Bitcoin Forum
May 05, 2024, 04:27:34 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: ion.cash "developer" a.k.a. Anonymint goes off the deep end  (Read 9075 times)
smoothie (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 05:45:09 AM
 #1

This is what you get when you try to ask questions and sincerely want to understand what they are doing. Of course actions will speak louder. Have a look see:


You are the one who is insulted with butt hurt ego when I pointed out you don't know how to read the thread before you comment



You are like a spoiled brat who can't get what he wants



FUCK OFF ASSHOLE.

YOU WILL NEVER CODE A COIN.



...

Crafty slimy weasel.

...

This useless blob of flesh is going on ignore now.




███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
1714883254
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714883254

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714883254
Reply with quote  #2

1714883254
Report to moderator
pandher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000


Stagnation is Death


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2015, 10:36:00 AM
 #2

Giving negative trust on some argument is very immature smoothie, i would say abuse of trust system
shitaifan2013
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 879
Merit: 1000

monero


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 10:58:25 AM
 #3

c'mon smoothie, a thread like this is really not necessary and not helping in any way.

edit: I don't consider the trust smoothie left on ion.cash abusive, but I certainly don't share his view, that anonymint's behaviour indicates untrustworthiness.

illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1003


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 12:29:20 PM
 #4

Giving negative trust on some argument is very immature smoothie, i would say abuse of trust system

Doesn't get the specific answers he wants even though has already been told beforehand no specific answers will be given at this stage. Demands answers some more, and still doesn't get them. Argument gets heated, proceeds to start a one-sided thread with selected quotes out of the context, and posts negative trust implying a scam and dishonesty.

Should we all go post negative trust on anyone we don't like or lose an argument to?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 257


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 12:54:56 PM
 #5

I have waited long enough for Smoothie to remove his scammy report against ion.cash.

I filed the following Negative report on his Trust.

Quote
Smoothie abused the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades, by giving his antagonist an negative rating to take revenge against the user which he incited and engaged in a bitch slap flame war. He submitted this box I am submitting with the following radio button selected, "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.". He doesn't provide any documented claim that he was scammed nor that the antagonist is a scammer. Thus he is by definition a scammer because he submitted a false statement to the trust reporting system. He knows very well that the antagonist is me and I have a long very well respected reputation on the forum under various usernames such as Anonymint which reached Hero level with none of my usernames having any bad trust reports. This submission is to test the honesty of this trust system. If my report is not honored, I will know the mods are corrupted. I will remove this report when he removes he scam report and apologizes for his actions.

cynicSOB
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106
Merit: 10

yes, sometimes I'm a cynical SOB


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 02:08:34 PM
 #6

c'mon smoothie, a thread like this is really not necessary and not helping in any way.

edit: I don't consider the trust smoothie left on ion.cash abusive, but I certainly don't share his view, that anonymint's behaviour indicates untrustworthiness.

on the contrary, negative trust on the sole basis of "Huge ego" is abusive.
However I certainly share his view that his behavior indicates untrustworthiness. A lot of untrustworthiness. But that's just my opinion and I can't prove that he shouldn't be trusted so I don't give him negative trust.

For more secure coins: 1EqekC9YVhiWLYjG3mfKNJwrf5s3YS46WW
For the lulz:1EqekC9YVhiWLYjG3mfKNJwrf5s3YS46WW
crypto jerk
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 100


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 02:26:18 PM
 #7

Lets not forget that despite smoothie lives in a cool place " hawaii" he is still very much a young kid. Every post he has ever made including his obsession years ago with trashing ixcoin proves his mentality is that of a child.

I am not surprised and also expected a reaction like this.

Mellow out smoothie, go catch some waves, you've clearly got island fever of some kind
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 05:25:21 PM
 #8

I have waited long enough for Smoothie to remove his scammy report against ion.cash.

I filed the following Negative report on his Trust.

Quote
Smoothie abused the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades, by giving his antagonist an negative rating to take revenge against the user which he incited and engaged in a bitch slap flame war. He submitted this box I am submitting with the following radio button selected, "Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer.". He doesn't provide any documented claim that he was scammed nor that the antagonist is a scammer. Thus he is by definition a scammer because he submitted a false statement to the trust reporting system. He knows very well that the antagonist is me and I have a long very well respected reputation on the forum under various usernames such as Anonymint which reached Hero level with none of my usernames having any bad trust reports. This submission is to test the honesty of this trust system. If my report is not honored, I will know the mods are corrupted. I will remove this report when he removes he scam report and apologizes for his actions.

