ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement

[nullius]

I never argued with ibminer’s ~exclusion of me over an admitted past error in judgment on my part (and I may add, one uncharacteristic of me).  That is a matter of personal standards.  An alia scam investigator who hit the case before ibminer nevertheless has me in his inclusions list; ibminer has excluded me since that time; in the circumstance, neither position is facially unreasonable.

I so state upfront, to make it clear that I am not arguing over ibminer’s use of the trust system.  This is a separate matter:  The word which I have hereby underscored is factually false and defamatory, and of a nature that is peculiarly scandalous and damaging to my reputation.

On top of that, because nullius has already shown me in the past he has severely flawed judgement when he promoted and attempted to make a "legend" on this forum out of an underage e-whore trying to long con this forum. His judgement of me wouldn't phase me.

The negative implication of the term “e-whore” is an expression of opinion; however, the the obvious and unarguable (contra)factual implication of the phrase “underage e-whore” is a false allegation that I was both engaged in and promoting online sexual activity with a person below legal age for such activity.  Taken as a whole, the statement conflates the 15-year-old male scammer who controlled or was associated with the “alia” account, with the female who was doing online sex work through the same account.

That is egregiously dishonest on ibminer’s part.  As to fact, these are direct quotations from the pertinent investigation in 2018:

Actually, you are more than questioning theymos’ reliability:  You are directly impugning it.  I and many others rely on this as sterling information: [— screenshot of theymos’ neutral tag GGB-verifying alia —]

My neutral rating was intended only as a statement of fact. alia was verified on /r/GirlsGoneBitcoin....  The person in the verification photos is definitely female, and is extremely unlikely to be 15. Furthermore, alia has had a number of customers for her camgirl stuff on this forum who were apparently mostly satisfied. Therefore, it is most likely that the person behind the alia account was hiring a camgirl to do their camgirl-related work.

ibminer is well aware of these quotes:  He was directly involved in that thread.

As such, ibminer has knowingly falsely accused both me and, by unavoidable implication, theymos of peddling “underage” sex on a forum as to which various entities would relish an excuse to attack for censorship purposes.

This shows severely flawed judgment:  It shows that in the heat of anger, ibminer will toss out a factually false, defamatory, quite dangerous comment which reeks of the Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse, without considering the potential harm to others.  At the very least, it is harmful to my forum reputation.

Wherefore, I demand that ibminer modify his above-quoted post of 2020-02-13 with a clearly marked edit striking out the word “underage”, and stating that that word is retracted as factually incorrect.

When I have stated the foregoing, a failure to affirmatively retract and correct the false statement would evince actual malice.

ibminer is, of course, “entitled to his opinions”, which I really don’t give a damn about either way.

(To be clear, as a crypto-anarchist in cypherspace, I am applying some legal terms of art in the foregoing for the principal purpose of precise analysis in addressing significant reputational issues—including the question of whether ibminer is maliciously dishonest, or “only” extremely careless about the truth when he is angry and in the mood to hurl insults.)
Aside, for the record:  Before the alia scam accusation broke, the only (putative) photo that I ever saw of alia was a faceless, not-quite-topless photo that was posted on imgur, and publicly linked from one of alia’s forum threads.  I never saw alia on video.  I never saw alia nude.  I never saw alia’s crotch depicted at all (clothed or otherwise).  Indeed, I never saw or in any way possessed any visual depictions of alia that could not be legally shown on public television in most any Western jurisdiction (including every jurisdiction with which I am familiar in both Europe and the United States).

In the scam investigation thread, someone dug up a fully-clothed photo including the face of a female who was apparently involved with the male scammer’s old account; however, to my knowledge, it was never proved that that was the same female as did faceless “alia” camshows reported by customers on various threads.

I am a man of words, I was never alia’s customer, and I was in no particular hurry.  To the contrary:  As a most basic test of sincerity, I was waiting to see how long it would take from the time of alia’s “I think I’m in love” green-trust tag for her to send me what she charged others money to see.  She never actually did so.  Thus, my personal communications with alia were strictly textual.  Those communications were predicated on the reasonable belief that I was communicating, and exclusively communicating, with a GGB-verified camgirl.  When I first became aware that the alia account was misrepresented in any way, I immediately deceased all communications with it other than those reasonably calculated to ascertain evidence needed for me to get to the truth of the matter, and cooperate in the scam investigation.  As a further precaution, despite my potential embarrassment with some of them, I deliberately left intact all of my PMs with alia—just in case the forum’s administration were ever to have any suspicions about me in the matter.  (The PMs are still there—*cringe*.)

