Why I chose not to invest in SpectreCoin (XSPEC) now

[gunner833]

The 'senior dev' who likes to help people.  

the shiller guy who speaks out of turn

[1714120028]

1714120028

[1714120028]

1714120028

[1714120028]

1714120028

[1714120028]

1714120028

[1714120028]

1714120028

[preshpr1nce]

The 'senior dev' who likes to help people. 

The shill who can't contribute anything useful

What was the point in that post? can't add anything of intelligence as per usual, nice one!

[trainasauruswrecks]

I understand your comment and you are right, I have changed my tone. But for a reason.

If more than a month ago I was doubtful, after a month of looking of what's going on in XSPEC, my doubts are becoming more and more certainty. I have written why endless times. Also the change of tone was intended to make jbg reply.

Think about it from my perspective:
you lose a lot of time to share your research to the community for 0 return and you mostly get quick shill answers which you have to spend more time answering to. Then the guy doesn't even answer to you. After a month, the market says I am right, and then he of course answers. Not because he wants to, because the market says so.

Also I then ask him for very simple things to clear everything up, and after more than a month they are still not done!

How do you want me to approach a, what now I believe is, potential scammer? Do you want me to go gentle with him?

Like: hey, so sorry you missed your own set up deadline to release 1.4, and you still don't know when you are going to release it. You also haven't made 1.4 code public after a month, how many more months do you want? 2 or 3? Let's do 4!

Do you think this would work better?

I don't approve much preshprince tone, he's way harsher than me and has spent less time researching XSPEC in general than me, but hey, his choice.

You asked for screenshots, I gave them to you. I am not lying as you can see. You can think I am not genuine, but to be honest I don't care anymore. I only care about jbg responses and his ability of release 9 months worth of development work with 1.4. This hasn't happened yet, and it's the only thing everyone should care about. Plus maybe his donation address transactions, which is worrying too.

I see what you are saying, but again it is my perception that you are attempting to dictate the terms and conditions of what is "acceptable" as far as a response goes and though I may misremembering your earlier post  it feels as if the goals posts are being moved with each response.  On top of that I don't understand why you feel as if it's the responsibility of jbg to respond to you.    You feel under appreciated for the work that you did to investigate this issue so you begin implementing snark to "get a response."  I understand that you may not find the intrinsic motivation of having done something positive for the crypto community enough to sate you for the work that you did, but posts like the previous one question whether this was for the good of the crypto community or not.  If you are not invested and have a genuine interest in fleshing out the concerns with jbg... then why the violent communication technique?

When I go back and look at your earlier post where you suggested times by which a project should be completed and see that the authority with which you presented your information may be flawed, incomplete, or both I find myself questioning what you used as a benchmark and whether or not any of the code based arguments were of any merit.  Because the things you are claiming should take a very short time (If I'm understanding correctly) can be quite a hefty task.

Also that "Should I post jbg's real name and location" statement makes me think you wish to use that as some sort of leverage.  As if you're hanging this over the community's head or something.  I don't understand the intention there either.

I thank you for posting the pics instead of using them in a threatening fashion.  If we are here to call people out then there's no reason for the "I got a gun in my pocket" talk... just shoot.  It showed me that you weren't being ENTIRELY genuine about the information you were claiming to present.  But I still think you're generally being genuine.  Sometimes people stretch the validity of things to prove a point and you came clean, so I'm cool with that.  But  I am still not sure why you are choosing to hide the screen name of the individual that claimed jbg said he had 25 years of experience coding.  That's a pretty damning claim.  I'd like to see evidence of this and if someone is willing to say that shouldn't they weigh in here with some evidence.  Turn something that is just hearsay into something a bit more tangible?  

My ultimate point is that the only person that you need to blame for this should be jbg, because how he is handling and how he had handled this. Maybe a response from the start of my thread would have stopped everything at the start. Now he's just trying to stop the boat from sinking.

And again, sorry if I repeat myself, I asked one simple thing, make 1.4 public, he promised to do so more than a month ago and hasn't done it yet. And a new excuse came out recently. Again, if you are trying to debunk a scammer, would you go easy with him after a more than a month? Maybe to you this looks normal, sorry but I have a total different perception. More than a month to publish some code, action which takes 2 seconds, and after more than a month come up with a new excuse? I simply can't go easy with this, it would be an insult to my intelligence.

Again the only thing I am asking is simple facts, simple facts which jbg has been failing to provide in over a month. jbg has no responsibility to answer me. I am doing very simple and straight questions and he is free to avoid to answer them.

On the hidden information on the screenshot, I asked. One hasn't answered yet, one answered but does not want the information to be made public, so I will not. I can post you privately the screen of his response if you'd like to, with nickname hidden again. Sorry to have mentioned it, but we need to think like it never existed. I respect people privacy, as I am doing with jbg. I will never release his information, but you have asked me to release some other person nickname, which might be linked to his real name, so I have done an example to make you understand why I wouldn't do it, otherwise I would have revealed jbg details already.

Remember that debunking a potential scammer is not an easy task, as you can see, and it requires a lot of time. All of this for 0 reward. I am still asking myself why I am doing this, and I think I have an exaggerated sense of justice, which I should start think about how to settle down

Again, how jbg handles this and the blame you're placing on jbg presumes the fact that you somehow feel that you are entitled to have jbg answer you.  I think that you think an awful lot of your "research" to think that this is somehow sinking a boat, but it's your research and you can place that amount of value on it if you like.  I'm not so sure it's that valuable at this point, where initially I was convinced there was some merit.
  
