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

[nullius]

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.

OK.  For the nth time:

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.

Do you (stop pretending not to) get it yet?  Or to assist reading comprehension, do I need to add more highlighting, enlarged size, boldface, etc.?

I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me  

No offense taken.  I was fooled; it was cold comfort that “alia” fooled many others, and had even obtained an unprecedented theymos neutral-tag verifying the account as a camgirl.  The level at which I had indeed publicized alia did, in my judgment, impose on me a positive duty to spare no effort in actively contributing to the investigation by the anonymous scam_detector, RGBKey (whose red-tag was the warning that jolted me into taking scam_detector seriously), ibminer (which is why I did respect him—and I appreciated what he did then), theymos himself, you, and too many others succinctly to list.  I never argued with anybody who made fun of me about this, or said that I made an error in judgment—which I admittedly did, and for which I took responsibility as much as I reasonably could.

"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.

Moved/amplified from edited addendum of previous post:

Maybe alia really did have a friend named Dave.  That part could be true.  In that case, the alia “Dave” scam would have been “technically correct”.  It is still wrong—doubly wrong and doubly dishonest, in the context of alia’s claim to know a “Dave” who was “the best” at “wallet recovery services”.  Context is important; and it is incredible that I need to explain this, let alone drill it in against arguments tantamount to “what the meaning of the word is is”.

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.”

[1714113218]

1714113218

[1714113218]

1714113218

[1714113218]

1714113218

[OgNasty]

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.

Lauda being the voice of reason these days is surprising, but a nice twist.

Did you actually ask ibminer via polite 1-2 sentence PM to reconsider that post

Yes, everyone needs to kiss the ass of ibminer or suchmoon will use the lack of politeness as an excuse to defend his wrongdoing.

[TECSHARE]

I say they settle this with a fight to the death.

[GazetaBitcoin]

As a person who practiced bodybuilding (and partially martial arts) for the past 20-25 (or more) years, I stand on nullius' side

[suchmoon]

OK.  For the nth time:

Gotcha, so you were arguing with yourself there. I got confused by you quoting my post so many different ways that it looked like you were trying to make an actual point about something.

Yes, everyone needs to kiss the ass of ibminer or suchmoon will use the lack of politeness as an excuse to defend his wrongdoing.

Not really, even a rude PM would have been better than a rude drama thread. Nor is there any wrongdoing. A disagreement at most.

[pugman]

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.

I agree with this. Nullius had a whole different reputation and status after he left, everyone thought he was different, witty, and a technical genius. And we wanted for nullius to return back, because more than half of the actual members of the forum practically loved him because he gave the vibes of old 2011 posters, which this forum had been lacking for ages. And now after his return, everything feels different.

Nullius, things wont be the same for you if go around demanding things, publishing pms, and going against DT members isn't going to help. You're better than that, and you know it. Back then, you handled the Alia situation much better, but now its getting quite the opposite. I get it, you're smart, but things won't be the same,  if the things you do keep being the same, it won't go so well. End your disputes privately, its better for everyone.

[nullius]

~

Lauda being the voice of reason these days is surprising, but a nice twist.

OgNasty being the voice of reason these days is surprising, but a nice twist.

(Neither insult nor flattery is intended—just as none is presumed, for my own part.  I know that you’re just being fair.  So am I.)

I say they settle this with a fight to the death.

As a person who practiced bodybuilding (and partially martial arts) for the past 20-25 (or more) years, I stand on nullius' side

LOL, trial by combat and code duello are old-fashioned enough for me.  But that does not work through encrypted mixnets.  I guess this is a part of the point of what T. C. May and Wei Dai meant by crypto-anarchy!

Classical antiquity:

Protip:  When a nice guy wants a princess, he buys her diamonds—
#ToxicMasculinity ♂ #MakeLoveNotWar ♂ #CodeOfConduct

The next step beyond modern (and I don’t mean “postmodern”):

Unfortunately, similar to Tim May's Crypto Anarchist Manifesto, whose vision is also embraced by nullius, as far as I know, this topic went almost unnoticed, being read only by 159 times. And, as a consequence, it went unmerited until a few days ago.

