniques to hide information recorded in an append-only public ledger. What is never on the blockchain doesn’t need to be hidden there! This also means that no metadata is recorded on the blockchain—not even the fact that a transaction occurred around a certain time. There is one other privacy coin with which I have substantial experience; it is the one considered to be XMR’s main competitor. Its privacy is theoretically superior to XMR, with a transaction unlinkability set much larger than any mixin; but it has other problems that have made me miserable with it in practice. Although I still have a small amount (as I also have some XMR), I don’t even want to name it here on the XMR thread. Anyway, I am moving toward a 100% all-Bitcoin privacy setup, for my own part. I am aware of some recent developments with coins that use MimbleWimble, but have not investigated those due to, again, refocusing on Bitcoin privacy. I don’t know if they are any good. Many other so-called “privacy coins” are SCAMS: DASH, DeepOnion, and Verge, for some examples that I have investigated. SCAMS. AVOID the shitcoins with slick marketing, that do not actually protect your privacy. “Privacy” is a big buzzword; and you should only trust privacy claims that have been thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts. Anyway, if you need to ask this question, then you should probably just stick with XMR (or get on Lightning with Bitcoin...). Monero has good cryptography. Insofar as I can see, its principal weakness is the size of the unlinkability set for each transaction. As a different factor that is also important, I note that it is the only coin that I know of which has truly decentralized, censorship-resistant mining, on commodity hardware which anybody can buy without exposing an interest in cryptocurrency. (The reason why I myself do not do Bitcoin mining: I can’t buy an ASIC with strong anonymity, and I can’t just use ordinary CPUs.) If there were one altcoin feature that I could steal for Bitcoin, it would probably be RandomX, or some further development thereof. (Yes, Bitcoin mining people, I am aware of all the reasons why that will not happen.) |
|
|
|
There are thousands of accounts that do the same thing, this is a bad phenomenon that is currently experienced by the philippines.
Maybe the coins.ph exchange company should be aware of it and rearrange the shipping and outgoing strategies of each individual who makes a transaction. Would you say the same thing if a Filipino user were to run a Filipino-language version of some CoinJoin-style protocol, that linked (and mixed) together the inputs and outputs of, say, a hundred different individuals who post in the Filipino local? For that matter, what would you say if a large proportion of Filipino users started sending their money into ChipMixer? After that, it would be infeasible for you to discover who owned what. Or what if everybody were to just start using the Lightning Network, which never exposes transactions to the blockchain at all? Yes. There is just nothing to bust here—and insofar as has been shown on this thread, there is nothing wrong with the exchange. (Not that I approve of keeping bitcoins on any exchange, but that is a different subject...)
Yes...that's not supposed to happen, but at least for coins.ph exchange companies, have to review the largest exchange community in this bitcointalk forum...maybe they consider it normal, but just the opposite. Maybe it's better for coins.ph companies to use one community one address exchange, in transactions from wallet 3 & d, etc. so coins.ph address becomes the main address for each community in the Philippines. I think that it is rather the opposite: I would prefer an exchange that made it very difficult to figure out who owns what coins. Much more difficult than what coins.ph is doing. To be clear, coins.ph is NOT running a privacy service. The described behaviour is NOT a privacy feature, and is NOT providing anybody any significant privacy. This discussion is just too close to an attack on actual privacy services. By analogy, it is like complaining that the use of CGNAT makes it difficult to associate users with IP addresses. No, CGNAT does NOT give you any significant privacy. But a demand for ISPs to make it easy to associate individuals with IP addresses would be too close to an attack on Tor and other privacy services. It is beneficial that many forum abusers lack the opsec skills to evade very basic analysis of blockchain evidence, IP evidence, etc. (And it is probably not good to talk too much about this in public— hint. Let them keep making dumb mistakes.) However, that itself is not a reason to demand a change of behaviour from other parties, such as exchanges—or down the slippery slope, privacy services.
FWIW, I also think that the chance is nil that an exchange will change its wallet handling based on this discussion here in Reputation. I doubt that they will put their engineering team right on this—when nothing is actually broken.