You also asked jbg to make 1.4 public and he has not been present due to the loss of an individual that was "close" to him according to a recent announcement in discord.  He only just came back to a few days ago and he's responded to your concern today.
  
I do not know of any promises that he made to you.  I have not see them.  Can you please show me screen shots of those as well?  But if he did not promise this then this presumes that he "owes" this to you as a response as well.  I'm not sure who you are, but as this conversation goes on I'm seeing more and more entitlement.  You're "asking for simple facts" but jbg doesn't owe you anything.  IF he was aware of your existence and DID promise this to you, which I will need to see then you are completely justified and do deserve a response to that.

Okay, I understand your source not wanting to use a name that may make them vulnerable and I respect you for not doing that.  Unless that person can provide evidence then that's not really something that should be pursued as it's an unjust smear.  Initially I commended your work in trying to expose a potential scammer.  It's an honorable and reward-less task, but like I said it's moving past that at this point and is getting a bit facetious and personal.  There's really no reason to NOT continue being objective and succinct without the unnecessary jabs.  They aren't lending any credit to you.

[trainasauruswrecks]

I don't give a shit.  
If you are comfortable blowing someone's spot based on the traces they've left on the web, that's up to you.  It's up to the individual to operate in a manner that allows for them to be private.  If he's left footprints and if you feel comfortable releasing his real name... I don't care.   But I don't see how that is of benefit as we can at least confront jbg by his screen-name and we are not afforded that same benefit of confrontation with your... I dunno... informant.
But I thought your original post was unbiased and informative.  It had a feel of genuinely pointing out concerns.  This most recent post has some passive aggression and presumptions about what makes a "genuine person" in the form of an ultimatum and a lot of very speculative input.  The tone has changed.  

I love to troll, it's a simple pleasure in my life and a horrible indictment of my character.  Your first post was a REALLY good example of how I would present something if I wanted to look distanced and like I was genuinely trying to help (but I was actually baiting someone)... but this most recent post is starting to reek of something more personal.  Like the bait wasn't substantial so you're "upping" your game .  Throwing subtle jabs here trying to goad someone into an emotional reaction... which we both know would result in you "winning" from a troll perspective.  

The other guy (Preshprince)'s post started in that manner.  Making claims without proof and such.  I peeped that game from the get go.  But now you're starting to head in that direction.  
So why do all this?  You said your piece initially, which informed the people.  They can make their decisions from that first post and decide whether JBG is genuine or not yeah?  You're attempting to set the precedent for what is and isn't acceptable now.  You aren't just providing your "findings" you're challenging character.  You're questioning semantics.  You're  hiding sources.  These are also questionable actions.

Edit:  Didn't nail preshprince's screen name.  Edited

I wouldn't say my post started in a troll manner, I went through the code and provided my findings, would you expect me to come across this in a positive tone when I'm convinced the community has been taken for a ride by jbg?

Also similar to gunners response, you've taken your own time to gather information and share it with the community, the response is a full blown shill attack and people trying to discredit you as a person, my mannerisms will vary person by person, if some one is attacking me do not expect a positive response, I'm not a robot..

My ways as a person are pretty simple, I enjoy helping people, I'll give even a stranger time of day if I can give value, but if some one gives me poor attitude they will get nothing but poor attitude back, I treat people the way I expect to be treated and expect the same back from people, start shilling, lying or trying to hurt innocent people and you'll see a different side of me, I have no desire to change this nature either, I find it fair.

A world full of sensitive people isn't a good one either, don't be so critical, blunt and to the point achieves more than burning time on emotions, if I was writing a thread on a mental health forum I would take a different tone, I don't expect emotional sensitivity from traders.

You've also said you get pleasures out of trolling, who are you to question any ones nature? Trolls are bottom dwellers and are good for nothing.

And if this is enough to discredit information and findings in today's world, I give up.

I would.  It was biased and goading and assumes a relatively sterile environment that presumes little or no familiarization as far as the code is concerned.  jbg came in on the middle of a project and was tasked with reviewing all of the code that preceeded his entry into the project.

Now it's true there are some zealots among the community that take any disparaging comment about the coin personally.  I don't understand that but... you know... whatever... People gunna do, I guess.  I don't care how you respond to them.  You being diplomatic is the least of my concerns on a fucking message board like BCT. 
 
I also have little concern for peoples' emotions and am not particularly sensitive myself... irl and online but especially online where verbal context isn't present.  But this is more about statements that you presented as fact but didn't have much anything to back those facts up except what you believe... but you presented those beliefs as "truth."

I do derive pleasure from trolling, but it has little to do with any of this and if it was an attempt to discredit me... I DID say it's a horrible indictment of my character, BUT it does put me in a unique position to spot possible troll tactics like trying to goad people into an online altercations in subtle fashion after appearing to be credible and diplomatic.  I'm not questioning nature.  I don't care about anyones' "nature" online.  I do care about intent.  And I do question intent when someone goes from someone seeming to have authority over a topic to someone taking caddy digs at another person.  Gunner's original post was well laid out and objective.  I'm simply saying that this most recent one takes multiple jabs at jbg personally and it caused me to rethink some of his original post that I commended initially.  I'm not saying there is ulterior motive... but I didn't question whether there WAS ulterior motives before and now I do.

