Bryce Weiner's reputation as a crypto scammer dates all the way back to 2014. He's famous for running pump n dump schemes, moving from one coin to the next like they were short-lived pets. Here's a summary of what happened with one of his more famous involvements:


He has washed, rinsed, repeated this cycle for years, always creating just enough room for him to escape responsibility for what happens with his projects.

His latest project, Tao (XTO), started off decently (other than the fact that it was associated with him), and actually had a significant run-up in 2017. By Dec 2018, it was delisted from CoinMarketCap, and today is only available for trading on one or two very small-time exchanges (averaging $100-$300 a day in trading volume).

With Tao being all-but-dead, he has decided to re-launch the coin as "Tao 2," under the premise that it would be an "Ethereum for the music economy."

The Tao 2 launch was first mentioned in the long-running Tao ANN thread on March 26th:


The GitHub link for the project was posted in the Tao ANN thread by the project's main supporter on April 6th.

It was quickly brought to light that instead of forking Ethereum, Weiner created a clone of TomoChain, naming it Tao 2, carefully scrubbing any reference to "TomoChain" and replacing it with "Tao". Someone who took the time to compare the repositories offered the following summary of the differences:


In addition, the README file for Tao 2 (archived) is basically just a copy/paste of the README file for TomoChain. Here is a sample comparison of the two:





Just to make sure this was a direct, unattributed clone (basically plagiarized) version of TomoChain, I asked somebody in the TomoChain thread for their opinion, and this was the response I received:


Basically, Weiner is gearing up for a new fleecing of investors by copy/pasting a project and claiming it as his own, as he did back in his RazorCoin days. Given Weiner's penchant for rolling out scam after scam on this forum, I think its high time his account was tagged for being a scammer, as well as that of his most vocal (and apparently only) supporter.

The flag for the Tao ANN creator is here.

So... No comment on the fact that you ripped off TomoChain line-for-line and called it "Tao 2"?

I was hoping you would at least provide some sort of excuse for why you plagiarized their work.

None of this refutes the fact that Bryce heavily plagiarized the TomoChain project. He did not accredit TomoChain as the source of _anything_ despite directly ripping it off, copying it line-for-line and word-for-word. That is extremely dishonest and a tactic often used by scammers. It's also completely disallowed in the professional and academic worlds. If you were a scientist you would be shamed by the community who would never let you forget it for the rest of your career. If you were a student you would be expelled. There's absolutely no reason why it should be acceptable here.

Nobody said TomoChain was a scam. Try reading the thread. If you don't understand it, put it through Google Translate.

I don't think Weiner is going to open any threads with that account but I supported your flag anyway. If someone clicks on his profile it will show that he has an active flag against him.

As is typical of scammers and their defenders, you are trying to throw this back on me with stupid accusations that have nothing to do with anything instead of addressing the actual situation. This thread isn't about me, its about Tao.

Please try to concentrate on answering these questions:

1. Why wouldn't Bryce just do a proper fork of TomoChain on GitHub that reflects where he got the source code from instead of scrubbing any sort of attribution to the code's creators? That way it wouldn't seem like he was trying to hide anything. For months he (and you) said he was doing a fork of Ethereum, then surprise, he cloned TomoChain with no attribution whatsoever, just find/replacing "TomoChain" with "Tao," meanwhile bragging to his Slack followers about all the hard work he had been doing.

2. Do you really think its OK for Bryce to literally copy word-for-word the summary of a project and pass it off as his own? Please take a closer look at how much of the TomoChain summary Bryce plagiarized for Tao 2:





He even copied "More details can be found at our whitepaper", didn't even bother to change it to "in our whitepaper."   How much lazier can you get??

That is the definition of plagiarism. It is laziness at best and an intellectual property rights infringement at worst. Either way, why would you promote a project whose creator can't be bothered to explain it using his own words? This is a classic hallmark of a scam. The scammer is so short-sighted about their project that they don't spend time on important little details, like say, having an original fucking mission statement.

Yet here you are trying your hardest to get people to pay attention to anything other than the above.

The fact that either Weiner's or notsofast's sockpuppets and/or Twitter minions are working overtime in an attempt to impugn my character confirms that I am barking up what is assuredly the right tree. There's no way I'm letting this go. My best advice to you would be to just fuck off from this forum, but if you insist on staying, I will do everything I can to dissuade a new round of suckers from losing money in yet another Bryce Weiner scam.

Answer the two questions. If you side-step them in favor of pursuing tangential bullshit that is not relevant to Weiner's actions, I will ignore you and just assume its because you know you are in the wrong.