The times are hard for us, who live in these days. Anarchism and crypto-anarchism may be a cure for many of us. Therefore, an advice: "Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!".

I will end here, with a quote from Wei Dai:

"I am fascinated by Tim May's crypto-anarchy. Unlike the communities traditionally associated with the word "anarchy", in a crypto-anarchy the government is not temporarily destroyed but permanently forbidden and permanently unnecessary. It's a community where the threat of violence is impotent because violence is impossible, and violence is impossible because its participants cannot be linked to their true names or physical locations".

Anything is a good opportunity for art and/or talk about crypto-anarchy.  Well, I suppose that we will just need to settle this by rational debate a good old-fashioned Internet flamewar in which I repeatedly need to shoot down irrational and evasive cheap-lawyer nonsense, whilst ignoring arbitrary insults.

Yes, everyone needs to kiss the ass of ibminer or suchmoon will use the lack of politeness as an excuse to defend his wrongdoing.

Not really, even a rude PM would have been better than a rude drama thread.

For you, of all people, to try to lecture me, of all people, about courtesy (let alone drama!) would be comically ironic, if it did not descend to the level of the outright perverse.

Nor is there any wrongdoing. A disagreement at most.

Beyond perverse.  Did you read OP, and my subsequent replies to you?

End your disputes privately, its better for everyone.

With all due thanks for your extensive personal advice, I must ask:  Why do we have a Reputation forum, if not for discussing reputational issues, and publicly settling such grievances as by their nature are best addressed in public, on the record?

I am not simply dismissing what you said:  It is a serious question.  For my part, I do not see any reason why I should hush up my complaint about the public defamation of me.  To the contrary, a part of the actual relief in actual courtroom defamation cases is to get everything out on the record in a public courtroom, so that a prevailing plaintiff can have it publicly demonstrated why he is right.  It can significantly enhance the repair of damage to one’s reputation; in some cases, it can be even more important than monetary damages, which may be nominal, infeasible to prove, or impossible to collect.


http://loyce.club/archive/posts/5415/54152367.html

Why nullius is always quoting himself?! (Inferioriy complex .. I don't think so)

Sometimes for rhetorical purposes.  Other times for efficiency:  If some people are presenting to me arguments that I already sufficiently answered in n different ways, then it is optimal to self-quote (perhaps with boldface, highlighting, large text, etc.), rather than to waste my time writing explanation n+1.

(N.b., although your post was strictly off-topic, I did want to answer it; and I do not want for people to think that I exercised my self-mod powers to delete a post which I would have left intact.)

Edit:  Note to forum moderators:  I assumed that the user deleted his own post (which I obviously didn’t delete myself).  I should have checked modlog.  I would not have tried to gainsay staff moderation over this!  My apologies.

https://bitcointalk.org/modlog.php

• Delete reply: Re: ibminer’s factually false, defamatory, and reputationally scandalous statement in topic #5237500 by member #1012655

[suchmoon]

Did you read OP, and my subsequent replies to you?

I might have, yes. Won't happen again. Quite predictably it turned out to be a massive waste of time.

[pugman]

With all due thanks for your extensive personal advice, I must ask:  Why do we have a Reputation forum, if not for discussing reputational issues, and publicly settling such grievances as by their nature are best addressed in public, on the record?

I am not simply dismissing what you said:  It is a serious question.  For my part, I do not see any reason why I should hush up my complaint about the public defamation of me.  To the contrary, a part of the actual relief in actual courtroom defamation cases is to get everything out on the record in a public courtroom, so that a prevailing plaintiff can have it publicly demonstrated why he is right.  It can significantly enhance the repair of damage to one’s reputation; in some cases, it can be even more important than monetary damages, which may be nominal, infeasible to prove, or impossible to collect.