Edit—Addendum:To be clear, I am absolutely against blockchain transparency. You may quote me on that. Transparency is the opposite of privacy. The Byzantine agreement produced by the blockchain is its ingenious feature, and its only good feature. Otherwise, the blockchain as a global public ledger is a terrible concept. Broken by design. (Fixed by the Lightning Network.) (This is why I’m not “Bitcoin-rich”...)One of the reasons that I avoid many business sections of this forum is that there are too many misguided traditions about publicly posting txids, etc. Basically, it is a culture of self-doxing. And let’s not get started on such things as the various demands in mid-2018 for Lauda to dox the money of 5000 investors—just because, “transparency”. WTF?And I object to a demand that a business change its wallet handling so that innocent Filipino users who did nothing wrong will have their coin ownership absolutely trivial to trace. Please focus on busting the abusers! Nobody is harsher than I am with that; I cheer whenever a forum abuser gets busted. |
|
|
|
I can’t believe that Blacknavy is not totally wrong here. For one thing, he revealed the self-serving myopia of Europeans and Americans on a topic dear to my heart: The freedom of speech. European and American people think that they live in a country more free than the Turkish Republic. Try to criticize your leader, see what happens. [...] You can test your freedom by claiming publicly that the 2016 coup was a false flag operation in Turkey. See how long you last. Now compare that to claiming 9/11 was an inside job in the US. Those people don't lose their freedom. You picked the wrong example. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 are not the canary in your free-speech coal mine. You can test your own freedom by stating this publicly, under your real name: Even though the Germans do not want to accept, they owe all of the prosperity they have today to Hitler. [...] (By the way, I don't think Hitler is a bad commander. I'm sure he was the one who loved Germany the most). Or better, by outright supporting Hitler. Have fun with that. Even in America, where freedom of speech is theoretically guaranteed by the First Amendment, in practice you would be targeted by pseudo-legal, extra-legal, and/or outright illegal means... Even though the Germans do not want to accept, they owe all of the prosperity they have today to Hitler. You are in serious need of both medical and psychological help. Maybe with the effects coronavirus lock down might be having on your health the situation is getting more and more dire for you. Please use the emergency services available to you in your country and seek appropriate medical health otherwise you may one day be a lost cause they will give up on you and will never recover from your mental illness. ...which may include not only accusations of mental illness, but Soviet-style involuntary use of the psychiatric system to de facto imprison you without criminal charges—plus drug you until you really do become crazy. The pathologization of ideas is pure poison to the freedom of speech. More likely, however, you will just become permanently unemployed blacklisted as unemployable regardless of work performance or behaviour at work—plus subject to Antifa types of personal violence while the police look the other way, etc., etc. The freedom of speech requires that ideas be met with ideas. If there is any idea that is de facto forbidden to express, then it is by definition a thoughtcrime. Whereas if an idea is so wrong that it should be unthinkable, then surely it can be replied to with better ideas—without any type of violent coercion against those who express it. That is simple logic, and the underpinning of a profound principle. The alternative is that this free-speech thing doesn’t actually work, because the vast majority of people are manifestly incapable of thinking for themselves; thus, they need officially approved ideas protected by an authoritarian government against the deceitful propaganda of mass-manipulators. And that would be an argument for... Hitler. Actually, it is more or less a big part of what he said on the topic.Apart from that, European and American people think that they live in a country more free than the Turkish Republic. None of you are satisfied with the economic situation and minority policy you are in. You just think you're free and believe it. Continue to believe that you are free and the media tells you the truth. A meritorious observation overall—and one that few will even think, much less say. I disagree insofar as I don’t think that Turkey is anything even remotely approximating a free country; Europe is overall better in that regard. But Europe is not “free”, either—not even nearly; and in practice, America is overall worse. America is a dystopia of near-total mass thought control, which preaches about its domestic “freedoms” with the same hypocrisy as with which it preaches the “liberation” of foreign countries whose people did ask for the American world-police to bomb them into “freedom”. Frankly, I would prefer to deal with honest tyrants who wave their iron fists upfront, than to deal with the American government. The reality: You are free to do what we tell you. You are free to think what we tell you. You are free to choose between Coke and Pepsi. YOU ARE FREE TO OBEY.
