Possibly Phishing Haircomb Wallet & Using of Stock Image

[nutildah]

Why did the project's original founder use a stock image for themselves?

Why did satoshi nakamoto use a fake name? To be anonymous.

You're not satoshi, neither is natasha-otomski. This has been the most common excuse for the founders of fraudulent crypto project founders to remain anonymous since the invention of shitcoinery. Furthermore, Satoshi never put a picture of someone else on their profile or website and pretended they were that person. That's the difference.

Who cares who the stock photo is or why Natasha picked that image in particular to begin with.

Nobody cares who the stock photo is. We just know that its not your founder as they admitted as such. Again, this practice is one of the biggest red flags in crypto projects. It could have been dealt with and overcome but you've chosen to wallow in feces instead.

[haircombint]

random gay shit nutella man just said because he is a shill slave to his betpanda overlords

Nice deflection, Nutella Man.

I ask again: Speaking of anonymity, why do you shill Betpanda as an anonymous casino when they constantly ask for KYC?

[nutildah]

I ask again: Speaking of anonymity, why do you shill Betpanda as an anonymous casino when they constantly ask for KYC?

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I've never shilled Betpanda. I've never recommended them to anyone -- I haven't recommended a casino or sportsbook in a long time. I simply get paid to advertise them in my signature space.

Going back to arguing over whose definition of "shill" is correct doesn't change anything. You had a mental breakdown over valid criticism which led you to believe that attacking the product in a critic's signature space would somehow help... I guess it helps you feel better as a petty human being who derives joy from being a destructive asshole, but it certainly doesn't help Haircomb in any way whatsoever. This is the reason why most crypto projects fail: poor leadership and poor ethics, along with short term thinking.

[haircombint]

I ask again: Speaking of anonymity, why do you shill Betpanda as an anonymous casino when they constantly ask for KYC?

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, why is that stupid panda in this thread to begin with? You and logfiles are the ones who brought it up by plastering that retarded panda to your every post - regardless of how relevant it is to the discussion. Don't blame me for engaging with the scam YOU first shilled in this thread before I even replied.

I've never shilled Betpanda. I've never recommended them to anyone

I'm glad we could clear that up - that you refuse to endorse the very scam you're paid to shill.

[nutildah]

Your obsession has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is Haircomb.

You obviously have no interest in having an honest debate. Everything you say is just vindictive lies and nonsense. After our interaction I am concluding that nobody should bother themselves with the Haircomb project as this is the type of dishonest behavior its community leaders engage in.

Look at this, on the first page of the Scam Accusations section:



A complete mental breakdown happening in real time. It does happen here on occasion. Just not a sign of a healthy project, or one that any sane person would want to be a part of.

[haircombint]

Your obsession has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, which is Haircomb.

You obviously have no interest in having an honest debate. Everything you say is just vindictive lies and nonsense. After our interaction I am concluding that nobody should bother themselves with the Haircomb project as this is the type of dishonest behavior its community leaders engage in.

Look at this, on the first page of the Scam Accusations section:



A complete mental breakdown happening in real time. It does happen here on occasion. Just not a sign of a healthy project, or one that any sane person would want to be a part of.

I would have never found out about 'my obsession' if it weren't for you and logfiles' hypocritical shilling plastering this very thread. It was ironic to call haircomb a scam since betpanda is a scam and now it's ironic to accuse me of going off topic when the genesis of the unrelated topic is you and logfiles.

Please, continue. I'm enjoying this. 

[nutildah]

I would have never found out about 'my obsession' if it weren't for you and logfiles' hypocritical shilling plastering this very thread.

you mean logfiles' 3 posts from 2020... it was 5 years ago. You're a very sad and disturbed child. I don't think crypto is for you.

[haircombint]

I would have never found out about 'my obsession' if it weren't for you and logfiles' hypocritical shilling plastering this very thread.

you mean logfiles' 3 posts from 2020... it was 5 years ago. You're a very sad and disturbed child. I don't think crypto is for you.

What does the amount of time since the post have anything to do with the validity of what I said?

Have you ever watched Better Call Saul? It's a show about Slippin' Jimmy. You're Slippin' Nutella Man right now. Always trying to weasel out of bulletproof logic

[albon]

Why did satoshi nakamoto use a fake name? To be anonymous. Who cares who the stock photo is or why Natasha picked that image in particular to begin with.

I agree with Nutildah.

You can't be "anonymous" if you use someone else's photo and claim it as your own. In this case, Natasha has deceived the community and wanted the blame to be directed at someone else instead of herself. By doing so, she hasn't remained anonymous at all.

You clearly don't have enough answers to justify the red flags raised here, and instead of facing the facts, you’re trying to dodge the question by asking off-topic ones.

How ridiculous.

[haircombint]

Why did satoshi nakamoto use a fake name? To be anonymous. Who cares who the stock photo is or why Natasha picked that image in particular to begin with.

I agree with Nutildah.

You can't be "anonymous" if you use someone else's photo and claim it as your own. In this case, Natasha has deceived the community and wanted the blame to be directed at someone else instead of herself. By doing so, she hasn't remained anonymous at all.

You clearly don't have enough answers to justify the red flags raised here, and instead of facing the facts, you’re trying to dodge the question by asking off-topic ones.

How ridiculous.

Oh wow what a surprise gambling shills stick together!

If you think Natasha deceived anyone by using a fake photo (and eventually saying it's a fake photo when prompted) then you, by corollary, must also believe Adam Back (or whoever Satoshi really is) deceived everyone by claiming his name was Satoshi. Full stop.