Haha, Sybil attack him/trust system.
ion.cash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2015, 10:01:06 PM
Last edit: September 10, 2015, 10:53:06 PM by ion.cash
 #9

I as TPTB_need_war submitted a Positive trust rating to ion.cash, with a rebuttal explaining that Smoothie was taking revenge and abusing the Trust system. When that Trust rating did not publicly appear within 8 hours and Smoothie did not remove his Negative rating on ion.cash, I as TPTB_need_war submitted a Negative trust rating to Smoothie as documented upthread. Both of those were worded as rebuttals explaining that Smoothie was abusing the intent of the meaning of the Trust system.

Now after sleeping, neither of those Trust ratings as submitted by TPTB_need_war have appeared publicly. They do appear if I login as TPTB_need_war. Does anyone know if this is due to some action or failure of action of the part of the mods? Or is this an automated function of the forum that someone with 0 trust can't make a public Trust report?

If the latter, I would appreciate if any of you would go put a Positive trust rating on my TPTB_need_war username. Several of you have done dealings with me involving BTC.

If the former, then any of you who would like to test the fairness of the mods, please consider also submitting the Trust ratings I described above but in your own words and reasoning, until we can convince Smoothie to take his grievances with me out of the Trust system which is designed for proven scamming, not for ego battles.

If the Trust system is allowed to devolve to ego battles, then it becomes meaningless. I am confident that is not the desire of the forum owner Theymos. Rather if there is some corruption involved here that is blocking my attempts to post rebuttals to the Trust system, then of course they will lose because I will have the users on my side in the end because I am the real McCoy and I will deliver the Bitcoin killer whether they like it or not. They could ban me from the forum and it won't stop me from winning. I will win. Mark my word. And Smoothie will eat crow. If it the last thing I do in life. Death or bust is my motto now.

on the contrary, negative trust on the sole basis of "Huge ego" is abusive.
However I certainly share his view that his behavior indicates untrustworthiness. A lot of untrustworthiness. But that's just my opinion and I can't prove that he shouldn't be trusted so I don't give him negative trust.

Your logic is correct on the fact that the Trust system is not designed to be a metric of how thin skinned people are and how they get their noses bent out of joint because they don't like confident people who do what they say and say what they mean.

In terms of your opinion of me, you are conflating ego with factual statements. I don't know why when someone makes factual statements, they have to do it timidly and sugar coat it so that people don't get offended by the fact that some people have more knowledge in fields where they are expert than other people.

Experts don't have time to worry about your butt hurt feelings. I mean I don't have anything against you. And I prefer to have amicable relations. But you come here and write an entirely illogical opinion that just because I am not timid in my bold statements, that somehow is correlated with untrustworthiness.

One of the reasons a person becomes more bold is because when I post facts in a sanguine or even dispassionate tone, I get attacked because I am perceived by men to be in a weak posture. So knowing I am going to be ridiculed and attacked, I start off in an attack or masculine posture to discourage the tail waggers from thinking the tail wags the dog. This is the nature of how competition about ideas takes place in this dysfunctional forum, because men unfortunately don't know how to have level-headed factual discussions here. Consider how tiring it gets after posting 100,000 posts in the past several years to deal with all the Dunning-Krugers who all want to push their ignorance on the expert. How many times can the expert patiently explain to every one of the 10,000s of Dunning-Krugers that cross his path. Come on be realistic in your assessment. Walk in the other guy's shoes.

If you had a rational mind, instead you would read my signature line and go research my history on this forum since April 2013. I have never done something untrustworthy in those 2.5 years. The only incident that is a blemish on my record is the BCX fiasco (was in 2013? I forgot) in which I was trying to see if any of his threats were real and I was in public discussions with smooth et al about the potential for any of the threats to be real. In the process of that, I did discover the more remote potential to unmask anonymity of Cryptonote using combinatorial unmasking which I relayed to smooth. And for which if I am not mistaken I was reward 10 BTC by the trio smooth, jl777, and rpietila because I we had that agreement before I revealed the weakness I had identified. Apparently some Monero folks were angry about my involvement in that and that I earned anything from that. At that time, I was severely suffering from Multiple Sclerosis and the 10 BTC was very helpful at that time. Also I suspected but never confirmed that some felt I used that incident to hoodwink them into paying me that. The fact is that my suggested weakness and fix ended up in a Monero Research Labs report and I believe recently some Cryptonote coin may have implemented my suggested fix because it is also the way to enable pruning. I heard pruning is coming to Monero, so perhaps you can thank me somewhat for that, although I haven't checked to see how they are accomplishing it.