I'd agree to this if Ibminer actually defamed you. He didn't do any such thing, and you know it. Let's see what defamation means, I have bold-ed it out for you.

Defamation is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.

Do you think there is a crime, or a tort going on here? Do you think ibiminer unjustly damaged your reputation? From what I can tell, no one but you are damaging your own reputation. You're giving very CH vibes, and posting big paragraphs when you can just say yes or no.

You can go around arguing about underage e-whore but you know its not going to matter, cause everyone is titled to their own opinion. Just like the whole cause of this whole thread, started because you didn't like someone's opinion towards you. Everyone can go around twisting words, but then what is the purpose of all this? Speak with ibminer and figure it out, the more people you involve in this, more people will give you their opinion, which would take you back to square 1.

[ibminer]

The reality
nullius is a bit butthurt that I called out his hypocritical point of view in a separate thread and we had a difference of opinion.
So, suddenly he now has an issue with a post I made ~2 months ago. Go figure.

The hyperbole in the OP

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.

I'll try to make this easy for you, since I don't want to waste too much time on this.. especially considering the thread was created in anger over me not being a fan of the April fool's joke of the forum. *shrug*

nullius == alia's main supporter, promoter, and the person who made alia who he was on the forum (<- self-admitted, I won't bother posting the PMs unless nullius would like me to).
alia == favours
favours == 15 year old e-whore setting up a long con

My post remains unedited.

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.

I'm also well aware this comment by theymos was made (privately, to both of us) before he linked alia to favours. And I'd assume why he decided to put a <HR>(line) separating both statements. Whether he actually still believed there was a camgirl being paid in the same house as favours or not is up to him.

Based on the research I did back then, it was clear to me that favours was not paying anyone, it was him, likely using software and video packs (all commonly used by e-whores).. and being supported by you. Your actions after he was identified showed me you were not someone I, nor anyone, should trust the judgement of.

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.

I never accused theymos of such nonsense. Keep trying.

[nullius]

@moderator:  Whoops, sorry.

ibminer, you have added here several serious allegations on your part—against me, and about others.  As to myself, I have first-hand knowledge that you are wrong about everything except what I myself just said upthread a few hours ago; but I will set that aside for the moment.  Overall, either you must have strong evidence to support your allegations, or your reply here is utterly despicable.


0. In substantial effect, you have unavoidably stated that the GirlsGoneBitcoin verification process was, and thus can be fooled by a 15-year-old boy using “software and video packs”.  Also, all of alia’s customers on the forum (n.b. that I was never one of them).

Based on the research I did back then, it was clear to me that favours was not paying anyone, it was him, likely using software and video packs (all commonly used by e-whores)..

Actually, you are more than questioning theymos’ reliability:  You are directly impugning it.  I and many others rely on this as sterling information:

If the GGB verification process is unreliable, then it would behoove you to inform those who are relying thereupon.  If, in this case, it was actually fooled by a 15-year-old boy using “software and video packs”, then I myself relied on it to my detriment; and I should be let to know about that.

In the absence of sound evidence to the contrary, I will presume that theymos knows what the hell he is doing—and that you, ibminer, are slinging some very dangerous mud without thinking about the consequences.




1. You made a vague statement that alia/favours was “being supported by [me]”.  What, exactly, do you mean by that?

Based on the research I did back then, it was clear to me that favours was not paying anyone, it was him, likely using software and video packs (all commonly used by e-whores).. and being supported by you.

For the record, the only “support” of any kind whatsoever that I ever gave to the alia account was reputational:  I made the account significantly more forum-famous than it already was when I found it—which only occurred because it was already more than a little bit forum-famous.  And aside from some innocently intended positive comments that I made about alia to specific individuals in PMs, almost all of that was in full public.view (forum posts and merit).

If you allege otherwise, be specific—and put up the evidence now.  I know first-hand that you don’t have any, because I did nothing wrong as you are insinuating.




