qwk please be serious.
I was, am, and will be.
You've so far only "spent" a little less than 500 words, so I'll see this post as an extension, even though this is against rule number 1, again.
BTW: this post is another 262 words.
The fact is there in clear black and white.
Not in your post, unfortunately.
Tbh, I wonder why you didn't simply go to the length of preparing the post in a meaningful way in the first place.
In the links you mentioned, I could already "glimpse" what you are hinting at, but why haven't you just fleshed it out?
1. darkcoin (xcoin) was proven a captive instamine. You have seen it in black and white and years later even the dev admitted it and offered an airdrop that could have been worth 2 Billion dollars.
That Darkcoin was an instamine may or may not be true.
I myself have no knowledge of that, for the simple reason of not touching Altcoins with a stick, whenever I can avoid it.
I'm not interested in them, I find most of them useless or worse.
Gostrol was only 1 person to analyse the launch. I was actually on the launch as you can see from the first page of the thread so I know it to be true first hand. The instamine took place it is an accepted FACT.
Then why didn't you elaborate on this in your post?
You just pointed me to gostrol's post (which is basically a collection of links itself), and that was it.
From my perspective, you left me guessing at what precisely you wanted to convey.
What do you expect to happen under these circumstances?
2. Lauda can be seem denying the instamine and claiming he knows it never happened since he was on the launch.
That much is true, as far as I can tell.
What I cannot know at the moment, is the timing of
- Darkcoin instamine becoming known
- Lauda "vouching" for it
What I also especially cannot know is
wether Lauda at the moment of her statement knew of an instamine going on.
If she claimed to know that no instamine happened, while at the same time an instamine had already been established as a fact, she might just have been mistaken.
That would lead me to doubt her judgement on matters of instamines, but not necessarily make her untrustworthy, btw.
Please don't be silly now and deny that this is an observable LIE.
For a lie, you have to know better.
I have no information wether this was true for Lauda at the moment of her post.
The very notion you will not accept the FACT that lauda lied and is therefore untrustworthy means that you are either a confused because you did not read the evidence else you are deliberately trying to pretend to be confused.
No, I'm neither confused nor am I trying to pretend being confused.
And why would I?
I was confused by a lot of your posts and even by many parts of your last post, though.
This is not just a single instance of this claim and his protecting and pushing this scam darkcoin over the years.
I'm still unaware of any protecting or pushing from the side of Lauda.
All I've seen is a (potentially) misleading statement about the status of an Altcoin project I don't care about.
Granted, that
may have been a lie. It
may be true that Lauda is really an evil mastermind of Instamine-Crime and a perpetrator of scams on a global scale.
But the evidence you've provided doesn't lead to that conclusion at all.
Now please revisit the evidence and then come back with a more sensible reply.
No.
You want me to review this case?
You provide the facts in a
meaningful,
legible way I can digest, and I might just do that.
So far, you've failed.
Nobody who is familiar with this denies it even their strongest advocates or even the dev himself who offered the airdrop after we applied pressure to do so.
Again, I'm not familiar with the Altcoin "scene", so please forgive my lack of knowledge regarding these things.
Also you are missing the point in my OP in another area when you are ignoring the reasonable assumptions/conclusions based upon observable events and not just facts because that was related to obtaining merit. Do you see that I claim that post must have merit?
I don't really understand, sorry.
(I'm not fooling you here, this is where my comprehension of the English language sometimes fails me).
Now I am trying to be nice to you but I suspect you are not being genuine in your responses to me.
Rest assured, I'm being genuine.
I also sometimes make my little jokes with you, but don't get me wrong:
if you have a case and are willing and able to substantiate this in a meaningful, legible way, I'm here for you.
This serves only to demonstrate to the objective reader here that you may not be trustworthy.
I'll simply ignore that you even wrote that.
So let's try again.
You are aware that you had more than your fair share of chances, are you?
I'm even willing to give you one more, but please, take your time, re-read before you post.
Look at what you want to post from the perspective of a normally uninformed reader.
If it makes sense from that perspective, post it. If not, re-write!
It seems strange also that you say regarding the alleged extortion and escrow debacles that you have no interest because there are layers of .... bitching, bile, bickering.... this again seems a very weak excuse for not investigating deeply yourself.
I see nothing strange there, but of course, that's something where we might disagree.
I simply don't feel like wading through dozens of pages of those infights on Meta.
I know them, of course, because you really can't overlook them, but I try to stay away.
You are in a position of trust. You should find it your duty to investigate and use all information possible to find the truth qwk.
I'm not interested in the truth, tbh.
I consider the trust system a tool that may serve one purpose:
warn people of certain behaviours.
That may even be false warnings, because "better safe than sorry".
That's what I always stood for, and I have no intention to change that.
People don't like my take on the trust system?
Vote me out! I'm fine with that.
Now also if we are going to start using personal insults like when you say bitching bile and bickering from people "like you"
I don't think that's an insult.
Who creates all those threads about "Lauda being evil", "DTers being evil" on Meta?
It's certainly not me.
When it's suchmoon, it's just to make fun of you.
So who is it?
You. And Tecshare, I think (I'm not even sure and I don't feel like researching).
then you see it is impossible then to complain if I speak to you in this way and say things to you that seem to be a personal attack. Do you say that I bitch, spit bile and bicker?? Please explain what exactly you mean?
Yes. That's what I'm saying.
You bitch, you bicker, you spit bile.
That's an opinion, again.
I'm holding you personally responsible for pages upon pages of posts that do not convey more than just the same allegations, accusations and anecdotes over and over again. Not you alone, mind you, but you specifically more than anyone else I'm aware of.
If you find that hostile of me, well, so be it.
I don't mean it that way.
I want you to stop, which is why I'm still listening to you.
Which is why I still want you to come to me with a compelling argument.
Which is why I'm still giving you an opportunity to show me clearly that e.g. Lauda is a Scammer.
But be aware: my patience isn't endless.
And if you fail to provide the required proof, I will expect you to stop the bickering and bitching.
Because after all is said and done, you'll simply have to accept that when you cannot convince even me (who's still willing to listen to you), there's simply no way for you to convince a lot of other DT1ers.
Come let us not become hostile toward each other again.
Rest assured, I'm not becoming hostile towards you.
But there will be an end to my patience sometime, and after that, I'll simply ignore you.
I am only hoping to assist you to do the correct and honest thing. You will thank me genuinely once you realise that mistake you have been making by allowing someone who is a proven liar to dupe you into including them into a position of trust.
Just one more thing you should know:
Lauda (and I guess that's who we're talking about, after all), never ensnared me with her beautiful cat eyes to dupe me into allowing her into a position of trust.
I check other people's Trust Feedback pages and Trust Lists from time to time, and when I notice that they might be useful to people who have me in their Trust List, I include them. Period.
So, Lauda isn't in my Trust List because I trust her so much (which I do, btw, I traded with her without escrow and went first), but simply because she fits my model of a useful "Truster".