My thinking:  “If she means it, then sooner rather than later,
she will take the initiative to show off to me
some ‘freebies’ without being asked.”

Protip:  I am not so easy to manipulate, after all.
If you want to fuck with me, have fun—
but do not fuck with me.

Much though I like to have fun, I am a man of principle—and I do not “think with the little head”, as the saying goes.  Moreover, I am aware of the potential dangers to a pseudonymous activist who addresses controversial issues in adversarial settings.  I have spent decades assiduously avoiding anything with even the slightest hint of illegal underage sexual content online, both for reasons of principle and for practical self-protection against potential entrapment.

ibminer’s factually false and defamatory “underage” remark is grossly unjust to me.


The foregoing is a moderately edited edition of text that I wrote on or about 13 February 2020.  I indecisively withheld it, out of respect for ibminer’s considerable work against forum scams; I now see that that is always a mistake, for to protect my reputation, I must tie up this loose end before simply ignoring him.

Local Rules:  ibminer is the subject of this thread, and therefore has a reasonable right of reply.  Others will be moderated at my discretion.  Posts which quote the whole OP will be deleted without remark.

[1714896963]

1714896963

[1714896963]

1714896963

[1714896963]

1714896963

[1714896963]

1714896963

[nullius]

reserved

[hacker1001101001]

Everything is fare in LOVE and WAR !

[nullius]

Wherefore, I demand that ibminer modify his above-quoted post of 2020-02-13

[Animated GIF #1, expressing ridicule.]
[Animated GIF #2, expressing more ridicule.]
[Animated GIF #3, expressing more more ridicule.]
[Animated GIF #4, expressing more more more ridicule.]
[Animated GIF #5, expressing more more more more ridicule.]

I henceforth pronounce this demand to be funnier than Bitcointalk's April Fool's prank. Granted the bar was set very low.

suchmoon, protip:  If you want to continue to claim, contrary to all evidence, that you are “thick-skinned”, then you should probably not get so excited as to use five redundant animated GIFs in a row column.  If one would suffice to make your point, then I think that about three is about the outside limit before you start to look... excitable and emotionally invested.

Now, I neatly laid out why it is unacceptable to fling around those sorts of vile and scandalous false accusations on an Internet forum—especially when it is effectually a smear of the forum’s administrator, on whom, as ibminer damn well knows, I and others rely to prevent underage shenanigans both here and on Reddit.  It is a serious matter.

ibminer used a keyword that essentially invoked the Four Horsemen...

Everyone in “crypto” should also be familiar with the Four Horsemen of the Cryptocalypse.  AFAIK/IIRC (?), the identification originated with The Cyphernomicon by Timothy C. May.

https://web.archive.org/web/20020727001417/http://www.cypherpunks.to/faq/cyphernomicron/chapter8.html#3

8.3.4. "How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?"

• the downsides just listed are often cited as a reason we can't have "anonymity"
• like so many other "computer hacker" items, as a tool for the "Four Horsemen": drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.

See also:  12. Digital Cash and Net Commerce.

R.I.P., T.  C. May (19512018).  If he had lived just a bit longerperhaps he got lucky.

...whereas I trust that if anybody were actually to promote an “underage e-whore” here, theymos would drop the ban-hammer with the force of a thermonuclear weapon.

None of this is a new thought.  When I first saw ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and, in the totality of the circumstance, peculiarly vicious comment, my first thought was, “Fscking Four Horsemen:  ibminer just went half-Danos.”  If not properly retracted, that comment indeed puts ibminer about three rungs in Internet Hell above that whackjob whom you surely did not appreciate:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=992943

Trust summary for Danos

Sent feedback [all false and defamatory]

Vod	2018-03-15	Reference	Proven pedophile and ponzi scheme scammer. Check his untrusted feedback really well before trusting this guy
actmyname	2018-03-15	Reference	This guy is sociopath and pedophile. Known for buying child gay porn over the dark web with bitcoins. Do not trust this guy or share any personal information with him.
nullius	2018-03-15	Reference	This guy is pedophile. Buying child gay porn, mostly under 6 age. This guy is criminal who can steal your underage kid and bring his sexual fantasy's in thru your kids nightmares. You were warned.
suchmoon	2018-03-14	Reference	Known clown who trust abuse random people without any sense or proof based arguments. Based on his untrusted feedback he's a scam artist. Do not deal with this person.

