Reputation: nullius is a cunt ✔

[DireWolfM14]

recently accused fillippone of being a blackhats because he used keys.lol in the past (giving red trust) but did not give red trust to the creator of the site

So he has left negative feedback to fillippone, right? I'm not surprised.

Some time ago I looked at his trust feedbacks, or rather his garbage trust feedbacks and I distrusted him on my list. I'm going to put him on ignore. I don't want to waste my time with people who have something wrong in their head, no matter how much knowledge they have.

I used to find nullius' arrogance annoying, but I valued his technical knowledge and found myself agreeing with him in principal more often than not.  But his arrogance slowly started to turn into something sinister, more like narcissism or megalomania.  Now he's seeing malice where obviously none exists, and creating drama where it's unneeded.  It's really sad to witness someone's mental implosion, and honestly I'm starting to find myself feeling sorry for him.  I really think he needs professional help.

[1715099261]

1715099261

[1715099261]

1715099261

[BlackHatCoiner]

The TL;DR is:

fillippone said:

If you find a positive balance in this client side generated pages, you are actually owner of the private keys, so you are legitimate owner of such balance, and nothing prevents you from transferring to your own wallet.

Which is true. Any key you generate is yours, whether that was generated before you or not. Even if your intention is malicious and start brute forcing millions of keys, they're all yours. It doesn't change that fact. And that's not how I or fillippone see it; it's the way the protocol sees it. If you have generated a private key, you can sign messages with it. You're, therefore, the signer and, ultimately, the legitimate owner of that key.

nullius responds with:

For the past three years, nobody noticed that fillippone is a wannabe wallet thief?  This is way beyond Asch.

fillippone will never find anything unless someone tells him about Brainflayer, but that is not the point:  He is audaciously proclaiming wallet-thief intentions that rico666 evasively dissimulated with LBC.  rico666 got tagged for that.  Worse, fillippone claims that this is “legitimate” (!).  And he claims that as a trusted pillar of the community, who should be responsible to the highest standards.  Tagged accordingly.

This isn’t a matter of learning about Bitcoin:  To dream of snatching people’s life savings or business funding, and treat it as a lottery winning or money found lying in the street, it is a matter of base character and lack of decency.

I won't bother on commenting this drama crap, but I just want to ask nullius: Did you read the whole thread? Later, he says:

I knew from start the  possibilities to find something were tiny, but I wanted to try because looking for balances and finding nothing, would reassure me that nobody could do the same with my own bitcoin so jealously held in my cold wallet.

It seems more like a safety-reassured wannabe than a wallet-thief wannabe.

[LoyceMobile]

And that's not how I or fillippone see it; it's the way the protocol sees it. If you have a private key, you can sign messages with it. You're, therefore, the signer and, ultimately, the legitimate owner of that key.

I would have expected nullius to understand this. The protocol is much more important than anything else including ethics. Ethics can't be enforced.
If someone knows my private keys, I totally assume I lose my funds.

[marcotheminer]

And that's not how I or fillippone see it; it's the way the protocol sees it. If you have a private key, you can sign messages with it. You're, therefore, the signer and, ultimately, the legitimate owner of that key.

I would have expected nullius to understand this. The protocol is much more important than anything else including ethics. Ethics can't be enforced.
If someone knows my private keys, I totally assume I lose my funds.

Protocol > ethics, can become a slippery slope imo. Hand in hand, if there's mechanisms in place where one supports the other then we can have super resistant and 'safe' networks (read: ones that are not-so-scary for the public).

[LoyceMobile]

Protocol > ethics, can become a slippery slope imo. Hand in hand, if there's mechanisms in place where one supports the other then we can have super resistant and 'safe' networks (read: ones that are not-so-scary for the public).

I think it was theymos who mentioned that there could be a second layer with all kinds of protections and refund options. But on-chain, Bitcoin shouldn't change in that direction. Don't forget that one person's refund is someone else's disappearing payment.

[PrimeNumber7]

And that's not how I or fillippone see it; it's the way the protocol sees it. If you have a private key, you can sign messages with it. You're, therefore, the signer and, ultimately, the legitimate owner of that key.