Remember, I'm not the one asking people to invest money in a project which I am already invested, you are.

Again, another attempt at misdirecting away from Bryce getting caught plagiarizing a project to launch yet another scam.

I have provided concrete proof of Bryce's plagiarism. Not you, not ACGCrypto, and not even he has denied it. Knowing his long-time penchant for running scams, he is no doubt preparing to launch another one under the guise of "Tao 2.0"

"Many here know how Github and how cloning a coin works, the coin was forked from another open source coin, and what?"

And many more don't know how it works. There are ways of performing a GitHub fork to properly accredit the source code. Bryce avoided doing that, hoping nobody would notice, instead telling his Slack followers about all the "hard work" he was doing.

If this issue didn't matter so much, you wouldn't be here, pathetically attempting to dox me. How does knowing my real life identity in any way change the fact that Bryce is a scammer and notsofast is a scam supporter? It doesn't.

---

Speaking of notsofast, who apparently has been a "lowkey supporter of Tao" (as someone put it) (and now high-key supporter), let's delve into his track record for a minute. Wonder why he deleted this tweet, which said this:




What happened with CryptoBridge that would make him delete his tweet? Well, let's find out.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/cryptobridge-closes-down-and-waves-relaunches-dexs-face-tough-times


This happened to hundreds of customers. The dumbest thing about all this is CryptoBridge was supposed to be a DEX, so requiring KYC (2 weeks before closing) was especially shady.

If there was any doubt about notsofast being an ardent CryptoBridge supporter, this should put it to rest (taken from an archived version of the CryptoBridge website homepage):



Despite having a history of objecting to KYC implementation in exchanges, he had no problem absolving himself (and CB) of any wrongdoing by means of conducting a "poll" on his twitter:



notsofast may have just been an unwitting participant and I'm not saying he necessarily did anything wrong, but his judgment certainly is suspect, especially knowing he had prior history of promoting scam projects on the forum.



Indeed, the assumption that the project was a scam was correct, as project founder "AceOfWallStreet" fled with all his investors' money, but not before pulling one final exit pump scam on Bittrex.





Again, it could be possible that @notsofast was again just an unwitting participant in another scam.

Interestingly, notsofast and AceOfWallStreet were co-advisors of another project called Taylor that was supposed to be a "personal trading assistant" app. Taylor reached its soft cap of 500 ETH in 10 minutes, raising close to 3,100 ETH by the end of the token sale.



On May 22nd, 2018, the Taylor team announced that they had been the victims of a hacking, claiming that 2,578 of the 3,100 ETH had been mysteriously stolen, along with all of the "TAY tokens from the Team and Bounty pools." (?) Seemingly nobody bought this idea, especially not the investors:


notsofast did chime in with his opinion of what happened after being asked for it on twitter:



This statement by the Taylor team received a few responses with an underlying theme behind them:







Taylor's last development update was made in March 2019, the reception of which was summarized in one particularly succinct comment:



So, even with such a terrible track record of getting caught up in scam after scam, its quite possible that notsofast is just a hapless investor/advisor with extremely poor judgment when it comes to picking projects. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the case: is there any reason why anybody should be following him or participating in projects he puts his name to, or even just casually mentions? I would say "no." But that's just me. Good thing he puts this disclaimer on his twitter profile:



Guess that means he doesn't think you should take him seriously either.

Man, I'm so glad you replied! I had a good laugh at you last night when you posted the first reply. I'm happy to reply to you and address your once again insubstantial allegations and petty smears.

Incorrect, you little weasel. You're projecting your own failings on me. Try to be a better person. I addressed your statement and asked you a highly relevant pair of questions which you are attempting to misdirect from in your usual shady style.

Your long-time penchant for making unjustified claims of scams, you mean. Be honest. Come on. And it's far from concrete outside of your wild, impotent imagination.


Firstly, you are purposefully and dishonestly misquoting me, allow me to paste in what I actually said:


So yes, you deeply dishonest person, I did deny that using the readme file from an incomplete, in-process forking of a coin network is automatically and unambiguously an example of plagiarism, and provided an alternative explanation which you chose to ignore and misrepresent.

I didn't use the phrase "I deny it," but what I actually said, which you misrepresented of course, clearly is a denial.

Let me expand, since you're pretending not to understand and there may be readers who fall for your bullshit if they're not familiar with how creating an altcoin works.