If you bothered to check my history as a software developer, you'd see I am 50 years old with a history of major commercial software success with some software shipped to millions of users.

Even entertaining the notion that I am untrustworthy is entirely bullshit. And it is very disrespectful to your elder who is very accomplished in the software world and also very expert in the crypto-currency world by now.

It is great you've doubted me. Just goes to show that both you and Smoothie don't do your homework before you open your mouths. You two are lazy and immature. Which is why we got into this bitch slap war in the first place.

I am like Steve Jobs. I speak frankly. I am also very amicable to those who are amicable to me. I am also reasonably humble, but not excessively so. When I been working hard on something for years and have major breakthroughs, I will of course exude a bit of cockiness. I am sort of like a Michael Jordan in that way. I carry a bit of swagger. But other times I am bit humble. Depends on my testosterone level perhaps. Perhaps on whether I've released in some intense daily exercise yet or not (e.g. I am headed out for a run now and I probably really need it to relax my testosterone level). Perhaps also depends on how the other party is relating to me, such if they are being a lazy jerk who doesn't read and then blames their failure to read on me. I dunno. And I don't care. I am interested only in the facts and production of results. All that time wasting emotional crap is for men who have menstruation. And none of that has anything to do with trustworthiness. Just so happens that my personality is my personality. Like it or hate it depending on your personality and cultural background, but that is orthogonal to trustworthiness.

Smoothie (and just about every person) have problems with orthogonality in logic. Delegation and decentralization are orthogonal concepts. Personality and trustworthiness are orthogonal concepts. Sometimes they are correlated but not always. ASS-U-ME and you are inherently illogical. Separation-of-concerns and orthogonality of logic are critically important concepts and skills for expert computer programmers.

Also bear in mind I am not your stereotypical nerd. Like some others, I am also a testosterone laden athlete (was before the M.S. and appears my M.S. is in remission as of several days and thus my athletics is starting to ramp up again).

Haha, Sybil attack him/trust system.

Germane.  Cheesy
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
September 10, 2015, 10:48:43 PM
Last edit: September 10, 2015, 11:02:50 PM by smooth
 #10

I have to say the negative trust bothers me, I don't support it, and I think it should be removed. But that is based on my personal opinion that ion.cash is sincere and is not scamming.

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Both of you guys (smoothie and ion.cash) should cut it out in my view. Smoothie, I'm asking you to remove the negative trust until there is some evidence of actual scamming. It cheapens the trust system by lumping him in with people (including coin developers) who have gone well beyond what he's done. ion.cash, I'm asking you to stop posting hype and "hints" about your project and delete the ones you have posted until such time as you are prepared to back up your functional claims, because they are (not unreasonably) viewed as potentially scamming. It likewise cheapens your project by associating it -- by virtue of a similar pattern of behavior -- with other clearly disreputable projects and developers. (There was nothing wrong with a naming discussion; the problems started when you did discuss the functionality even though said you weren't going to.)

You are both free to ignore my request of course.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
September 10, 2015, 10:54:05 PM
 #11

Smoothie abused the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades

This is not quite right and is a common misconception. The instructions on the trust page say:

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer
ion.cash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2015, 10:57:16 PM
 #12

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

And you completely ignore the point that I made about when factoring in the probability of a scam, you must factor in the 2.5 years of reputation of Anonymint. Would Anonymint sacrifice his reputation? What is the probability of that.

You have disappointed me smooth. But that is okay because it was already clear from too many numerous past conversations that you have selective reading myopia weakness.

Smoothie abused the Trust rating system which is supposed to be for bad trades

This is not quite right and is a common misconception. The instructions on the trust page say:

Quote
Negative - You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer

The scamming is supposed to be relative to BTC value, as the form asks for the BTC value involved.