(Why didn’t you merit that particular smear?  What, were you slacking?)

ibminer must indeed properly retract the factually false smear-word “underage” in his post that I cited.  I reiterate my demand.  As I said, I do not care either way about what opinions he expresses:  I only deem considerable the opinions of persons whom I respect, which categorically excludes persons who make such dishonest statements in the first instance.

Your reply, which fixated exclusively on one line of OP that you saw fit to ridicule, is off-topic.  Do you care to address the substance of the issue, or are you just trolling?

Everything is fare in LOVE and WAR !

Is “fare” a subtle pun for how ibminer dishes it out, but can’t take it when his dish is sent back as tasteless and nauseating?

[hacker1001101001]

Everything is fare in LOVE and WAR !

Is “fare” a subtle pun for how ibminer dishes it out, but can’t take it when his dish is sent back as tasteless and nauseating?

I was more of pointing to the Love in this feedback



and you thinking it's fare to react to the ibminer reply towards alia in this way of creating a fking thread in reputation about it.

[suchmoon]

~

Did you actually ask ibminer via polite 1-2 sentence PM to reconsider that post or did you immediately decide to go full cryptohunter? Well, I guess not immediately, it's been six weeks since that post and it doesn't look like you bothered to counter it back then.

I apologize that the 5 GIFs were insufficient to express the ridiculousness of your demand to change something on the intertubes. Something that relates to the virtual reputation of your perfectly anonymous account, which you boast about so often. Something that is technically correct although I can see why you don't like the connotations. Something that could have been easily mitigated by replying to that post with your POV and moving on. But where's the fun in that, let's have some dramatized walls of text.

This thread looks like a setup for one of your "I don't like what you said" red trust ratings. I will be very offended if you give one to ibminer and not to me.

[nullius]

Something that is technically correct although I can see why you don't like the connotations.

In what way is it “technically correct”?

Are you alleging that the camgirl who transacted online sex work on GGB and on this forum was underage?

I think that I can safely assume you are not suggesting that any ordinary reasonable (or even sane) person would read the term “e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer, who obviously did not do any camgirl work.


Insubstantive insults and insinuations aside, some other parts of your post may warrant reply; but first things first.

I need not remark on my opinion of how you think a joke by theymos reasonably calls for outrage, but you laugh at a serious discussion a false allegation that, in substantial effect, this forum permits and facilitates underage sex work.

[Foxpup]

I think that I can safely assume you are not suggesting that any ordinary reasonable (or even sane) person would read the term “e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer, who obviously did not do any camgirl work.

Well, I certainly think the term "e-whore" is broad enough to include scammers whose scam involves (the pretence of) providing sexual services, but I'm neither ordinary nor (according to some people) reasonable, so make of that what you will.

[marlboroza]

Are you alleging that the camgirl who transacted online sex work on GGB and on this forum was underage?

I think that I can safely assume you are not suggesting that any ordinary reasonable (or even sane) person would read the term “e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer, who obviously did not do any camgirl work.

People who are not aware of what happened back then might think that you tried to promote some underage prostitute, people who are aware of what happened will see post as "promotion of 15 year old scammer", at least I have understand it that way.

Perhaps better approach would be to PM ibminer and ask him to edit post and instead "underage e-whore" to write "underage scammer", just to avoid confusion.

[mikeywith]

You were one of the best members around when you were posting about "technical" stuff that actually matter but then out of a sudden you became so active in this board in a way that puts you a few topics away from being the next cryptohunter, obviously with better writing skills.

As far as DEMANDING the edition of a post, i wouldn't set my hopes too high, we barely get people to change their feedback, let alone edit a post, the way i see it is that ibminer seems like a reasonable dude, i am pretty sure the effect of a single-line PM would be stronger than this topic.

[suchmoon]

“e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer

Considering that ibminer was well aware of the circumstances of alia's scam I would say that it's a good chance he mean exactly that.