[Ponya]

Do you have bounty program?

[preshpr1nce]

I would.  It was biased and goading and assumes a relatively sterile environment that presumes little or no familiarization as far as the code is concerned.  jbg came in on the middle of a project and was tasked with reviewing all of the code that preceeded his entry into the project.

Now it's true there are some zealots among the community that take any disparaging comment about the coin personally.  I don't understand that but... you know... whatever... People gunna do, I guess.  I don't care how you respond to them.  You being diplomatic is the least of my concerns on a fucking message board like BCT. 
 
I also have little concern for peoples' emotions and am not particularly sensitive myself... irl and online but especially online where verbal context isn't present.  But this is more about statements that you presented as fact but didn't have much anything to back those facts up except what you believe... but you presented those beliefs as "truth."

I do derive pleasure from trolling, but it has little to do with any of this and if it was an attempt to discredit me... I DID say it's a horrible indictment of my character, BUT it does put me in a unique position to spot possible troll tactics like trying to goad people into an online altercations in subtle fashion after appearing to be credible and diplomatic.  I'm not questioning nature.  I don't care about anyones' "nature" online.  I do care about intent.  And I do question intent when someone goes from someone seeming to have authority over a topic to someone taking caddy digs at another person.  Gunner's original post was well laid out and objective.  I'm simply saying that this most recent one takes multiple jabs at jbg personally and it caused me to rethink some of his original post that I commended initially.  I'm not saying there is ulterior motive... but I didn't question whether there WAS ulterior motives before and now I do.

This is your view, you say I've provided no evidence but I've gone through the commits and shown examples where "big improvements" are nothing more than a few lines of code, in some cases less than that, others have reviewed and agreed with me, what more proof do you want? I've given examples rather than pure speculation.

You don't appear to get the point that jbg has been on board for 9 months, in the real world people jump on to projects much larger than this in size and have far far less time to understand the code base enough to bring value, imagine hiring some one who claims 15-20 years of experience and they can't bring value for 9+ months, where do we see value from jbg's work?

This isn't a personal attack on jbg, I don't know the guy and I don't care for XSPEC, the shilling on the forum and the talks about deadlines being missed on top of gunners findings made me go look at a coin I otherwise wouldn't of cared for.. simple as that.

You're obviously the one with bias views here, you're trying to defend it without adding much more than an attack on ones approach.

As for mentioning you're a troll to discredit you, you called yourself a troll, every one will have their own view on this and yes, I'll say it discredits you in my eyes, people with half a brain have better things to do than troll, try being helpful rather than an asshole.

[celtic99]

I would stay far away from this coin, too many shills for this coin. Smells scammy and looks like a pump and dump.

[trainasauruswrecks]

I would.  It was biased and goading and assumes a relatively sterile environment that presumes little or no familiarization as far as the code is concerned.  jbg came in on the middle of a project and was tasked with reviewing all of the code that preceeded his entry into the project.

Now it's true there are some zealots among the community that take any disparaging comment about the coin personally.  I don't understand that but... you know... whatever... People gunna do, I guess.  I don't care how you respond to them.  You being diplomatic is the least of my concerns on a fucking message board like BCT. 
 
I also have little concern for peoples' emotions and am not particularly sensitive myself... irl and online but especially online where verbal context isn't present.  But this is more about statements that you presented as fact but didn't have much anything to back those facts up except what you believe... but you presented those beliefs as "truth."

I do derive pleasure from trolling, but it has little to do with any of this and if it was an attempt to discredit me... I DID say it's a horrible indictment of my character, BUT it does put me in a unique position to spot possible troll tactics like trying to goad people into an online altercations in subtle fashion after appearing to be credible and diplomatic.  I'm not questioning nature.  I don't care about anyones' "nature" online.  I do care about intent.  And I do question intent when someone goes from someone seeming to have authority over a topic to someone taking caddy digs at another person.  Gunner's original post was well laid out and objective.  I'm simply saying that this most recent one takes multiple jabs at jbg personally and it caused me to rethink some of his original post that I commended initially.  I'm not saying there is ulterior motive... but I didn't question whether there WAS ulterior motives before and now I do.

This is your view, you say I've provided no evidence but I've gone through the commits and shown examples where "big improvements" are nothing more than a few lines of code, in some cases less than that, others have reviewed and agreed with me, what more proof do you want? I've given examples rather than pure speculation.

You don't appear to get the point that jbg has been on board for 9 months, in the real world people jump on to projects much larger than this in size and have far far less time to understand the code base enough to bring value, imagine hiring some one who claims 15-20 years of experience and they can't bring value for 9+ months, where do we see value from jbg's work?

This isn't a personal attack on jbg, I don't know the guy and I don't care for XSPEC, the shilling on the forum and the talks about deadlines being missed on top of gunners findings made me go look at a coin I otherwise wouldn't of cared for.. simple as that.

You're obviously the one with bias views here, you're trying to defend it without adding much more than an attack on ones approach.

As for mentioning you're a troll to discredit you, you called yourself a troll, every one will have their own view on this and yes, I'll say it discredits you in my eyes, people with half a brain have better things to do than troll, try being helpful rather than an asshole.

Perhaps I'm mistaken but I believe you said Brycel "does not exist."  Perhaps I'm recalling a different post but I thought that was you.
 