I don’t think I would agree with that broad or a statement. For example, if someone uses deception or exploits a weakness in security to install malware on a computer to obtain a private key, I would not consider the person the “legitimate” owner of the key. Similarly, if someone uses a $5 wrench attack to obtain a private key, they are not the legitimate owner of said key.

After reading the thread in question, it is clear that fillippone was not using deception, nor force upon any third party to try to find a private key originally used by someone else. As such, I don’t think it is accurate for nullis to describe fillippone as a “wallet thief”, wannabe or otherwise.

fillippone was using what amounts to be brute force to look for used private keys. If however there was a more efficient means to generate an already used private key, I would expect many people to generate these keys, which is why I desire bitcoin to use robust means of cryptography to go from private key, ultimately to address. I would equate calling someone looking for weakness in the cryptography used in bitcoin as a “wallet thief” the same as discouraging looking for weaknesses in cryptography, and that will ultimately lead to negative results.

[BlackHatCoiner]

For example, if someone uses deception or exploits a weakness in security to install malware on a computer to obtain a private key, I would not consider the person the “legitimate” owner of the key.

I just slightly changed my post to avoid this confusion.

I would equate calling someone looking for weakness in the cryptography used in bitcoin as a “wallet thief” the same as discouraging looking for weaknesses in cryptography, and that will ultimately lead to negative results.

+4

I would have expected nullius to understand this.

Me too, but he appears to be a rather attention seeker. He's a techie, and I give it to him, but this doesn't mean he has the right to insult every user who'll be at the unfortunate position to be against his opinions. Nullius doesn't speak with users, he speaks at users.

I can't imagine of having a conversation with him in real life.

[bitbollo]

I sometimes wonder if it is part of human nature to waste time in frivolous discussions and to get away from topics that may have real value.... yes it is true we can not think only of "chiefs system" but....

re-reading OP created by fillippone it is evident that there was no malicious approach.
I can only read a person who is enthusiastic about showing how difficult it is to find a private key with balance, although there are systems that allow you to search for it.

I am sorry to read these controversies, these are a waste of time, of our precious time.
also nullius, it is clear that you are an out of the ordinary person with a superlative preparation on these topics but I am sorry that you may think that this user is a "a wannabe wallet thief" .

I don't think this is really the intention or is it an occupation of him.
Not even the purpose of creating that topic had that sense, quite the contrary .... to demonstrate that although certain systems exist, perhaps it is really impossible to find a private key with funds ....

Are we here to write, find subtleties or imprecisations to point the finger at us? I really hope not ....

[1miau]

The TL;DR is:

fillippone said:

If you find a positive balance in this client side generated pages, you are actually owner of the private keys, so you are legitimate owner of such balance, and nothing prevents you from transferring to your own wallet.

Which is true.

Yeah, that's a fact.

Any key you generate is yours, whether that was generated before you or not. Even if your intention is malicious and start brute forcing millions of keys, they're all yours. It doesn't change that fact. And that's not how I or fillippone see it; it's the way the protocol sees it. If you have generated a private key, you can sign messages with it. You're, therefore, the signer and, ultimately, the legitimate owner of that key.

So, nullius would have to tag Satoshi, too. 

Attacking great Bitcointalk contributors out of nowhere seems to be a new pattern.
I've had the pleasure as well some weeks ago to "debate" whith nullius, when he whitewashed Putin's war and made up fake accusations against us. 
How can such a knowledgeable person be so gullible and disgusting? Neither me, nor JohhnyUA, nor fillippone has done anything to him.

Write a constructive post and get attacked by nullius - who's next?

nullius is indeed a cunt ✔

[PrimeNumber7]

nullius is indeed a cunt ✔

I am generally against name calling and personal attacks.

I stated my opinion on the fillippone situation and I said that I think nullis is in the wrong. But I don’t think two wrongs make a right, and I don’t think calling anyone a “cunt” is going to result in anything productive.

[suchmoon]

Was there a prior disagreement between fillippone and nullius? That's how it usually works with him - someone tries to argue with His Holy Wordiness, and he goes digging for some nonsense he can turn into red trust. Otherwise there wasn't much of a reason for him to necrobump that thread.

As for ethics etc... red-trusting for imaginary thought crimes is some next level shit, beats nullius' regular "defamation" nonsense. Not that it matters much, he should be ~ed anyway.

