[300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com

[OgNasty]

Unlike you, my sig always tell the truth ...

Does it?  That's debatable.

"Majority developer of the ckpool code"

Seems to me like even your signature is a slap in the face to the man who carried you where you are today.

EDIT #2 - I have removed the "no fee" claim from the signature advertising campaign and messaged all participants that they should immediately remove this claim as well while we await updates to be made to the website.

No updates to the web site will make the claim true.

That's why I'm pushing to have the claim removed and have already done so from the campaign.  Will you still be angry if/when the claim is removed from the website and thread?  Is there some ulterior motive?  I see you insulting me, who is trying to help you bring positive change to this pool and their advertising (which I've already done my part and am pressuring the pool to do theirs both directly and through intermediaries).  I get that you're an asshole with your own predetermined and paranoid judgements, but do you want my help to resolve this or not? 

Maybe if I put it in big bold red letters you'll understand...

WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU HAPPY?  WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?
(Bonus points if you can articulate it without insulting someone or claiming you have superior intellect.)

[kano]

Unlike you, my sig always tell the truth ...

Does it?  That's debatable.

"Majority developer of the ckpool code"

...

Not debatable, check the git, rather than having a biased and false opinion.

...
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

I simply trashed you at the start for being involved in a campaign that was a lie and easy to check.

... and even the subject of your posts states the lie that was here from early February before the campaign existed Edit: this is incorrect

Re: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.  

The campaign shouldn't have started saying it was a no fee pool, but you were happy to receive payment and go ahead with it.
The rest of your posts were making up excuses for that, and trying (and failing) to trash me, including false accusations about me
Which, in each case, I've replied.

There is nothing false I've stated in my posts.
You, on the other hand, have a number of false statements and accusations.

[rifleman74]

Now that we've got that straight. When will the OP correct the subject heading?

TICK
TOCK

TICK
TOCK

[kano]

Yet again, making various false accusations about me, and ignoring facts

Try reading the VERY FIRST reply anyone made to SigmaPool ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg49697798#msg49697798

... and their reply claiming a fee isn't a fee

...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee - it is the only way to make a PPS method not going broke without touching miner’s earnings. We do believe that giving miners 12.5 BTC per block is more fair than giving them 1% and taking 3% away.

Edit: P.S. the pool web page (that you are advertising in your sig) still says "No fees" (as at the time of this edit)

[rifleman74]

From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

Yes, that satisfies it from my point of view.

[rifleman74]

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

Doubtful, quite a few of us made the "stink" before kano got involved.

[Artemis3]

0% FEE was removed from the title thread. Is it still acceptable to advertise 100% PPS? Given the numbers provided by Stryfe, what would be the actual estimated fee % for this pool?

[OgNasty]

Now that we've got that straight.   When will the OP correct the subject heading?

 From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

Yes, that satisfies it from my point of view.  

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

Doubtful, quite a few of us made the "stink" before kano got involved.  

Nobody mentioned anything in my signature campaign thread.  This thread didn't exist when I started the signature campaign and I don't come into the pools section very often so I was under the impression they did not have a thread here on bitcointalk as my search showed when I started the campaign.  If someone hadn't pointed this thread out to me, I wouldn't have even known there was an issue.  When I discovered this thread I immediately started working with the pool to resolve any issues, and we are making some progress.  The signature campaign stating no fees issue I'm now considering resolved, as is this thread listing no fees in the subject line.  I am now working to see they address the information on their website. 

If anyone believes this issue would be resolved faster without my help, or that removing the signature campaign would make the issues magically disappear, I'm open to refunding their BTC and walking away.  Just convince me that is the right thing to do for the community's best interests.

[kano]

My post above is actually quite a clear summary of what has gone on.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg50050434#msg50050434

I wonder why you have the following delusion:

...
OK, my teeth pulling is starting to lead to some actual answers in a roundabout way from you.  You were complaining about their 0 fee claim in this thread's subject in your link, which was removed from the subject line.  You are saying that it is still showing on their website, so let me try asking you a more specific question.  Maybe I'll get lucky and get a yes or a no out of you.

IF THEY REMOVE THE "No fees" FROM THEIR WEBSITE PAGE, WILL THAT MAKE YOU HAPPY?

If you've got other issues, make them known.  They aren't going to hire a team of employees to address kano's ongoing complaints and I won't be here to help form a semblance of thought from your ramblings forever.  Now is the time for me to help you become happy.  

Heh more attempts at trashing me
I'm not looking to you to do anything - as I said previously you seem to want to make various false accusations about me, make up trash about me, and ignore facts
So I keep replying to that trash and false accusations you make about me.

You are no 'gallant knight in shining armour here trying to help solve a problem'
You are an easy to buy "Legendary" account who'll get involved in a sig campaign and not do the easy check it's not lying.

Thank you.  If I got a simple answer like that from kano in the beginning, this would likely be sorted by now.

You had the information at the beginning - it's there since 11-Feb
You even went and read the thread to find posts by Phil to again try and trash me
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg50034445#msg50034445

I've no idea why you think I expect anything of you at all.
I've also no idea why anyone else would - I made that clear at the start:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5108666.msg49993324#msg49993324

P.S. the later modify time on that post is a mod (as it clearly says)

Your sig campaign (first post on 31-Jan) points to their web site that (still now) says "No Fees"
So there's no hiding and pretending you didn't know it said that.

[mikeywith]

Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topic and should be deleted IMO.