And yes I'm sure devs do arrive on projects much larger in size, but more likely with more developers than one.  It's not like he was folded in.  He was thrust in after the other devs left if my understanding is correct.
I wouldn't call my views "biased" I'm just trying to be objective when reading the posts here and the further they move away from simple fact and start to deviate towards ad-hominem attacks the less credible they become in my eyes.  I'm not even defending the project or jbg.  I'm just seeing red flags in these posts that lead me to question their reason.  And "because I'm a white knight" sounds awesome as a primary objective in these posts I have to remind myself that this is the net and these are chat boxes.  We can say anything about ourselves yeah?  It doesn't really do much in the way of making a point.

As for this

As for mentioning you're a troll to discredit you, you called yourself a troll, every one will have their own view on this and yes, I'll say it discredits you in my eyes, people with half a brain have better things to do than troll, try being helpful rather than an asshole.

I did say I derive pleasure from trolling.  This is not a solitary defining characteristic of my being nor is it the only thing I derive pleasure from.  I do enjoy helping people as well... but again, we can say whatever we want and take it all with a grain of salt.  It seems to me that you are relying on what one may consider an "easy out" in terms of trying to make me not seem valid in questioning the intent of these posts.  But I was very open about being trollish and how it was applicable to the situation and why these posts give me reserve.  I feel like I'm being very neutral and non-incendiary when I point out these discrepancies that have lent ME some doubt as to pure motivations in these posts.  That's all.

[Ponya]

What about bounty?

[gunner833]

Again, how jbg handles this and the blame you're placing on jbg presumes the fact that you somehow feel that you are entitled to have jbg answer you.  I think that you think an awful lot of your "research" to think that this is somehow sinking a boat, but it's your research and you can place that amount of value on it if you like.  I'm not so sure it's that valuable at this point, where initially I was convinced there was some merit.
  
You also asked jbg to make 1.4 public and he has not been present due to the loss of an individual that was "close" to him according to a recent announcement in discord.  He only just came back to a few days ago and he's responded to your concern today.
  
I do not know of any promises that he made to you.  I have not see them.  Can you please show me screen shots of those as well?  But if he did not promise this then this presumes that he "owes" this to you as a response as well.  I'm not sure who you are, but as this conversation goes on I'm seeing more and more entitlement.  You're "asking for simple facts" but jbg doesn't owe you anything.  IF he was aware of your existence and DID promise this to you, which I will need to see then you are completely justified and do deserve a response to that.

Okay, I understand your source not wanting to use a name that may make them vulnerable and I respect you for not doing that.  Unless that person can provide evidence then that's not really something that should be pursued as it's an unjust smear.  Initially I commended your work in trying to expose a potential scammer.  It's an honorable and reward-less task, but like I said it's moving past that at this point and is getting a bit facetious and personal.  There's really no reason to NOT continue being objective and succinct without the unnecessary jabs.  They aren't lending any credit to you.

The reasons why I am asking him to put 1.4 code public are simple:
- it's a very simple action (2 seconds) who would prove what he says he's doing
- he promised it

Again, as his own set up and missed deadlines, he continuously promises things and then does not fulfill them.

Here's the screenshot

This message is from end of January. We are the 9th of March, and it still hasn't happened. And now there is a new excuse why this hasn't happened, he says he has mixed up the code, after more than a month of his promise to put it publicly online the week after.

The truth is simple in my opinion: at that point in time he has done 0 work for 1.4, but he could say anything he wanted because his community just believes him without asking for proofs. And it took advantage for this continuously:
- his experience (proved)
- him working full time (obvious if you are a software developer and check the commit history)
- Bryce and his work (where is Bryce? where are his 6 months worth of development?)
- him saying he does not hold many coins

After a month and a half now, he hasn't done a simple thing that would have cleared up all of this.

And now I found out that he has an address connected with the donation address which has 233k coins received and it's connected with an address with 1M coins received, when he always said that he does not own much coins.

[trainasauruswrecks]

Again, how jbg handles this and the blame you're placing on jbg presumes the fact that you somehow feel that you are entitled to have jbg answer you.  I think that you think an awful lot of your "research" to think that this is somehow sinking a boat, but it's your research and you can place that amount of value on it if you like.  I'm not so sure it's that valuable at this point, where initially I was convinced there was some merit.
  
You also asked jbg to make 1.4 public and he has not been present due to the loss of an individual that was "close" to him according to a recent announcement in discord.  He only just came back to a few days ago and he's responded to your concern today.
  
I do not know of any promises that he made to you.  I have not see them.  Can you please show me screen shots of those as well?  But if he did not promise this then this presumes that he "owes" this to you as a response as well.  I'm not sure who you are, but as this conversation goes on I'm seeing more and more entitlement.  You're "asking for simple facts" but jbg doesn't owe you anything.  IF he was aware of your existence and DID promise this to you, which I will need to see then you are completely justified and do deserve a response to that.

Okay, I understand your source not wanting to use a name that may make them vulnerable and I respect you for not doing that.  Unless that person can provide evidence then that's not really something that should be pursued as it's an unjust smear.  Initially I commended your work in trying to expose a potential scammer.  It's an honorable and reward-less task, but like I said it's moving past that at this point and is getting a bit facetious and personal.  There's really no reason to NOT continue being objective and succinct without the unnecessary jabs.  They aren't lending any credit to you.

The reasons why I am asking him to put 1.4 code public are simple:
- it's a very simple action (2 seconds) who would prove what he says he's doing
- he promised it

Again, as his own set up and missed deadlines, he continuously promises things and then does not fulfill them.