This is a link to an old coin cloning guide that's been around for years.  You can find plenty of others with near-identical steps with a simple google search.

https://cryptocurrencytalk.com/topic/21854-how-to-clone-an-altcoin-scrypt-coin-edition-includes-largest-windows-guide-ever/

The specific steps are for cloning a scrypt coin forked directly or indirectly from Bitcoin's codebase. The instructions use cloning Litecoin as an example, but the basic steps apply to any Bitcoin-derived codebase.

I went through a lot of the process years ago to teach myself more about how cryptocurrency works but ended up getting hung up on dependency issues so never completed it. But I understand the process fairly well and the steps are broadly similar for an Ethereum-derived codebase such as Tomo.

So, as I previously mentioned, the first steps of the actual cloning process are


and then you continue with replacing other variables before firing up the network for the first time, etc.

So there's a process which doesn't include editing the readme file, which has nothing to do with getting the network to function and which can be easily edited later. Something any reasonable person would assume will happen, presumably before the network is publicly launched, which as I have pointed out has not happened yet.

Secondly, there are two ways I'm aware of to fork an open source repo. One is to click the fork button on GitHub, the other is to click the download button and edit the files locally before uploading the files to your repository.

Either is a legitimate way to fork open source software.

Yes, if one does the former, it puts a nice little link back to the original repo. I'm presuming this is what you're complaining he didn't do? Regardless of whether that little link is at the top, it's still quite clear from the commits where the code is derived from.

And since I'm willing to be more charitable with my interpretation of events than you are, I'm going to assume that there will ultimately be a copyright or similar attribution in the readme file or elsewhere at some point.

In fact, I will publicly state right here that I think Bryce should include a statement to that effect as it does seem like the correct way to do things. But I assume it was his plan anyway since I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Although either way, it still wouldn't justify the claim that the project is a scam.

So no, this is not sufficient evidence to cry plagiarism, and certainly not sufficient evidence to label it a scam. Especially given, as has been established, this is still a work in progress.

Your "evidence," as always has been the case with you and your various alt accounts and I assume associate(s), is pathetic and insubstantial.

As I mentioned, and as you quoted before you scrapped and reposted your reply,



Oh, and just to avoid having my time wasted by you trying a weak-assed semantic argument like you attempted in your earlier post:


Forking Tomo is doing a fork of Ethereum in exactly the common parlance way that forking a coin from Litecoin or Peercoin, etc. is doing a fork of Bitcoin. Those two examples are derived, directly and indirectly respectively, from the Bitcoin codebase.

Tomo is derived from the Ethereum codebase. So forking from it is forked from Ethereum in the same way. So the statement stands.

I didn't know specifically which codebase he's using until recently; as I have mentioned previously in the Tao thread, all I am doing is passing along in good faith the information posted in the slack.


I am not attempting to dox you.

I have not posted your name, I don't have any idea or care what your address is, nor would I post it if I knew. Nor do I think anyone else should publicly dox you or anyone in your personal life.

You have, however, revealed what I have suspected for a long time: that there was one person lurking behind multiple accounts, using them dishonestly to harass, attack, and smear me and Bryce, and now NotSoFast.

That is your MO, your dishonesty is directly relevant and why I brought it up.

Just because you libel someone as a scammer does not make them one. Just because you libel me and NSF as "scam supporters," does not make it true.

Especially coming from a documented liar like yourself.

And from what I've seen right here on Bitcointalk, you appear to have engaged in at least one actual case of fraud. Your actions in that case seem to very likely be illegal in many jurisdictions as you posed as multiple people in an intentionally deceptive fashion. It also seems likely that those actions were also illegal by violating US securities laws.  

That's my belief and I'm not a lawyer, but I will provide evidence in a bit.

So since your MO is to act in an unethical and perhaps even illegal fashion, and then virtue signal by posing as a scam buster to hide your misdeeds, then yep it's relevant and is not an evasion.

I’ll post details about this below, starting under a double HR. In the mean time, back to your post


No.

I'm not going to speculate on tangential claims I have no familiarity with. You can take that up with NotSoFast if he cares to answer them. All you are doing is the exact misdirection you falsely attribute to me.

Once again, this is part of your MO.

All I said was that he's owned Tao for a while. That's what "he's been a low key supporter" means. And I mentioned he recently spoke about it on his twitter feed. You're the one who has tried twisting that into something else.

As usual.  

Hey look! You can manage a minimally charitable interpretation! Good for you! Keep it up, man.  You can become a better person when you actually try!

---

Now, let’s get to YOU. It has come to my attention that you are posting on at least two accounts.  You have used those accounts, and possibly others, to stalk the Tao thread and engage in what I would describe as targeted harassment for literally years.