2. I actually have nothing to hide here.  Please feel free to post the PMs:

nullius == alia's main supporter, promoter, and the person who made alia who he was on the forum (<- self-admitted, I won't bother posting the PMs unless nullius would like me to).

I am calling you on this, because your unjust and inexcusable insinuations are damaging to me.  Without even reviewing PMs that I have not looked at in over two years, I can affirmatively state that publishing my PM correspondence with you would not damage me at all, because I did nothing wrong other than to be innocently scammed by a scammer.

If you want to nitpick or twist on a word here or there (such as the pronouns that I used at various times during the development of a very confusing situation—oh, muh pronouns!), then I can explain anything that I said in its proper context.

If you are seeking to prove that I was “self-admitted” to have promoted the alia account, I think the point is moot:  I myself just said essentially the same thing, on this thread, just a few hours ago (and I have made similar remarks to others in the past, in public and in private):

I would personally go with "shilled for scammer"(no hard feelings @OP) but that's me 

No offense taken.  I was fooled; it was cold comfort that “alia” fooled many others, and had even obtained an unprecedented theymos neutral-tag verifying the account as a camgirl.  The level at which I had indeed publicized alia did, in my judgment, impose on me a positive duty to spare no effort in actively contributing to the investigation by the anonymous scam_detector, RGBKey (whose red-tag was the warning that jolted me into taking scam_detector seriously), ibminer (which is why I did respect him—and I appreciated what he did then), theymos himself, you, and too many others succinctly to list.  I never argued with anybody who made fun of me about this, or said that I made an error in judgment—which I admittedly did, and for which I took responsibility as much as I reasonably could.

Furthermore, I also consent to forum administrators or staff viewing my PMs sent to alia and received from alia, if they have any suspicions about me.

OP here:

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*.)

Some of them are embarrassing in the “*cringe*” sense; I would not want for those to be published.  None of them is in any way inculpatory of me.  I think that admins and staff are sufficiently level-headed to view the matter objectively and dispassionately.  If they have any questions, they may PM me.  For obvious reasons, I do not want to say too much more about this in public.

But I do so say, just in case ibminer’s wrongful remarks about me have the predictable effect of causing admins or staff to have such suspicions about me as would be allayed if they were to review evidence already in their own possession.




3. Please state specifically which of my act and/or omissions you think were wrong, and what you think I should have done instead:

Your actions after he was identified showed me you were not someone I, nor anyone, should trust the judgement of.

I was fooled by this scammer just as badly as anybody else.  The alia account was used to scam some people for money.  It was used to scam me for reputation-builiding.

I have all along reasonably taken responsibility for anything that I actually did.  I have all along erred toward being critical of myself:  I should have known better.  I should have been more alert, more cautious.  I should have analysed this situation in every detail.  Yes, I am essentially victim-blaming myself using the same arguments used by scammers who rationalize that “fools deserve to be scammed”.  That is acceptable for me to do to myself, because I have a right to hold myself to a much higher than ordinary standard for both astuteness and carefulness:  I am smarter than this.  It is not acceptable from ibminer—enough is enough!

Although I was moderately careless with a “female” situation (as most men are at least once or twice in their lives), I was not even negligent—much less knowingly engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever.

It should not need to be said that when the scam accusation broke, I was in a situation in which I myself was shocked, caught off-guard, and initially confused as to the facts.  Nevertheless, I promptly caught my bearings and not only cooperated with, but actively assisted the scam investigation to the best of my ability.

I am ashamed of having been fooled, but I am proud of how I handled it when I discovered that I had been fooled.  To suggest that I did anything whatsoever wrong after that point is indefensible for you.  So, put up or shut up:  What did I do wrong, and what should I have done differently?




4. ...:

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.

I never accused theymos of such nonsense. Keep trying.

How do you square that with your now-amplified statements quoted above?  I really don’t want to spell this out for you.