Here's the screenshot

This message is from end of January. We are the 9th of March, and it still hasn't happened. And now there is a new excuse why this hasn't happened, he says he has mixed up the code, after more than a month of his promise to put it publicly online the week after.

The truth is simple in my opinion: at that point in time he has done 0 work for 1.4, but he could say anything he wanted because his community just believes him without asking for proofs. And it took advantage for this continuously:
- his experience (proved)
- him working full time (obvious if you are a software developer and check the commit history)
- Bryce and his work (where is Bryce? where are his 6 months worth of development?)
- him saying he does not hold many coins

After a month and a half now, he hasn't done a simple thing that would have cleared up all of this.

And now I found out that he has an address connected with the donation address which has 233k coins received and it's connected with an address holding 1M coins, when he always said that he does not own much coins.

I understand the reasons that you're asking for 1.4.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with asking.  They are good reasons to ask IMO.
But you're mistaking "promises" for "projected times of completion" and then you're not really "asking"  you're "demanding" because there is an expectation that you will receive an answer to your requests.  I cannot stress enough that these things aren't owed to you.  You made good points simply by posing the questions.  But you're evading the fact that this has become personal.   Because you've moved away from simple inquisition to personally challenging jbg's character I question that validity of your research.  You've stepped beyond "informing the community" into a realm that self prescribes importance beyond that of a concerned member of the crypto community.

jbg has shown repeatedly that he is not capable of setting realistic deadlines.  In this case an unexpected life event resulted in the delay.  Since he is the only coder... if he stops working the entire project is delayed.  Doubling or tripling his completion time (which is the common tactic used for projects) would have alleviated this problem all together and hopefully he'll learn from that mistake this time.  Piecing together a time-line of why he is late involves delving into his personal life which I think we both agree SHOULDN'T be on display.     But also jbg hasn't released commits from the beginning.  He's always released the entire package when he was finished with it

I don't understand what Brycel has to do with jbg.  If you have a problem with Brycel's work (which is the cryptographic portion of the code I believe) that is something you should take up with Brycel who was hired personally by Mandica and is not active in the community.  It's okay to be upset about that, or question that, but I don't think that is okay to hold over jbg.

I also don't understand what the problem is with an exchange holding that many coins nor do I see how an exchange address being tied to a wallet with 1M coins is relevant.  It seems normal to me that these things would be connected but this is a highly speculative correlation you are trying to make here IMO.

So if we remove the things that are speculative (addresses to exchanges being linked to wallets) and the things not expressly related to jbg (Brycels work) and the things that we aren't due since  it was Manidca that brought him on AND it delves into his personal life (proof of experience) THen we are left with one thing.

You want to see 1.4 right now even though he says it's not finished?

[gunner833]

I understand the reasons that you're asking for 1.4.  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with asking.  They are good reasons to ask IMO.
But you're mistaking "promises" for "projected times of completion" and then you're not really "asking"  you're "demanding" because there is an expectation that you will receive an answer to your requests.  I cannot stress enough that these things aren't owed to you.  You made good points simply by posing the questions.  But you're evading the fact that this has become personal.   Because you've moved away from simple inquisition to personally challenging jbg's character I question that validity of your research.  You've stepped beyond "informing the community" into a realm that self prescribes importance beyond that of a concerned member of the crypto community.

Yes, because, as I already explained to you, now after more than a month my doubts are becoming certainty, and I will not go easy with a potential scammer. Again I cannot force anyone to answer me, but I am free to keep doing the questions as much as I like. Again, if you think I am not genuine and don't agree with my methods: I don't care. I am trying to debunk a potential scammer and it's not an easy task and I'll do it the way I think is right. I think you don't understand how difficult this thing is. jbg is reading all my moves online, I am open and public. And he's hiding everything and answers when he wants, can just say random words and everyone in the community believes them. I need to back up every single thing with facts.

An example:
- mid Feb says he's going to finish 1.4 in time
- he disappears for 10 days
- comes back early March and says he need 24h/48h to assess
- after more than 48h, he says release it's not imminent
- yesterday he makes an announcement and at the end says there will be an announcement for 1.4. An announcement of an announcement.

No one questioned him.

Would you believe me if I didn't keep the screenshots, which luckily I took a month ago? Of course you wouldn't.

jbg has shown repeatedly that he is not capable of setting realistic deadlines.  In this case an unexpected life event resulted in the delay.  Since he is the only coder... if he stops working the entire project is delayed.  Doubling or tripling his completion time (which is the common tactic used for projects) would have alleviated this problem all together and hopefully he'll learn from that mistake this time.  Piecing together a time-line of why he is late involves delving into his personal life which I think we both agree SHOULDN'T be on display.     But also jbg hasn't released commits from the beginning.  He's always released the entire package when he was finished with it

You can see it as he's a bad project manager, or that he's lying to people, so a potential scammer. I am more in favor of the latter.
The fact he has released the entire package when he has finished is just not true. It's something you heard around. The github history shows he worked incrementally the only time he worked, that is December / January. In all other months (Jun-Dec, Feb-Mar, 7 months!) there is not tangible work, a part of a week or so in September.

I don't understand what Brycel has to do with jbg.  If you have a problem with Brycel's work (which is the cryptographic portion of the code I believe) that is something you should take up with Brycel who was hired personally by Mandica and is not active in the community.  It's okay to be upset about that, or question that, but I don't think that is okay to hold over jbg.