I am generally against name calling and personal attacks.

I stated my opinion on the fillippone situation and I said that I think nullis is in the wrong. But I don’t think two wrongs make a right, and I don’t think calling anyone a “cunt” is going to result in anything productive.

It's going to result in an obvious fact being stated for the benefit of those who may not be aware of his cuntyness.

[GazetaBitcoin]

It's a great sorrow for me to see fillippone in this situation and I would like to state a few words on this matter...

I know fillippone for a few years now and I don't mean that I know him in the sense "oh, I saw that guy on the forum; he is quite active". I came to know him better than that.

Objectively speaking, I noticed how many useful threads he wrote, in the attempt to help newbies, beginners and the community as a whole. If I am to name only a few of his best writings, I would mention these ones:

Everything you wanted to know about BTC futures but were afraid to ask!
Everything you wanted to know about BTC options but were afraid to ask!
Stock To Flow Model: Modeling Bitcoin's Value with Scarcity
Comprare Bitcoin senza KYC: Bitcoin Bancomat a Milano rispettoso della Privacy (from Italian)
#meritislife: how to be notified on a smartband of merits and mentions
Everything you wanted to know about Grayscale BTC Trust but were afraid to ask!
Securing Your Seed Phrase with Washers
5 Resources to teach Average Joe about Bitcoin

As you can see, some are also very long. I can't even imagine how much time he had to dedicate in order to write all these... In particular, the topic Securing Your Seed Phrase with Washers also needed physical work for writing it!

Subjectively speaking, I had many interactions with fillippone in the past years. He proved himself as a very friendly person, always willing to help, always polite, decent, with a lot of common sense and, also, with a lot of knowledge about Bitcoin. It was a great pleasure to meet such a person and to have the chance to collaborate with!

Having all these in mind and seeing how many great contributions fillippone brought to the forum I can say that I see him as a very trustworthy person, someone I would fully trust to work with, to collaborate on various projects, to make financial deals with -- with no risk.

Knowing him in the way I do, I would go even forward, by saying that I am seeing fillippone as unable to cheat anyone. His very high moral standards and, over all, the way he is constructed, always willing to help those in need -- all these make him (at least, in my eyes) as someone unable to harm.

Due to all the above mentioned aspects I can say, while being 100% sure, that fillippone did not deserve the negative feedback he received, as he is not a thief, not even a wannabe thief and he never tried to scam anybody. Nor he ever will.

Once again, fillippone, I am sorry for all this situation. But keep being who you are, the way you are, as your way of being -- your behavior at large -- made you one of the best forum members, someone appreciated the same way as you appreciate the ones around you!

[Poker Player]

-snip

In any case, cuntius is not in DT, so fillippone should not mind too much.

I went to look at cuntius' trust list and I am surprised that you trust him, according to the last update. I imagine from what you say that this will change.

Another one that I've been surprised to see he trusts him is icopress.

[babo]

-snip

In any case, cuntius is not in DT, so fillippone should not mind too much.

I went to look at cuntius' trust list and I am surprised that you trust him, according to the last update. I imagine from what you say that this will change.

Another one that I've been surprised to see he trusts him is icopress.

yes cuntius isnt in DT ok

but the problem is the principle
if using a site makes you a black hats, then you don't even know what black hats are
such an accusation, such a defamation cannot go unpunished

because compliments are forgotten, defamations remain for life

[Poker Player]

yes cuntius isnt in DT ok

but the problem is the principle
if using a site makes you a black hats, then you don't even know what black hats are

I've had negative feedback from scammers and shitposters, mostly retaliatory, and I don't care. I understand that in this case it may affect fillippone more because the stinky cunt is not a simple shitposter, he is someone who has a lot of knowledge.

such an accusation, such a defamation cannot go unpunished

because compliments are forgotten, defamations remain for life

I think for punishment this should be enough:

... he should be ~ed anyway.

Or are you proposing something else?

[NeuroticFish]

I went to look at cuntius' trust list and I am surprised that you trust him, according to the last update. I imagine from what you say that this will change.

I'd say that this already got handled yesterday and the trust viewer has old data, since it's scraping only once a week.



On Gazeta's bpip page though, interestingly...