Yesterday, I half-drafted a reply on this thread re various historical issues. I withheld it in the belief that even the slightest attempt to untangle this mess was not worth bumping one of the stupidest of stupid threads that this forum has seen in a long time. Well, that is always a mistake. I just had to hit the free-speech issue here, in the hope of making people in Europe and America stop patting themselves on the back, and think about how free they really aren’t. If time permits (certainly not now), then I may take a stab at some of the other mess here. Though I doubt it would make any difference. |
|
|
|
How did a thread about wrongdoing by the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths become a discussion of whether JayJuanGee has adequately considered the evils of Lauda and nullius. ← Rhetorical question intentionally concluded with a full stop.You simply can not and should not be willing to let more serious wrongdoing from your "friends" go " unnoticed " but then join in with those friends attacking other members for possibly far lesser evils.
You are saying that Lauda and Nullius have done equally or greater evils than hacker, but did I accuse hacker of doing an evil in this thread? More to the point, even assuming arguendo that I am the most “evil” person on this forum in the world (and Lauda is #3—sorry, kitty, Hitler is still #2; try harder), what has this to do with the bad doings by hacker1001101001 that are evidenced in this thread? Objectively, my and Lauda’s allegedly most-evil doings would not excuse “hacker’s” allegedly “possibly far lesser evils”. Of course, such diversionary tactics are just that.
I have actually found some members to be quite annoyed at some of my posts in terms of their length and sometimes even positions that I have taken on various matters... or maybe even annoyed by my tone, and other styles that can sometimes be unnecessarily confrontational. Some people seem to like my posting style, and other do not. Some people dislike reading; others, to the contrary. “Unnecessarily confrontational” is another way of saying, “no bullshit”. At least if you disagree with me, I know that you will explain substantively and without beating around the bush, instead of just tossing off insults, snarky one-liners, or animated GIFs. My strongest motive in coming to the forum in the past 6 years has been to research and share ideas in regards to bitcoin, I miss talking about Bitcoin.
That is completely off-topic here, so I will only provided a cross-reference to “bonesjonesreturns” claims that “Nobody has dared try to refute the evidence”, with a very short excerpt: http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5417/54171749.html[...] [...] The nonsense directed at me is even more ridiculous: OP paints me as a hypocrite because in 2020, I am friends with someone who said some things disagreeable to me in 2014, and later changed her mind and said things that I absolutely agree with. Say what? That is so wrong that it’s “ not even wrong”. It does not even make sense. (For the record, the only altcoins that I myself have ever possessed in any amount are Zcash, where I got my start ( LOL, Lauda), and Monero. Better idea: Improve Bitcoin privacy, and transact on the Lightning Network.) Now we see nullius the double standards hypocrite bitch of lauda. Who is supporting lauda and running around looking like a lauda is trying to punish another member for a similar but less serious crime?? This person is not lying like Lauda? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231181.0First of all, I disagree that that’s “less serious”. Fork attacks on Bitcoin are the most serious altcoin scam of all; and jbreher is a highly experienced user who continues repeating objectively false misinformation that has been debunked to him numerous times over the years. Second of all, I never accused jbreher of a crime: I mean that in the sense that I would not lock him in prison for his forum posts, if I had the power to do so. I do think that many of his posts are dishonest and damaging, and people should be warned about that. If jbreher turns around and starts repudiating what he said before, honestly and with full understanding—if he becomes one of the most active opponents of the same lies and FUD that he has been spreading—then I will buy him a (virtual) beer! You may quote me on that. Anyway, that is irrelevant to Lauda. Not taking it up in a thread about hacker1001101001.
A special mention to JayJuanGee... you have the patience of a saint. I mean the way you meticulously answer the trolls with point-by-point clarity is very impressive even though you probably know you are engaging with trolls and attention seeking deluded individuals/groups.... your way to engage them and manage them is without doubt impressive. No matter how much you address them they have their own ulterior motives and sometimes hidden sometimes overt agendas but you still present your points and answers in the most professional manner imaginable. Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