And why are you tangling yourself in self-contradictions to focus this crap on me, of all people?  I was never one of alia’s customers.  I never saw an “alia” camshow—whether a live camgirl, or “software and video packs” as you allege.  All that I did was to get overly excited about my lovely forum girlfriend, interact with the account publicly in ways that rapidly amplified its fame, send it a bunch of merit for posts that I thought were meritorious, brag too much in PMs to a few individuals who never accused me of anything for their own parts, and exchange some sexually explicit textual communications with what, in reliance on GGB verification, I believed to be a camgirl.  So—why me?

(N.b., I still believe GGB verification much more than I believe you.  At this point, I do not find you to be at all credible.)


There is more in ibminer’s post that should be addressed; but first things first...

Note:  When I saw ibminer’s post, I was finishing a draft of a long reply to pugman.  Abstract:  Look up the word “tort”.  And please never rely on Wikipedia legal arguments for anything important.

Combining the posts would make this far too long; thus, I have set it aside for now, and OTS-timestamped a copy of my draft in case I want to prove later what I was writing.  (Should have done that with my February draft of what became OP here.  OTS should be a habit.)

[Lauda]

The reality
nullius is a bit butthurt that I called out his hypocritical point of view in a separate thread and we had a difference of opinion.
So, suddenly he now has an issue with a post I made ~2 months ago. Go figure.

Is this really that important in the grand context of things?

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.

Can you please just remove the wording and fight it out in however many threads you guys want? Is that so hard to do What is wrong with people these days: both sides attack each over a single word.

[amishmanish]

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.

Urban-dictionary or not, why are we playing around with the implication of the phrase "underage e-whore" which any casual reader would understand as "underage prostitution on the internet".

Whats an e-mail? (mail on the internet)
Whats e-commerce? (commerce on the internet)
Who is an e-whore?

In the alia case, there was an actual GGB verified women whose nudes, cam-shows were used. Theymos did say that she was verified on GGB by which everyone else understands that she would have been of age. She was the e-whore. NOT an underage one. You know that from the beginning as you were closely involved. You could have used that statement in the context you explained which is why this seems like an over-reaction to many.

alia == favours
favours == 15 year old e-whore setting up a long con

Yet, the issue raised by OP is that to a casual reader, your statement would imply that a fellow member with a nice reputation and an amazing, informative body of work here (as admitted by everyone advising him to change), was somehow involved in a despicable and illegal act happening on Satoshi's forums. Something that directly harms his reputation as well as the forum. A forum that we all care deeply about, i think.

Granted, there were better ways to settle this which is why you too could just have been Col. Jessup and finished this. The way OP asked may not seem appropriate to you, me or plenty others but that does not make you right in continuing to be unflinching on something this serious. Your leaving it unchanged and suchmoon trying to create confusion on "meaning of e-whore" just sounds like an excuse to not accept your mistake while using it to target another user because you want to, don't know, have something on him?   Surely you are better than this.

[Lauda]

Granted, there were better ways to settle this which is why you too could just have been Col. Jessup and finished this. The way OP asked may not seem appropriate to you, me or plenty others but that does not make you right in continuing to be unflinching on something this serious. Your leaving it unchanged and suchmoon trying to create confusion on "meaning of e-whore" just sounds like an excuse to not accept your mistake while using it to target another user because you want to, don't know, have something on him?   Surely you are better than this.

I am really really surprised as to why this is happening. Not a single word needed to be said, remove the word, close the thread, end. I wonder what will be next instead of this simple solution. 

[suchmoon]

suchmoon trying to create confusion on "meaning of e-whore"

I was merely responding to marlboroza... it's how I read it. Not trying to confuse anyone as to how they should read it. Now that ibminer responded you should refer to that for what he meant, not my (or anyone's) interpretation or opinion.

I am really really surprised as to why this is happening. Not a single word needed to be said, remove the word, close the thread, end. I wonder what will be next instead of this simple solution.  