So I guess that this may put an even better light on Gazeta's post.

but the problem is the principle

I pretty much agree.

I've had negative feedback from scammers and shitposters, mostly retaliatory, and I don't care. I understand that in this case it may affect fillippone more because the stinky cunt is not a simple shitposter, he is someone who has a lot of knowledge.

I think that there's still quite a difference (in strength) between the trust feedback of some newbies that come and go and the feedback of a highly ranked and active member, no matter he's not DT.

[GazetaBitcoin]

In any case, cuntius is not in DT, so fillippone should not mind too much.

In the moment when fillppone received that incorrect feedback, he was on DT and, as a consequence, his feedback reflected on fillippone's Trust score. Now he is not in DT anymore and, therefore, the feedback appears at fillippone's Untrusted feedback section and it is also not influencing fillippone's Trust score anymore.

I went to look at cuntius' trust list and I am surprised that you trust him, according to the last update. I imagine from what you say that this will change.

Another one that I've been surprised to see he trusts him is icopress.

This is already changed and it is already changed in icopress' case as well. We had added him on our Trusts list a long while ago, when his contributions were mostly technical essays and articles advocating Bitcoin and Satoshi...

I'd say that this already got handled yesterday and the trust viewer has old data, since it's scraping only once a week.

Thank you for confirming this, NeuroticFish. Indeed, Trust viewer is not updated live. But the changes can be seen on bpip.

So I guess that this may put an even better light on Gazeta's post.

Same as above, this happened also in ancient times, when his writings were mostly technical or advocating Bitcoin...

[LoyceV]

In the moment when fillppone received that incorrect feedback, he was on DT and, as a consequence, his feedback reflected on fillippone's Trust score.

That can't be: nullius is at DT1 (-12), and has been excluded for a long time. He was on your Trust list, which explains why you saw the negative feedback.

[fillippone]

Dear Nullius,
I waited for an extended period before answering this post, which is probably the first one I am addressing to you, and for sure, the last one.

I will not counter your reasoning on the specific matter of the accusation that I am running a vast operation aimed at stealing everyone's private keys for my personal profit.
This accusation is incomprehensible to me, and you are intelligent and knowledgeable. I am sure you will outsmart me in every possible discussion we have on this topic.

All the intervention of many users who spent their time in this very depressing drama should have made the situation pretty clear to you.
One, in particular, was spot on in explaining my feelings on that two-year-old post.

I won't bother on commenting this drama crap, but I just want to ask nullius: Did you read the whole thread? Later, he says:

I knew from start the  possibilities to find something were tiny, but I wanted to try because looking for balances and finding nothing, would reassure me that nobody could do the same with my own bitcoin so jealously held in my cold wallet.

It seems more like a safety-reassured wannabe than a wallet-thief wannabe.

Didn't look that difficult to me, as almost everyone was able to understand the tone of the thread.

So, I think I will leave the answer to these accusations to the more than 10K posts I have written in this forum.

My interactions in this community were always aimed at improving my knowledge of bitcoin and exchanging my knowledge with others.
I made (a lot of) errors writing them, I made corrections, I had thoughtful exchanges with many members of this community, and for sure, I learned a lot.
Many times I have been corrected on many factual errors, inaccuracies, and superficialities in my posts, and I think I was always receptive to such corrections.
I think I never wrote anything where I had an aggressive, offensive or shady attitude toward any member of this community. And I am taking pride in this.

If you had any doubts you could have expressed in the thread, I would have been happy to discuss them with you. I could have even accepted making unnecessary amendments to the thread to reassure you about my intentions.

Instead, you let your action speak for yourself.

Let me have the same privilege.

Adieu.

[JayJuanGee]

Dear Nullius,
I waited for an extended period before answering this post, which is probably the first one I am addressing to you, and for sure, the last one.

I will not counter your reasoning on the specific matter of the accusation that I am running a vast operation aimed at stealing everyone's private keys for my personal profit.
This accusation is incomprehensible to me, and you are intelligent and knowledgeable. I am sure you will outsmart me in every possible discussion we have on this topic.

All the intervention of many users who spent their time in this very depressing drama should have made the situation pretty clear to you.
One, in particular, was spot on in explaining my feelings on that two-year-old post.