If this devolves to a judgement of personality, then it is a meaningless metric. Surely you are smart enough to see that and I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

And again there is no strong evidence presented that I am a scammer. Taking into account the reputation history on my signature line prevents any argument that there is a high likelihood I am a scammer. He tried to abuse the system because he thought he could use his Legendary reputation against my newbie status, but my signature line points to one Hero account from 2013 and several other accounts with significant status.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
September 10, 2015, 11:00:37 PM
 #13

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

What I've seen is irrelevant as I'm not the one making a scamming allegation, though I have told you a few times now that your hyping without willingness to back it up with evidence will raise that suspicion. Which it does and will.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
September 10, 2015, 11:05:12 PM
 #14

The scamming is supposed to be relative to BTC value, as the form asks for the BTC value involved.

His trust rating states 0 BTC, which is accurate. (Unlike, for example, the trust abuse against me by one of the Bytecoin scammers which claims 10 BTC risked or lost, something which is made up out of thin air.)

Quote
If this devolves to a judgement of personality, then it is a meaningless metric. Surely you are smart enough to see that and I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

The trust system is inherently subjective for better or worse.

And yes it may be meaningless. I find the whole system only marginally helpful. But that's something to take up with the forum own/admins I suppose.

I don't "strongly believe" that you are scamming but maybe smoothie does. I'm asking him to reconsider that assessment carefully (especially with emphasis on "strongly").

ion.cash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2015, 11:06:00 PM
 #15

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

What I've seen is irrelevant as I'm not the one making a scamming allegation, though I have told you a few times now that your hyping without willingness to back it up with evidence will raise that suspicion. Which it does and will.

Again another of your epic logic fails.

My signature line clearly points to a Hero reputation from 2013.

Yeah dumbasses can refuse to read and refuse to look at the signature line and do their homework. But that doesn't constitute sufficient evidence of scamming. Period.

Logic fail. I am disappointed in you.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 11:09:45 PM
 #16

Now after sleeping, neither of those Trust ratings as submitted by TPTB_need_war have appeared publicly. They do appear if I login as TPTB_need_war. Does anyone know if this is due to some action or failure of action of the part of the mods? Or is this an automated function of the forum that someone with 0 trust can't make a public Trust report?

I see this - http://s3.postimg.org/7ndf8rq81/smoothie.png
ion.cash
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
September 10, 2015, 11:13:10 PM
 #17

The scamming is supposed to be relative to BTC value, as the form asks for the BTC value involved.

His trust rating states 0 BTC, which is accurate. (Unlike, for example, the trust abuse against me by one of the Bytecoin scammers which claims 10 BTC risked or lost, something which is made up out of thin air.)

And he presents no strong evidence to say why I would risk my Hero reputation as Anonymint.

Quote
If this devolves to a judgement of personality, then it is a meaningless metric. Surely you are smart enough to see that and I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

The trust system is inherently subjective for better or worse.

I don't "strongly believe" that you are scamming but maybe smoothie does. I'm asking him to reconsider that assessment carefully (especially with emphasis on "strongly").

If there is no basis of preponderance of evidence then the entire Trust system is meaningless.

If you are arguing the system should be meaningless, then go ahead. You seem to love to argue nonsense.

You went against me the other day when you argued that I was hyping and would receive bad outcome for it. Did I receive a bad outcome? Of course not. I will win. Why? Because I have truth, sincerity, and hard work on my side. And those attributes can't be faked.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
September 10, 2015, 11:27:01 PM
 #18

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

What I've seen is irrelevant as I'm not the one making a scamming allegation, though I have told you a few times now that your hyping without willingness to back it up with evidence will raise that suspicion. Which it does and will.

Again another of your epic logic fails.

My signature line clearly points to a Hero reputation from 2013.

Hero users can and do scam. Often via purchased Hero accounts (or lower Sr, etc. accounts that are mined up to Hero), sometimes not.

Or someone could falsely claim to be a new version of an old Hero account, without proof.

I'm not saying I believe these things, but others might.
cryptohunter
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG


View Profile
September 10, 2015, 11:49:27 PM
 #19

Nice to see even the very smartest are not above a little bit of swearing and bickering Smiley


Ion is (from what most of us can tell or guess) a crypto/coding genius with little patience for the slower people asking bothersome questions. Not saying smoothie is one of the 'slower people' at all.  I think Ion's responses are a little defensive and impatient, but then again I do not see at all how this can be worthy of a negative trust rating. He said he would not divulge anything that gives competition any hints into his epiphanies.