Totally agree. The answer is in, close the thread, unless you want to stir the drama some more.

[nullius]

I am really really surprised as to why this is happening. Not a single word needed to be said, remove the word, close the thread, end. I wonder what will be next instead of this simple solution.  

Totally agree. The answer is in, close the thread, unless you want to stir the drama some more.

Nice try, completely twisting what Lauda said.

Unfortunately, since ibminer decided to double down, it is no longer a matter of retracting a single word.

Can you please just remove the wording and fight it out in however many threads you guys want? Is that so hard to do

I have no desire to fight with ibminer.  What I want is to resolve this, route him to /dev/null, and go do something important.

My actual intention had been that when my demand for a retraction of a single word was met, I would lock the thread and walk away.  I did not say so outright, because it is dangerous to make such promises, and because it is the kind of thing that could be misconstrued by persons who are twisting my words and mischaracterizing my actions (especially suchmoon).  However, I think it was clear enough:

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.

OP, following my concisely stated demand:

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

ibminer made a false factual statement.  It is of such an inflammatory and destructive nature that, as I noted in the draft reply to pugman that I timestamped and filed away yesterday, I believe that I would have an actionable tort case against ibminer.  (So noted only to measure the magnitude and seriousness of the matter.  A single word can indeed incur a successful lawsuit.  I am a crypto-anarchist behind Tor; and anyway, if I were to sue, I would not be so stupid as to discuss the matter on an Internet forum beforehand!)

Now, he has piled on a whole heap of new accusations and insinuations—much of it in vague terms that are impossible to answer or publicly rebut as to fact.  Some of what he has now said, I know first-hand to be factually false; the rest is presumeably false, unless he has extraordinary evidence.

I don’t have the spare time to continue sitting on top of this thread as I did yesterday; but I will not just let this go so easily.  ibminer has piled wrong atop wrong.  He needs to answer for that.

@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:

 

I know that you mean well.  I appreciate that.  Since you said that a few times now, I just need to make it clear that ibminer is not in a position to demand anything of me—and I am never nice.






Something else that I should probably address:

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.

I agree with this. Nullius had a whole different reputation and status after he left, everyone thought he was different, witty, and a technical genius. And we wanted for nullius to return back, because more than half of the actual members of the forum practically loved him because he gave the vibes of old 2011 posters, which this forum had been lacking for ages. And now after his return, everything feels different.

Nullius, things wont be the same for you if go around demanding things, publishing pms, and going against DT members isn't going to help. You're better than that, and you know it. Back then, you handled the Alia situation much better, but now its getting quite the opposite. I get it, you're smart, but things won't be the same,  if the things you do keep being the same, it won't go so well. End your disputes privately, its better for everyone.

I appreciate anybody who appreciates my work; but I do not owe anything to anybody (save for a very few individuals who have immeasurably enriched my life, whether through their own published work or though their private interactions with me).  Moreover, I have not changed:  As shown below, my personality now is indistinguishable from that in 2018.  Perhaps your perceptions of me may have changed.  My characteristic aggressiveness and absolute certitude in the face of conflict would understandably be appealing to those who agree with me, and not to those who don’t.

Nullius, things wont be the same for you if

Thanks; taken under advisement.

go around demanding things,

Nothing wrong with my demanding redress from somebody who wronged me.

N.b. that that was stated in the manner of a legal demand (in manner of speaking—without any implication of being an actual legal demand).  A demand for retraction of a false and defamatory statement is a quite ordinary response.

publishing pms,

In 2018, I created a whole thread for that, my “hate mail” thread.  Want the same nullius back?  Here he is.

At my exclusive discretion, I reserve the right to publicly post any PMs received by me (0) on the subject of negative trust feedback left by me, and/or (1) in relation to such a public discussion as this one.

Whines > /dev/null.