I need not remark on my opinion of how you think a joke by theymos reasonably calls for outrage

Oh no, me not finding something funny is "calling for outrage" now. Do I get my personal wall of text demanding me to say that the prank was funny? I'm really jelly at ibminer now who managed to trigger you with one word. That's some voodoo shit.

[amishmanish]

Nullius cares about bitcoin and the forum. The alia scandal was pretty well known and nullius had a lot of interaction with the account. That account was possibly an alt of someone else here in the forum. That is the only explanation for how adept they were at sending out the trust ratings to well-known accounts while simultaneously, engaging with some of the most prolific posters to build up a "web of trust" pretty quickly.

Alia was immediately on my radar when they appeared out of nowhere with a clever way to get a trust rating (even neutral) from me. And then they went on to invade every forum trading industry. I was hoping that it was just an impressively ambitious person, but as I kind of feared, I guess it was a setup for a long con or something.

ibminer using the word "underage" has been taken by nullius as causing harm to his reputation, the forum and bitcoin. Our biases work its way in how we see things. Nullius doesn't gel well with ibminer and suchmoon. Suchmoon doesn't like the way nullius wants to handle interpersonal issues. They have crossed words several times earlier. That bias shows itself as he ridiculed the post in the first reply itself without worrying about giving it a hearing (till now. Hopefully, he will).

Nullius's bias/ habit of turning everything into a logical explainer with all the links and evidence, while very scholarly, makes it vulnerable to trivialization. As its an old post you had in draft, i hope you PM'ed and waited for ibminer to respond. ibminer on his part may or may not see his statement as affecting the forum's integrity and may have only used it because, again, you guys do not get along well. A lot of time, people do not care about the bigger goal if they don't "like" someone on their own team. Happens all the time in organizations. So even though nullius, suchmoon, ibminer and a lot of others are on the same team, these spats are only helping those who would like to divide and conquer. Don't we have enough issues to deal with CSW/ Ver and the likes??

I do not look highly upon that whole maze of accusation, scams, insults and major rivalries involving QS, OG, Vod, Lauda where everyone is shaking hands with "let bygones be bygones". It is all too complicated and I don't yet understand why QS is being allowed to weave his way back from the accusations of sockpuppeting, extortion etc etc. Has he accepted or shown any remorse for what he was accused of? If he has I haven't yet seen it. I would love to see what prompted the peace treaty. Even in the unforgiving cypherpunk-world, peace/ forgiveness should always be welcome.

I take their example to say that if those people can think about it, maybe nullius, suchmoon, foxpup, ibminer, even you guys can think about it. Your differences are mostly difference of opinions on trust and are a result of a few smart-ass replies to each other. In terms of principles, you are all on the same team.

@ibminer, could you please remove that "underage" bit because the GGB profile that was used was "not underage". You even get to be Colonel Jessep here:

 

[GazetaBitcoin]

About triggering nullius with 1 word: with all due respect to all, I fully understand his reaction.

"To see the right and not to do it is cowardice". -- Confucius

I myself am a man of principles and a perfectionist. I hardly support criticism and I only accept it when it is proved in an undeniable way that I'm wrong. Even for small matters, not to mention anymore the big ones. For example: if I see a tree, I say it's made from wood. Then someone comes and says it's made from iron. I try to demonstrate he is wrong. I explain that the tree can burn if it's wood; if it was an iron it wouldn't burn. I would put a magnet on it, which would fall down: because it is wood and not iron. And so on. Until I prove my point. The opposite is also true: if that guys can prove me, against all my beliefs, that I'm wrong, I'll accept it. Hardly, but I will accept.

People are "triggered" by various factors. Maybe nullius gets triggered by a false statement (no matter its importance, although in this very case it really is an important one) about him which he also proves to be false.

Reputation is essential, as I tried to explain here, fact stated also by Tim May: "Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today".

Some people may get triggered by money, other by stress. Others get triggered by their reputation being affected in a negative way; even more, if the accusations are false. And far more if the accusations are serious. Dealings with underage children in such manner presented by ibminer may affect someone even more than by reputation: it's illegal. I think this is a very good reason for anyone to prove his / her innocence. Bad reputation is bad indeed, but being associated with such illegal things is way worst. One is to be avoided by people on a forum for having a bad reputation and something completely different is to be associated with CP, this implying also the possibility to be chased by Police.