My point is that jbg made Bryce(l) up. There is no Bryce(l) which I can contact. The only proof for this is to see his 6 months worth of software development, anything else is pointless discussion. Anyone genuine would try to shed some light, jbg is not.

I also don't understand what the problem is with an exchange holding that many coins nor do I see how an exchange address being tied to a wallet with 1M coins is relevant.  It seems normal to me that these things would be connected but this is a highly speculative correlation you are trying to make here IMO.

A scammer would have many coins, would keep saying BS to people, and then would dump their coins. Big addresses are moving now and there are whales dumping already. Make your self some questions.

You want to see 1.4 right now even though he says it's not finished?

Of course. He has done so already during December/January. Just look at the commits in github. This will prove also again that he's not working full time as he says. Ask your self why he hasn't done an action which takes 2 seconds after a month and a half after promising it.

[preshpr1nce]

Can't fault what gunner is saying here.
The word promise may be strong, but let's look at it like this,

As a project that holds investors, if you say something is coming on a date, it is an expectation, asking the question is not a demand, saying he's failed to meet his own words is not a demand, outside of crypto if you were invested in a project and the developer told you something is coming on a date, you would expect this to be true, if he fails you'll want to see proof or reason as to why he has failed.

So in this scenario, he has made claims about the the release of 1.4, he's failed to meet these claims so now gunner is asking him to put up the work done to prove work is actually being done.

To give an example, if I invested in a developer who was building a block of units, he said the foundation would be set by a given date and this failed to happen due to say an issue with a builder, the investor would ask for evidence of this, and also ask for evidence of what's being done to resolve.

Without any evidence the investor would typically pull out of threaten to do so first.

How is this any different? people are investing in to this coin and he's not doing his part as the developer.

The proof is there in the screenshot, and we can see how people react to false deadlines just by looking at the price of XSPEC.

Aside from his communications with gunner, he's also told the entire community that it would be here in Feb.

Can I just give you some advice also, you care about this coin, you dislike people seeing this thread, if you're going to keep bumping it up you have to do better than this, all you're doing is giving it more visibility while being constantly beat in your comments, you are hurting the 1 thing you're trying to save

Good work gunner, keep it up mate

[trainasauruswrecks]

Can't fault what gunner is saying here.
The word promise may be strong, but let's look at it like this,

As a project that holds investors, if you say something is coming on a date, it is an expectation, asking the question is not a demand, saying he's failed to meet his own words is not a demand, outside of crypto if you were invested in a project and the developer told you something is coming on a date, you would expect this to be true, if he fails you'll want to see proof or reason as to why he has failed.

So in this scenario, he has made claims about the the release of 1.4, he's failed to meet these claims so now gunner is asking him to put up the work done to prove work is actually being done.

To give an example, if I invested in a developer who was building a block of units, he said the foundation would be set by a given date and this failed to happen due to say an issue with a builder, the investor would ask for evidence of this, and also ask for evidence of what's being done to resolve.

Without any evidence the investor would typically pull out of threaten to do so first.

How is this any different? people are investing in to this coin and he's not doing his part as the developer.

The proof is there in the screenshot, and we can see how people react to false deadlines just by looking at the price of XSPEC.

Aside from his communications with gunner, he's also told the entire community that it would be here in Feb.

Can I just give you some advice also, you care about this coin, you dislike people seeing this thread, if you're going to keep bumping it up you have to do better than this, all you're doing is giving it more visibility while being constantly beat in your comments, you are hurting the 1 thing you're trying to save

Good work gunner, keep it up mate

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset.  This is not an issue of "care."  This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top.  My inquieries are not something to "beat."  I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner.  Questions are not really something to discredit.  You either answer them or don't.  I'm not making any claims.  As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information.  jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product. 

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing.  That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me.  I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact.  Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
 
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg"  Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those.  He is making an assertion by saying that.  This is a belief.  Not a fact.  Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him.  This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary.  Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy?  Sure.  But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him. 
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam.  That's a fair statement.  And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation.  I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions  personal  and made backless statements presented as truth.

[gunner833]

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset.  This is not an issue of "care."  This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top.  My inquieries are not something to "beat."  I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner.  Questions are not really something to discredit.  You either answer them or don't.  I'm not making any claims.  As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information.  jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product. 

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing.  That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me.  I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact.  Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
 
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg"  Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those.  He is making an assertion by saying that.  This is a belief.  Not a fact.  Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him.  This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary.  Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy?  Sure.  But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him. 
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam.  That's a fair statement.  And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation.  I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions  personal  and made backless statements presented as truth.

I would probably do what you say for someone who is not a proven liar. jbg has been proved to lie about his experience, my question is now how many other things has he lied on?

So I checked all the claims he made which are in my opinion doubtful.

The claims are:
- he worked as software developer
- not only that, but he's also an experienced software developer
- he's working full time on XSPEC
- he's working with another +20 years experience developer
- the other developer has been working for 6 months
- he does not owns much coins
- he's working on 1.4
- he's releasing 1.4 with all the features he said he's going to include
- he's releasing 1.4 at the time he said
- he's uploading the code publicly on github
- the work he has done is enough to justify 9 months of development
- he's not rewarded by XSPEC

I probably forgot some, anyway some of these are difficult to prove if jbg does not help, and he decided not to help for long, now he comes to answers what he wants and then disappears again. You can read my previous posts to find clues of why I think most of these are false, and some of them are already proven to be false.