[kano]

Guys you turning the direction of discussion to personal b.s , a concern has been raised, and it's being handled. almost half of these comments are off-topics and should be deleted IMO.

Well considering how many of his posts include exactly that, trashing me, and thus me making justified replies to them, you'd probably have to delete most of the thread starting with and including his first reply to me, since my reply to his first post is on topic.

As for Og, I trashed his first post since at the time he made the post it was STILL blatantly obvious it was a lie, and even clear in his post subject.
His campaign thread starts with a copy of the SigmaPool info so might even have said the same thing or similar (before being edited recently) as this thread said at the start.

I stated at the start of the thread that SigmaPool was falsely advertising 'No Fees' and they said

...
P.S. The 1% fee you are talking about is not a fee
...

So I replied to that again, which SigmaPool has ignored - their site still says "No Fee"

Any posts after that should know the pool fee statement is false if they don't understand how pool payouts work.
(and anyone who does understand how pool payouts work will know it's false)

[mikeywith]

unless one of you deleted their comments then this is all i found

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.  I have sent Sigma a message asking him to make this point clear on his site, at the very least with an asterisk next to his 0 fees claim explaining his logic.  Hopefully we see some more transparency here in the coming days/weeks, or I may shut down the signature campaign.  

There's still the issue of running a PPS pool and the REQUIRED balance and fees to reduce the risk of it going broke and the losses for those mining if that happens.
Try to remember back 6 & 5 years ago how that went with MtRed and BitAffNet ... ... ... ... ...

However, "no fees" is a plain and simple lie and you know it.
A 100% PPS pool payout is keeping transaction fees.
Charging a payout fee for all payouts is also a fee.

There is no stretch, you clearly are only interested in being paid for a campaign.
So clearly you can be easily bought ...

a concern has been raised, he as a campaign manager replied and said he did contact sigma and asked them to solve that issue, what you did later was personally attacking him for "being easily bought".

it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry !  i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.

now i hope we all can move on from here and stay on topic.

[kano]

...
it was you who shifted the whole direction of this discussion to pure bullshit that benefits nobody, sorry !  i have nothing against you kano, but it's clear as day that it was you who started this drama.
...

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?
He ran a pool. Need I say more?

[mikeywith]

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?

please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !

i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.  

Need I say more?

you made your points a few times in the same thread. so the answer is probably NO , you don't.

[kano]

Not sure if you are implying you don't understand that saying 100% PPS does NOT mean No Fee?

please quote a single word of me saying anything about whatever you mentioned in the above comment !

i stated that you started the personal drama, you know you did, i don't understand why are you going about me understanding 100% pps or not.  

...

The thread already clearly stated from the first day that the "No Fee" was false.

Someone turns up who has accepted payment to repeat that false statement also implying that they didn't know this.
Yet their first post even clearly states the lie in the Subject.

"Re: [300 PH][BTC PPS 100%][0% FEE][EN/CN/RU] Sigmapool.com"

While I think complaining about users paying the Bitcoin network fee and trying to claim that is somehow the pool lying about charging fees is a bit of a stretch, keeping transaction fees should be noted somewhere if that is what is occurring.
...

There was nothing new about the fact that "No Fee" was false.
So yes indeed I did make (and have already stated that) there is clear issue, at the least, with him making that red bold statement above.
If you consider calling someone out (with an explanation) on accepting payment to lie about something specifically on the topic of a thread, as "personal drama", then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?

The "personal drama" that followed and was off topic was his constant failed attempts to trash me about various other false and unrelated things.
Thus I replied to each, though even then the majority of my replies are clearly on topic.

[mikeywith]

... then I guess any time anyone on the forum points out on topic blatant deception and scams, their posts should be deleted since that's "personal drama"?

i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.

notice that this is the pool's thread not the signature campaign's thread, anything you have to say to the campaign manager shouldn't be here, you guys turned this topic to a complete mess.

i am not siding any of you, i am asking you to be reasonable, this is not the right place to point fingers to one another.

[MoparMiningLLC]

You do realize there is still not a single list of corrections that people want to see this pool make?  Any attempt I make to put one together is met with animosity and some jackass trying to inflate his ego.  From my understanding, people want to see the removal of the "no fees" claim from the website and this thread as well as some sort of statement that they keep transaction fees from blocks and make users pay the network fees for withdrawals.  Is that correct?  If they do those three things, is this issue resolved?  Will we all be happy?  

what you claim to be "my understanding" is exactly what has been stated as necessary action on behalf of sigma so that they are not "lying" or "misleading" about their fees. It has been stated numerous times before you asked and several times after you asked what was needed.

[OgNasty]

i have clearly stated that i will tag the pool account if they do not remove the no fees lie as long as they don't reward the block fees, a few other members called out the same thing you did, the only difference between you and everyone else is that you took this matter personally and started to accuse campaign manager for being " easily bought" and then the whole personal drama started.

I believe if they are keeping transaction fees, it should be mentioned somewhere. Regardless of where people stand on the semantics of their advertising. If that does not become transparent, I will end my involvement with the campaign. I think that is reasonable. The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.

[MoparMiningLLC]

The personal attacks seem to stem from the belief that I should not give them an opportunity to address the community’s concerns before ending my involvement with their signature campaign.

I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.

that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.

plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.

[rifleman74]

I think they stem from you advertising for them before verifying the accuracy of their claims concerning their pool.

that being said, there should be no need for it get the way it did.

plain and simple Sigmapool is lying or not being clear or they are being deceitful - whichever way it wants to be said/spun.

DING!