From all the above mentioned aspects, I consider that nullius proceeded in a legit manner for defending his reputation. And, as he proved ibminer's statements to be false, it would be expected that ibminer would say "I'm sorry, I was wrong. And I'll correct my mistake. First of all, by apologizing".

[suchmoon]

Suchmoon doesn't like the way nullius wants to handle interpersonal issues.

If we're being pedantic... I don't like his trust system abuse and this wordy shit-slinging thread against ibminer looks like an attempt to justify another red rating. I don't give much of a shit about his "interpersonal issues", everyone has them, I'm not about to throw rocks out of my glass castle.

nullius proceeded in a legit manner for defending his reputation

Yeah... no. If he actually wanted to change one word - this is one of the worst ways to proceed. If he wanted to smear ibminer - it's not a bad effort, C-.

[Lauda]

nullius proceeded in a legit manner for defending his reputation

Yeah... no. If he actually wanted to change one word - this is one of the worst ways to proceed. If he wanted to smear ibminer - it's not a bad effort, C-.

Working under the assumption that he is able to PM him, right? This is odd for you to argue. Were I to find such an erroneous statement by you about myself I would not be able to proceed the way you are asking him to proceed (precisely because I am unable to PM you).
The thread is too much (this is his style of writing though), but most responses are absurd. Many years back if you had made such a false statement (underage pornography) about somebody else, especially as a DT member you would not: 1) Be a DT member much longer. 2) Your reputation would be gone very soon had it not been retracted very shortly after being pointed out.[1] We find ourselves in a very weird environment now where wrongdoing is neglected because the way it is being called out is not politically correct?  I do not know if that statement was intentional or not, but this and the current state of things are just wrong.  

[1] I do not wish either faith to ibminer, I just hope he removes the statement and this thread is shut down. These two were used as an example how this became worse here ("bad things are okay unless called out in a politically correct manner AKA the way I like it"). I do not think OP wants to tag ibminer either.

[suchmoon]

People who are not aware of what happened back then might think that you tried to promote some underage prostitute

I doubt it. To me "e-whore" without context doesn't mean literal prostitution and top definitions on Urban Dictionary are about attention whoring, not webcam stuff. Granted the word "underage" may shift that meaning somewhat, so perhaps "underage e-whore" could be changed to "online prostitute pimped by a 15 year old scammer" or "15-year old scammer impersonating a prostitute", not sure which is more accurate. It gets very murky if the 15 year old was posting sexually explicit stuff (text porn). I don't recall the details.

Working under the assumption that he is able to PM him, right?

Yes. I assumed the wall of text would have been twice as tall and there would be a half dozen additional allegations if he had been blocked by ibminer.

[hacker1001101001]

[1] We find ourselves in a very weird environment now where wrongdoing is neglected because the way it is being called out is not politically correct?  I do not know if that statement was intentional or not, but this and the current state of things are just wrong.

Just out of curiosity, who is the "We" referred to here ? Old timers ? Your cult ? Or something else ?

Wrong doing is neglected sounds like an CH argument to me.

[nullius]

The TL;DR of a point further discussed below is that if the same standards are applied to ibminer as were applied to alia, then this...

Something that is technically correct

Well, I certainly think the term "e-whore" is broad enough to include scammers whose scam involves (the pretence of) providing sexual services, but I'm neither ordinary nor (according to some people) reasonable, so make of that what you will.

“Pretzel logic”, Exhibit A:  “Because he was aware of the circumstance involving a camgirl, it’s a good chance he used the term ‘e-whore’ to refer to a male scammer.”

“e-whore” to refer to an identified male scammer

Considering that ibminer was well aware of the circumstances of alia's scam I would say that it's a good chance he mean exactly that.

People who are not aware of what happened back then might think that you tried to promote some underage prostitute

I doubt it.

...is starting to look an awful lot like this:

I feel like I summarized this scammer pretty well in my prior post but I guess people still believe there is a sister...
[...]

If my brother wants to respond to whatever allegations you are making, or what he has said in the past, he will do so.

favours is my fucking brother.

Merited by ibminer (1)

You're probably thinking of a different Dave, but yes, I'll get to it. I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to show me who I scammed.