That's why an investment in XSPEC is all based on jbg trust, and you are perfectly aware of this. And that's also why I am challenging what he says.

If I only have to base my opinion on facts, which do not comprehend jbg claims, this is a 100% scam because:
- he is a proven liar
- no one is working on the codebase. Out of 9 months, there are only 2 months of activity of 1 developer.

This is a much simpler discussion, but since there are still many people listening to him, it's far more interesting to check what a proven liar is claiming and then people around him believing without a single question.

[trainasauruswrecks]

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset.  This is not an issue of "care."  This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top.  My inquieries are not something to "beat."  I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner.  Questions are not really something to discredit.  You either answer them or don't.  I'm not making any claims.  As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information.  jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product. 

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing.  That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me.  I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact.  Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
 
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg"  Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those.  He is making an assertion by saying that.  This is a belief.  Not a fact.  Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him.  This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary.  Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy?  Sure.  But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him. 
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam.  That's a fair statement.  And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation.  I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions  personal  and made backless statements presented as truth.

I would probably do what you say for someone who is not a proven liar. jbg has been proved to lie about his experience, my question is now how many other things has he lied on?

So I checked all the claims he made which are in my opinion doubtful.

The claims are:
- he worked as software developer
- not only that, but he's also an experienced software developer
- he's working full time on XSPEC
- he's working with another +20 years experience developer
- the other developer has been working for 6 months
- he does not owns much coins
- he's working on 1.4
- he's releasing 1.4 with all the features he said he's going to include
- he's releasing 1.4 at the time he said
- he's uploading the code publicly on github
- the work he has done is enough to justify 9 months of development
- he's not rewarded by XSPEC

I probably forgot some, anyway some of these are difficult to prove if jbg does not help, and he decided not to help for long, now he comes to answers what he wants and then disappears again. You can read my previous posts to find clues of why I think most of these are false, and some of them are already proven to be false.

That's why an investment in XSPEC is all based on jbg trust, and you are perfectly aware of this. And that's also why I am challenging what he says.

If I only have to base my opinion on facts, which do not comprehend jbg claims, this is a 100% scam because:
- he is a proven liar
- no one is working on the codebase. Out of 9 months, there are only 2 months of activity of 1 developer.

This is a much simpler discussion, but since there are still many people listening to him, it's far more interesting to check what a proven liar is claiming and then people around him believing without a single question.

He did admit that he lied, yes.  And I don't know the difference between someone has coded for 15 years and someone who has coded for 20.  20 certainly sounds better but in terms of what a 20 year would be capable of in comparison I'm not sure. 
I think all of those statements that you posted would be lovely to know.  Even with help from jbg though I don't know that it will prove anything.  once a liar in the eyes of people, always a liar right?  The only way any of this could possibly come to a head is that he show work on 1.4 and then 2.0 after that.    The other stuff would require him to expose himself or would be questionable as he can say it... but not really prove it.
I agree.  This does require an enormous amount of trust.  And I think it's fine to challenge what he says.  Do that.  By all means challenge what he says but understand that there really isn't an answer that he can give that can be trusted, by you, or that wouldn't compromise him. 
He's slow as shit.
It's frustrating that he is operating as every available position within spectrecoin because he's the only "recognized" individual associated with it.  From what I can tell... he just wants to code. 
I think it's wise to challenge what he says... but not by generalizing his character on a solitary action.  Not with baseless FUD.   Like I said before... I Troll.  I'm not ONLY a Troll.   He's lied... but that doesn't necessarily make him ONLY a liar.  At least he fesses up.  Habitual liars usually stack lies upon lies and he came clean off the bat. 
Also, would making smaller commits over a period of time be better?  I'm not sure how that works.  Is it just to show work or so code can be reviewed as its completed?

[preshpr1nce]

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset.  This is not an issue of "care."  This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top.  My inquieries are not something to "beat."  I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner.  Questions are not really something to discredit.  You either answer them or don't.  I'm not making any claims.  As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information.  jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product. 

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing.  That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me.  I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact.  Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
 
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg"  Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those.  He is making an assertion by saying that.  This is a belief.  Not a fact.  Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him.  This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary.  Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy?  Sure.  But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him. 
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam.  That's a fair statement.  And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation.  I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions  personal  and made backless statements presented as truth.

Still no good argument here, all I see is some guy who thinks he is good at putting a psychological spin on everything, you're pretty poor at it too, but A+ for confidence.
You have XSPEC in your signature, you're telling me you don't have an investment in this coin?

Also you like throwing around the word discredit, there's nothing to discredit here, you provide no good argument.
Also as for Brycel, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Trying to say prove it to something which the counter itself hasn't been proven is pointless.
Shall we discuss if unicorns exist while we're at it? I would like for you to prove to me that they don't

[gunner833]

He did admit that he lied, yes.  And I don't know the difference between someone has coded for 15 years and someone who has coded for 20.  20 certainly sounds better but in terms of what a 20 year would be capable of in comparison I'm not sure.

Remember that also 15 years is a claim. I have done some more research and I am really doubtful he has 15 years of commercial development experience. You can find my research in my previous posts.