Smoothie did just seem genuinely interested and kind of respectful and just got a little bit roughly treated. I'm sure you guys can work it out and get the negative trust removed for now until some real evidence for scamming/untrustworthy behaviour can be found.

Can you just suspect an impending scam or does a scam have to have taken place before you click neg trust ?





TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 257


View Profile
September 11, 2015, 12:10:10 AM
Last edit: September 11, 2015, 01:05:08 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #20

However, I don't think it is trust abuse, within the context of the cryptocurrency marketplace. Hype of vaporware and conveniently selective disclosure of information is something that has been used by scammers and has a high risk of being employed by someone who is scamming.

Smooth you live in a fantasy world. You know damn well I am not hyping vaporware because you've even seen the Blake2 hash I coded in Scala this past week.

What I've seen is irrelevant as I'm not the one making a scamming allegation, though I have told you a few times now that your hyping without willingness to back it up with evidence will raise that suspicion. Which it does and will.

Again another of your epic logic fails.

My signature line clearly points to a Hero reputation from 2013.

Hero users can and do scam. Often via purchased Hero accounts (or lower Sr, etc. accounts that are mined up to Hero), sometimes not.

Or someone could falsely claim to be a new version of an old Hero account, without proof.

I'm not saying I believe these things, but others might.

And again you argue ad nauseum on a point that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

He has provided no strong evidence of any of these things. His evidence links to the opening post of this thread, which is a bunch of links to a cat fight[1].

Smooth when I evaluate people for their efficacy, one thing I look it is how well they reason to the effective point of it. Logic ad nauseum isn't logical.

[1] Also the timing of his Trust report is when I told him to his face that he was making Freudian slips with his use of the words "humble" and "immaturity" and that he was employing psychological warfare. I outed him and he didn't like it. So he proceeded to use every weapon in his toolchest to try to discredit me. The circumstances along with the evidence presented clearly show his motivation is revenge. And the reason is clear also. He was embarrassed because he started off initially attacking me over the definition of the 'delegated'. And then I pointed out that only a simpleton, non-skilled programmer assumes that delegation must be married to trust. Rather than eating humble pie, he turned Freudian and blamed me for not being humble and not putting the entire thread in the opening post.

Here he starts the conflation of 'delegated' and 'trusted':

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12374689#msg12374689

So then I explained to him not to conflate the two, yet he repeats for the second time that he doesn't understand the definition of 'delegated':

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12374976#msg12374976

After r0ach tried to explain it to him, then I explained it to him yet again and asked him kindly to not start a word war:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375049#msg12375049

Then for the third time he repeated his insistance on conflating the words 'delegated' and 'trusted' even after he has been told already 3X and by 2 experts not to do that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375107#msg12375107

Then after r0ach tries to warn him the 4th time, he then defiantly states he is not trolling:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1171109.msg12375170#msg12375170

But then he proceeds over to my thread to repeat the same nonsense some more as follows...

First, I had to explain it to him again for the 5th time and again caution him that I wasn't going to reveal the secrets of how I unconflate the delegation and the trust:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12375146#msg12375146

Yet for the 5th time he repeats his same insistence that delegation must be married to trust:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12375327#msg12375327

Around that point he started blaming me for his inability to read and saying I wasn't humble:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12377982#msg12377982

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1174653.msg12378045#msg12378045

I asked they move that detailed delegation issue discussion to another thread and it looked like maybe he was going to be reasonable, so I allowed his link to the new thread to remain in my thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375430#msg12375430

And I even pointed out to monsterer that it seemed to me like Smoothie was starting to genuinely think about a potential middle ground and I thought he had opened his mind and become more reasonable finally:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375644#msg12375644

But then he backslides and joins in with the VanillaCoin investors who want to attack me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375676#msg12375676

And he starts attacking me ad hominem:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375708#msg12375708

Again I apologize profusely (2X) and beg one more time for mutual respect and level headedness (am I am not humble  Huh):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375715#msg12375715

Then smooth jumps on the bandwagon too with them all attacking me:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12375982#msg12375982

Then Smoothie starts with his Freudian slips attacks where he is projecting his lack of humbleness and immaturity as accusations on me when in fact he is covering for big ego and butt hurt over being told 5 times not to conflate delegation and trust by both myself and r0ach:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175585.msg12377446#msg12377446

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!