You have made unfounded claims and personal smears, and I asked you the following question  in my last post:



Of COURSE, you ignored the question and attempted to redirect to other topics which is exactly what you accused me of in some classic projection.

But I know for certain that you post as both Nutildah and Coinclarity. I know this from a mountain of evidence you yourself have posted here on Bitcointalk as well as on Coinclarity and elsewhere.  All of which has been archived, including a couple pieces of evidence you’ve hastily deleted to try to cover your ass such as a certain beach photo.


I will now answer the above question in your own words from all the way back in  2014:





In your own words, the above described behavior is legally and morally wrong. It is fraudulent.

Not only do I know you have engaged in this very same behavior to brigade the Tao thread, but you have done so while shilling for at least one ICO right here on Bitcointalk:

---

---

Selected comments from the YuTu ICO pre-ann

---

Here’s where you come in, first hiding behind your CoinClarity account:





And here you are with your Nutildah account, acting like you’re just discovering the thread and commenting for the first time, even though you’re already part of the team.

This is what is called a plant or a shill, as I’m sure you know.  Something “YuTü.Co.in” has said elsewhere in the thread isn’t being done. Hmmmm.

Here’s a link to an article to be clear about how I’m using the term shill in this context, to avoid ambiguity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill


Yes, how could you find a way to involve yourself in an ICO when you’re already part of the team?


And here is where you, aka “Coinclarity” post an “article” attempting to legitimize “YuTü.Co.in” with your little blog.

This is a tactic you use over and over where you use yourself as a source to attempt to legitimize your claims

As a point of contrast, in the Tao thread I have used external sources whenever I possibly could to corroborate statements. The fact that I was able to corroborate statements I saw Bryce making early on about Tao is what convinced me to put some of my own money into it, despite the fact that I was actually highly skeptical about him back in 2016.

 


And then here you are back with your Nutildah persona, once again acting as if you aren’t involved in the project and are just “helping out”



and again as Nutildah, acting excited to invest while pretending not to be part of the project. Facetious wording aside, that seems like textbook plant or shill behavior

---

---

Now let’s see.  If you read through the above and the full thread here

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4420143.0
https://archive.is/kwgbf

you will find a number of interesting things.

• You will find what look suspiciously like promises of future profits, which is a serious no-no from a legal standpoint and I believe is a violation of US securities laws.
• You find at LEAST two accounts presenting themselves as two separate people which are both run by you. Are there any other accounts run by you posting in the same duplicitous way in your ICO thread? Hard to say, but wouldn't surprise me.
  I believe the act of presenting yourself as an uninvolved party when you’re a member of the group of people selling something is also illegal in some jurisdictions. Especially if it may constitute a securities offering.
  But if course this is just me expressing my belief as a layperson since I am not a lawyer or legal expert.
• You find people who have posted that they were ripped off and that it was a scam.
• There is no way to trade the token that I can see.
• The website no longer works.
• There was a business set up to give the semblance of legitimacy to the ICO, but it has been dissolved by the government because you apparently never paid your taxes  

So by your own expressed standards the YuTu ICO which you were part of is unambiguously a scam.

It may also constitute legal fraud.

Again, the above is just my belief and not a legal opinion, but there is no doubt at all to any clear eyed observer that you are a hypocrite and a fraud by your own stated standards.

If you have the slightest integrity, you will immediately publicly withdraw your lies and remove the negative comments from my profile, Bryce's, and anyone else you libeled.

Be a better person. Start today.

Your move, buddy.

If you read my post it is entirely clear that I have no idea who he was, or if he even was a real person and not an additional alt of Nutildah. I've never heard of him before this nonsense.

I'm sorry for his passing. Doesn't excuse Natildah, who my post was directed at. 

Buddy, you and your minions and alts have been absolute constant assh*les to me for years. I have been polite, I have been patient, and you have been relentless in your attacks. Deal with the fact that you brought this on yourself. I far far far prefer to take the high road and either be kind towards people, or simply avoid them, but you refused to stop.

Assuming I can believe you re: YuTu, given your track record and demonstrable dishonest behavior in that thread and in the Tao thread, you're probably lucky it failed. If you'd raised the $3 million that I found stated on an ICO tracking website after I stumbled on the YuTu thread, you might be facing jail time for the reasons I stated previously.

1) almost all of that reputation is due to you repeating claims
2 & 3) is still incorrect as I already explained since you seem as willfully ignorant of how cloning a cryptocurrency works as you are of what constitutes a scam