Oh, dear.  How many Daves are there who run famous wallet recovery services, widely known as “the best”?

On grounds of “not born yesterday”, I didn’t buy such tomfoolery from alia.  Not even when I had obvious personal motives to want to believe her, and to hope that there was some terrible mistake.  No way!  Bullshit is bullshit, and I blowtorched alia as soon as I smelled it on alia.  Do not expect differently here.

For this argument amounts to, “You’re probably thinking of a different word ‘whore’, but yes, the word ‘underage’ can shift its meaning somewhat.”  Not buying it.

I do not think OP wants to tag ibminer either.

If I had wanted to tag ibminer, I would have damn well done it already!  In almost every other instance in which I have created a Reputation thread against somebody, I tagged immediately with OP; hereto, the only exceptions have been the cases in which I had already tagged, before I decided that a dedicated thread for it was warranted.

Or is suchmoon accusing me of being hesitant about tagging?  Maybe of waiting to hear other people’s opinions before I act?

I think it’s bloody obvious that I do not want to tag ibminer.  —Do not want to.  Wherefore indeed, I procrastinated and avoided this since February.

Well, I certainly think the term "e-whore" is broad enough to include scammers whose scam involves (the pretence of) providing sexual services, but I'm neither ordinary nor (according to some people) reasonable, so make of that what you will.

To me "e-whore" without context doesn't mean literal prostitution and top definitions on Urban Dictionary are about attention whoring, not webcam stuff. Granted the word "underage" may shift that meaning somewhat...

That is indeed the slang used in some places.  However, if you want to be so technical...

Something that is technically correct

...the term “underage scammer” is technically incorrect on its face.  More importantly, it is obviously not what was meant here.  The word “underage” does not merely “shift that meaning somewhat” (!).

Underage denotes that there is a minimal age limit for an activity to be considered legitimate.  It is also an emotionally charged word, in the context of anything involving any kind of sexual activity—especially sexual entertainment in exchange for money.

Furthermore (and more importantly in the context of reputation and the defamation thereof), hereby bending credulity well past its breaking point:

ibminer chose to use wording which an ordinary reasonable person anybody with an IQ above room temperature would expect for people to read as as I did.  At best, it would be a double entendre that >99% of people would read as “underage camgirl”.  That would be underhanded and deceitful.

Or will he now claim that he just didn’t realize that the term “whore” is associated with sex work, and didn’t realize that he was applying the word “whore” to an account that was used for online sex work?

You're probably thinking of a different Dave,

“You’re probably thinking of a different word ‘whore’, but yes, the word ‘underage’ can shift its meaning somewhat.”

To me "e-whore" without context doesn't mean literal prostitution and top definitions on Urban Dictionary are about attention whoring, not webcam stuff. Granted the word "underage" may shift that meaning somewhat

With due apologies for the evident necessity of belabouring the obvious:

The term “underage scammer” is ridiculous, unless we presume that there is a proper legal age for legitimate scams.  Do we start to “card” for it or do otherwise age verification, to make sure that scammers are not underage?

Contrast:

• “Juvenile scammer”, “minor scammer”, “teen scammer” (an ambiguous, overloaded word—but everybody will know what is colloquially meant here; contrast the very different implication of “teen porn”, a marketing shorthand for ages 18–19), etc.
• “Underage porn”, “underage prostitution”, “underage camgirl”, “underage girlfriend”, etc.—or in non-sexual contexts, “underage drinking”, “underage purchase of cigarettes”, etc., etc.

These just look stupid:

• “Underage serial killer” (Do we age-check for this, too?)
• “Underage drug dealer”
• “Underage terrorist”
• “Underage armed robber”
• “Underage rapist”
• “Underage scammer”

This is why I invoked an “ordinary reasonable person” standard.  It prevents all sorts of word-twisting.  I think that in the context, with an actual camgirl involved, a claim by ibminer that he oh so innocently meant “underage scammer” would be a “dog ate my homework favours is my fucking brother!! and I meant the other Dave!!” level of excuse.

Reputation is essential, as I tried to explain here, fact stated also by Tim May: "Reputations will be of central importance, far more important in dealings than even the credit ratings of today".

Yes.  Especially for a pseudonymous account behind Tor.  Reputation is all that I have here; this is backwards, for the reasons explained by T. C. May:

Something that relates to the virtual reputation of your perfectly anonymous account, which you boast about so often.