I think all of those statements that you posted would be lovely to know.  Even with help from jbg though I don't know that it will prove anything.  once a liar in the eyes of people, always a liar right?  The only way any of this could possibly come to a head is that he show work on 1.4 and then 2.0 after that.    The other stuff would require him to expose himself or would be questionable as he can say it... but not really prove it.

Totally agree, and that's why today, 9th of March, with 1.4 code still hidden, after claimed it would have been made public at the end of January, there is a very big red alert for me.

I agree.  This does require an enormous amount of trust.  And I think it's fine to challenge what he says.  Do that.  By all means challenge what he says but understand that there really isn't an answer that he can give that can be trusted, by you, or that wouldn't compromise him.  
He's slow as shit.
It's frustrating that he is operating as every available position within spectrecoin because he's the only "recognized" individual associated with it.  From what I can tell... he just wants to code.  
I think it's wise to challenge what he says... but not by generalizing his character on a solitary action.  Not with baseless FUD.   Like I said before... I Troll.  I'm not ONLY a Troll.   He's lied... but that doesn't necessarily make him ONLY a liar.  At least he fesses up.  Habitual liars usually stack lies upon lies and he came clean off the bat.

He fessed up because I brought strong proofs, do you think he would have done it otherwise?

Also, would making smaller commits over a period of time be better?  I'm not sure how that works.  Is it just to show work or so code can be reviewed as its completed?

It should just be public, so you can actually check that work has been done. You can commit whenever you like to commit, there are guidances, but you can do whatever you want. As long as we can check the commits, and the work done in the commits. We can't check the commits for 1.4, jbg said they would have been made public end of January, now we are in March and he comes up with an excuse to still keep them private. It smells so dodgy man.

[trainasauruswrecks]

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset.  This is not an issue of "care."  This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top.  My inquieries are not something to "beat."  I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner.  Questions are not really something to discredit.  You either answer them or don't.  I'm not making any claims.  As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information.  jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product. 

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing.  That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me.  I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact.  Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.
 
BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg"  Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those.  He is making an assertion by saying that.  This is a belief.  Not a fact.  Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him.  This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary.  Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy?  Sure.  But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him. 
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam.  That's a fair statement.  And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation.  I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions  personal  and made backless statements presented as truth.

Still no good argument here, all I see is some guy who thinks he is good at putting a psychological spin on everything, you're pretty poor at it too, but A+ for confidence.
You have XSPEC in your signature, you're telling me you don't have an investment in this coin?

Also you like throwing around the word discredit, there's nothing to discredit here, you provide no good argument.
Also as for Brycel, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Trying to say prove it to something which the counter itself hasn't been proven is pointless.
Shall we discuss if unicorns exist while we're at it? I would like for you to prove to me that they don't

Again, I'm not sure why you are attacking me.  I'm not arguing.  I'm questioning.  Sorry I didn't like you're post if that's what you are being aggressive about. 
I'm not saying I don't have some money in xspec. I do.  Money and time.  I like the community. But I don't have any emotion involved in it as a coin.  It's just data.  I don't have a feeling one way or the other and I didn't invest what I couldn't afford to lose. 
I like what Gunner is doing.  I think it's important to hold people accountable. 
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion
I'm not making assertions here and you're not contributing anything to my inquiries.   
If it can't be proven it shouldn't be asserted.  I think Gunner understands that.
Maybe you've had to many people attack you directly because of your post.  I'd apologize for the zealots, but that's their job.  I don't encourage that.  As a result I think that you think my posts are something they aren't and if I wanted to deal with people like you I'd just hop over to 4chan where at least they are witty.  So as a courtesy, I'm informing you that I'm going to just communicate with Gunner from this point forth.  I hope your day gets better.


@Gunner... yes that's true 15 years is a claim.  Mandica is the only person who has met jbg.  I wonder how they feel about these claims and jbg's abilities since it was the project lead that brought them on according to them.

If the 1.4 code hadn't had the delay.  Would this issue be resolved or would it be resolved with the release of 1.4?  Because it's still late.  Would that amount of delay still render this situations a "scam?"

I have no way of knowing if he would have fessed up as I've never met the individual.  I suppose he could have denied that the jbg you presented to him was him.  I'm surprised he didn't honestly. 

So you think that 1.4 is NOT going to come out?  That's what you're saying?

[gunner833]

@Gunner... yes that's true 15 years is a claim.  Mandica is the only person who has met jbg.  I wonder how they feel about these claims and jbg's abilities since it was the project lead that brought them on according to them.

Mandica has replied to the other thread, but not this one. And she was mainly trying to discredit preshpr1nce, not much responding to questions. But again we would need to trust Mandica's claims, a person who probably has a lot of coins (as jbg stated too) and so interests on one side of the truth.

If the 1.4 code hadn't had the delay.  Would this issue be resolved or would it be resolved with the release of 1.4?  Because it's still late.  Would that amount of delay still render this situations a "scam?"

I have no way of knowing if he would have fessed up as I've never met the individual.  I suppose he could have denied that the jbg you presented to him was him.  I'm surprised he didn't honestly.  

So you think that 1.4 is NOT going to come out?  That's what you're saying?

I am waiting to see the 1.4 code to decide, I don't care much about the release, although is worrying that is late.
I would like to see the amount of work done in 1.4, to prove 7 months of development which is missing from github (Jun-Dec, Feb-Mar), and so to prove jbg claim that he's working full time.

If that happens, I am very happy to shut the fuck up and, maybe, also buy some XSPECs.