I have spent my whole adult life handling highly confidential information for people with whom I have a relationship of mutual trust.  And if someone sends me a friendly PM, I will treat that with the ordinary discretion of a gentleman.  Whereas nobody has a right to impose on me and swear me to secrecy, just by sending me a Personal Message—especially not if the PM is of a hostile nature.  It is completely ridiculous to criticize anybody for publishing unsolicited adversarial PMs.

My 2018 PM-dumping thread was inspired by the example of various activists whom I have seen publish extreme hate-mail and death threats sent via “private” channels of communication.  Reductio ad absurdum, would you criticize them, too?

and going against DT members

I go against governments.  I have real-life, years-long experience litigating against large corporations (who eventually steamrolled me by sheer mismatch of resources—eh, I bit off more than I could chew there).  Do you suppose that I be scared, or even impressed by DT members on an Internet forum?

I respect those who earn my respect, and that’s that.

I am not a flatterer—in colloquial terms, I don’t kiss arse (and I categorically despise people who expect that from me).

Yes, everyone needs to kiss the ass of ibminer or suchmoon will use the lack of politeness as an excuse to defend his wrongdoing.

Oh, shit!  I just quoted OgNasty.  The world is truly ending.

🙂

Now, lest there be any doubt—I really have not changed even a bit:

Re: Measures against scams misusing the Bitcoin name

So-called “Bitcoin Cash” is neither Bitcoin, nor cash, in the sense that it has neither the unlinkability nor the fungibility of cash.  [...]  I am still having trouble deciding what I should call Roger Ver’s little abortion.  Perhaps ASICBOOSTCOIN.

Re: Buying Drugs with Bitcoin ?

Anyone bought drugs with bitcoin and what are you thought on the subject ?

Thanks so much for pissing in the pool here.  I hope you O.D.  Otherwise, die in a fire.

(Does suchmoon wish to lecture me about rudeness?)

Bracketed replacement of internal quotation is in the original:
Re: Bitcoin Diamond improves on Bitcoin transactions

[Idiotic shilling for yet another fork scamcoin.]

Fall in a well and die.  Or I stick a fork in your eye.

Re: Do Not Buy Christmas Presents!!

Well, what's the most expensive? A $500 bag or a divorce?

If you’re not an idiot, then neither your wife nor anybody else knows how much Bitcoin you have.

(A forum search of posts that I have made using the word “idiot” is amusing.)


Red boldface is in the original:
Re: Bitcoin not so anonymous?

I guess they could identify you only once you cashed out. Other than that, your identity is safe (unless you have verified your identify in an online wallet, of course);

WRONG.  [— snip what I still think is still one of my best-ever posts, together with its even better sequel —]

Re: Merit broke my life
Merited by soniclord (50)

Add to this that to exonerate himself of guilt, soniclord would need to prove that he has an IQ not exceeding 75.  [...]  Well, either severe mental retardation—or a state of insanity, replete with psychotic delusions.  There can be no other way for someone to actually do that innocently.  It is implausible, improbable, impossible.

Development & Technical Discussion:
Bitcoin’s Public-Key Security Level

In layman’s terms, a 128-bit security level is very, very strong.  It is what buzzword-lovers usually refer to as “military-grade security”.  Those who seek better than “military-grade security” (or wish to make fun of that idiotic term) may instead seek “‘Spinal Tap grade’ security”.

(Amidst my own philosophy, the next one invokes Dancing Pigs that I picked up long ago from RISKS Digest.  Sorry about the “catless” part.)

Development & Technical Discussion:
Bitcoin Distorters, Dancing Pigs, and Cryptokitties; ochlocracy equals kakocracy

There is only one Bitcoin.

[...]

Ethereum has a deeper problem:  Bolting a Turing-complete VM onto a blockchain and painting it over with a Javascript-style language is manifestly irresponsible as anything other than a research project (i.e. not as “money”).

[...]