I do think it’s remarkable that several people are essentially criticizing me for using a forum named “Reputation” to discuss reputational issues.

From all the above mentioned aspects, I consider that nullius proceeded in a legit manner for defending his reputation. And, as he proved ibminer's statements to be false, it would be expected that ibminer would say "I'm sorry, I was wrong. And I'll correct my mistake. First of all, by apologizing".

I do not wish either faith to ibminer, I just hope he removes the statement and this thread is shut down.

This is indeed an ugly thread.  I did not want to create it; and I do not want to keep it going.  Although I doubt that anything will change my own loss of respect for ibminer or my distrust of his judgment, I think it’s clear straight from OP that I will consider this thread to be resolved if my stated demand for an appropriately marked retraction is met.  An apology would be decent; but in principle, I am disinclined to demand such things, or even ask for them, for I strongly dislike fake, coerced “apologies”.  I am addressing only (contra)factual statements here—in a general manner similar to what I would do in a courtroom defamation case, adjusted appropriately for the nature of the venue as a Reputation forum.

Edit—minor corrections above, plus this addendum:

If he actually wanted to change one word - this is one of the worst ways to proceed. If he wanted to smear ibminer - it's not a bad effort, C-.

So, ibminer falsely associated me with an “underage e-whore”, and I am the one smearing him by calling him out for it?

That is much worse than “pretzel logic”.

(Hostile and defamatory public statements should be dealt with in public.  But nice try saying that I should have hushed this up in PM—so that if the issue were not resolved by a “polite PM” about ibminer’s rude remark, you could accuse me of being untrustworthy if I reasonably needed to publish the PMs to protect my reputation.  Not playing your game.)

Edit again:  (statement moved here)

[marlboroza]

I doubt it. To me "e-whore" without context doesn't mean literal prostitution and top definitions on Urban Dictionary are about attention whoring, not webcam stuff.

Not "e-whore", "underage e-whore".

"She is underage e-whore". Whatever context might be here, this certainly sound like underage prostitute, not much people will go straight to dictionary to see what e-whore means (nor they will look for more context). I guess it is because focus is on that "underage" part.

Granted the word "underage" may shift that meaning somewhat, so perhaps "underage e-whore" could be changed to "online prostitute pimped by a 15 year old scammer" or "15-year old scammer impersonating a prostitute", not sure which is more accurate. It gets very murky if the 15 year old was posting sexually explicit stuff (text porn). I don't recall the details.

Well, something is not clear here, alia said favours is her 15 years old brother. Who was really behind that account, alia "the cam girl", alia "the 15 years old scammer", alia "the underage brother of cam girl", maybe scammer payed cam girl, maybe he lied about age, maybe cam girl lied. What do we really know except that alia is scammer? Nothing. I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 

[suchmoon]

The term “underage scammer” is ridiculous, unless we presume that there is a proper legal age for legitimate scams.  Do we start to “card” for it or do otherwise age verification, to make sure that scammers are not underage?

Beautiful strawman. Now show me where I made the "underage scammer" statement that you're so eagerly debunking.

So, ibminer falsely associated me with an “underage e-whore”, and I am the one smearing him by calling him out for it?

That is much worse than “pretzel logic”.

(Hostile and defamatory public statements should be dealt with in public.  But nice try saying that I should have hushed this up in PM—so that if the issue were not resolved by a “polite PM” about ibminer’s rude remark, you could accuse me of being untrustworthy if I reasonably needed to publish the PMs to protect my reputation.  Not playing your game.)

No one needs to publish any fucking PMs.

1) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says ok, fair enough, and edits the post.

or

2) You PM ibminer (like a normal person, not with a wall of text, not accusing him of any tangential crimes). He says fuck off. You move on or you start a thread whining about it, whatever.

Which part of the above necessitates publishing PMs?

Well, something is not clear here, alia said favours is her 15 years old brother. Who was really behind that account, alia "the cam girl", alia "the 15 years old scammer", alia "the underage brother of cam girl", maybe scammer payed cam girl, maybe he lied about age, maybe cam girl lied. What do we really know except that alia is scammer? Nothing. I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 

I would personally go with not making a mountain out of a molehill but if the OP insists I call dibs on the bulldozer.