I won't bother on commenting this drama crap, but I just want to ask nullius: Did you read the whole thread? Later, he says:

I knew from start the  possibilities to find something were tiny, but I wanted to try because looking for balances and finding nothing, would reassure me that nobody could do the same with my own bitcoin so jealously held in my cold wallet.

It seems more like a safety-reassured wannabe than a wallet-thief wannabe.

Didn't look that difficult to me, as almost everyone was able to understand the tone of the thread.

So, I think I will leave the answer to these accusations to the more than 10K posts I have written in this forum.

My interactions in this community were always aimed at improving my knowledge of bitcoin and exchanging my knowledge with others.
I made (a lot of) errors writing them, I made corrections, I had thoughtful exchanges with many members of this community, and for sure, I learned a lot.
Many times I have been corrected on many factual errors, inaccuracies, and superficialities in my posts, and I think I was always receptive to such corrections.
I think I never wrote anything where I had an aggressive, offensive or shady attitude toward any member of this community. And I am taking pride in this.

If you had any doubts you could have expressed in the thread, I would have been happy to discuss them with you. I could have even accepted making unnecessary amendments to the thread to reassure you about my intentions.

Instead, you let your action speak for yourself.

Let me have the same privilege.

Adieu.

I remain somewhat confused about the whole matter, and surely I would not presume any of us to be anything close to a saint, including fillippone, yet I have no doubt that he would have been open to suggestions within the thread (as he proclaims that he would have had been) - but instead what seemed to have had happened was that Nullius was convoluting any attempt to potentially reasonably rectify possible issues (if there were any that needed to be rectified) into either imputing malicious intentions on fillippone or otherwise failing/refusing to help any of us to be directed in terms of how such topics should be addressed in the present, past and/or future - are we just supposed to NOT talk about such topics of bitcoin security and various potential (or actual) vulnerabilities?

Even though Nullius tends to be decently articulate and presents matters fairly well (with good grammar and all that), but even with such decently good presentations of facts and/or logic, that still does not necessarily mean that he is correct - even if he starts to become dogmatic about it.. and maybe dogmatism causes members to unreasonably get on the defensive when there might have been some possible reasonable ways in which suggestions should have or could have been made.. so as a minimum perhaps if nullius would like to provide evidence that he is not completely cunty, then he could at least convert his negative of fillippone to a neutral and to otherwise stick by his stance (if that's what he would like to do),.... and maybe even maintain reservations to turn the trust back into negative if he has further evidence to support his case that fillippone had actually done some thing wrong or that fillippone may have been running a long con or some other more compelling reasons that fillippone should have not created such thread...

Of course, the matter of whether to convert a red trust into a neutral or even to consider if there might be some other side to the matter or to continue to consider the matter (or the investigation of it) is totally within the discretion of nullius.. and for sure, he is free to stick to his guns too.. and maybe there are other members besides him that agree with such position that he sticks to his guns on this topic.. I doubt it.. but sure, it is possible.  Anything is possible.  hahahaha

In my other response on this matter, I had suggested that there could possibly be ways that fillippone might have amended some of his OP in that other thread or even created a disclaimer - although now the thread has been locked so those suggestions do not seem feasible absent getting the thread unlocked.. which might be possible if such a step seems like it might be even something that is in the ballpark of a reasonable way forward.. I have me doubts about that.. too..

Accordingly, I am not even sure if amending or creating a disclaimer would have been able to help matters from Nullius's perspective on the topic.. and then if fillippone had ended up making a bunch of changes, then the whole matter becomes confusing regarding whether some kind of cover-up or re-writing history might have been happening.. so in that sense, it seems that even if some kind of credibility were to be given to various claims that Nullius had been making, Nullius had seemed to put fillippone into a paralyzing position of being damned if you do and damned if you don't..  .. so personally, it makes it harder for me to give Nullius benefits of the doubt when he had been going down a route in which there does not seem to be any kind of meaningful course forward, and he is not even suggesting one.. except that we are all supposed to just agree with him because he is right.. blah blah blah.. and even Nullius should realize that members do have brains here and no one really likes to be told what we are supposed to think, even if we might not exactly know the various nuances of the points that Nullius had been making in his various posts on the topic in that thread.