Human beings know how to build correct, reliable computing machines.  I’ve read of fully redundant systems which could lose a CPU any time without blinking, capability-based research systems, etc., etc....  But all that is too expensive, plus too slow to bring to market.  People want their Dancing Pigs and their Cryptokitties.  Thus, we get everywhere the computing equivalent of Ethereum.  Who wants to wait for research like Simplicity before running a hot new ICO?

It’s the same with buildings.  Once upon a time, a cathedral would have its foundations laid by workers who cherished the faith that their grandchildren may live to see spires rise to the sky.  Nowadays, having forsaken cathedrals to please gods, all the world’s a goddamn bazaar:  A pile of cheap shacks and stalls thrown up in a hurry so that idiot masses and idiot plutocrats alike can hawk their baubles to their fellow idiots.  Shiny!  Needs a bounty ANN thread.  As the wetware degenerates itself in a negative feedback loop, we soon find empirical proof for a principle well-known to philosophers since the beginning of time:  Ochlocracy equals kakocracy.  —  Ergo, “regulations”.

[allahabadi]

~
Do you suppose that I be scared, or even impressed by DT members on an Internet forum?
~

Fuck Yeah!!! Scared enuff to go on a rant in a self moderated thread!!!

~
I doubt many people even saw ibminer's words from February (I didn't), but I assure you they have now.

Exactly, This is what came to my mind when I saw this post!!!

[OgNasty]

That is egregiously dishonest on ibminer’s part.

ibminer has displayed a pattern of not accepting the consequences of his actions and blaming others for his mistakes.  He even blames BTC vendors for him not getting rich because they accepted his BTC for goods and those goods did not gain value as quickly as Bitcoin.  Who does that?  Imagine searching for someone to provide you a good and accept your currency, then when you do you make an exchange with them you praise them for accepting your currency.  However, then that currency appreciates a lot so you find that vendor and blame them for you not making money because they accepted the currency you asked them to accept.  That's ibminer.  Everything is everyone else's fault.  He didn't get rich because evil Bitcoin vendors forced him to spend his BTC.  He even once blamed me for him losing money gambling because I was wearing a signature advertisement.  People like this will always take the stance that their failure is someone else's fault.  No amount of explaining, examples, or facts can get them to take personal responsibility for their actions.  They simply cannot accept their own failure so they lash out at everyone else and try to force company for their misery.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMcSx1as3c

[Vod]

He even blames BTC vendors for him not getting rich because they accepted his BTC for goods and those goods did not gain value as quickly as Bitcoin.

He was involved in the conversation less than an hour ago.

He paid you 1.65 BTC and received a return of 0.0095 BTC.
 

[OgNasty]

That is egregiously dishonest on ibminer’s part.

ibminer has displayed a pattern of not accepting the consequences of his actions and blaming others for his mistakes.  He even blames BTC vendors for him not getting rich because they accepted his BTC for goods and those goods did not gain value as quickly as Bitcoin.  Who does that?  Imagine searching for someone to provide you a good and accept your currency, then when you do you make an exchange with them you praise them for accepting your currency.  However, then that currency appreciates a lot so you find that vendor and blame them for you not making money because they accepted the currency you asked them to accept.  That's ibminer.  Everything is everyone else's fault.  He didn't get rich because evil Bitcoin vendors forced him to spend his BTC.  He even once blamed me for him losing money gambling because I was wearing a signature advertisement.  People like this will always take the stance that their failure is someone else's fault.  No amount of explaining, examples, or facts can get them to take personal responsibility for their actions.  They simply cannot accept their own failure so they lash out at everyone else and try to force company for their misery.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCMcSx1as3c

He was involved in the conversation less than an hour ago.

Yes, he's still blaming vendors for accepting his payments in BTC as the reason he didn't get rich with everyone else.  Imagine having such little personal responsibility.  When you go from praising someone to hating them because of how the free market moved an asset, you are probably an irrational and miserable person.  This is what I'm accusing ibminer of doing and seems to fit in a pattern of his accusatory behavior toward others to make up for his personal decisions that didn't turn out how he thought they would.