legiteum (u=3597964) and Haypenny.net

[nullius]

Account “legiteum” (u=3597964) is patently dishonest—and yes, they’re trying to sell people on a financial project that looks ridiculously shady.  It isn’t even a shitcoin:  It’s a shit non-coin.  Their behaviour looks to me like a potential long con.

This is a long post.  To keep it organized, I have split it up under headings with internal links.

Table of Contents

• Proof of dishonesty
• What are they selling?
• Additional trust feedback

Proof of dishonesty

To keep this readable, the below quotations are excerpts except where otherwise noted.  Click through to read each one in context; where I do not control edits of a post, archival links are provided.

legiteum’s modus operandi is an Alex Jones type of conspiracy theorizing based on flat-out lies:

• Falsely claim that a Japanese cryptographer (who, in fact, worked for the Japanese telephone company NTT) wrote an NSA research paper (which, in fact, was co-authored by three Americans).
• Equate the Japanese cryptographer’s name with “Satoshi Nakamoto”, on no possible basis but the patently racist view that all Japanese names look alike.
• Claim that because a Japanese cryptographer wrote an NSA research paper (which, in fact, they didn’t write), and their name looks like “Satoshi Nakamoto” (which it really doesn’t), Bitcoin was invented by the U.S. government. /logic
• When called out for this lie, dodge the issue, and act extremely confident and authoritative.
• Bonus:  When distrusted for sleazy grifter behaviour, send retaliatory negative trust feedback.

Of course, this strategy depends on Bitcoin Forum members being fools.  Before I stepped in, legiteum’s spam megathread somehow got to its third page without anyone noticing that Tatsuaki Okamoto didn’t even write this paper:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025042804/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597690.0

There is lots of circumstantial evidence--although no direct evidence--that "Satoshi" was a person or team working within the US government.

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

My reply:

You fucking racist troll, idiot, and liar, this paper wasn’t even written by the person with the Japanese name:

It’s not the first time I’ve seen that paper, by the way; the paper is very well-known.  But whether or not others here have seen it before, any literate person who clicks the link can see that you are lying:

HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH

Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas

National Security Agency Office of Information Security Research and Technology

Cryptology Division

18 June 1996

Tatsuaki Okamoto did not write that NSA paper—and in fact, Okamoto did not work for NSA.  Okamoto is a famous cryptographer (arguably best known for co-discovering the FO transform), a Japanese citizen, who worked for NTT (the Japanese telephone company; think of it like Japanese AT&T/Bell Labs).

Some of Okamoto’s work is discussed in §4.2 and §5 of Law’s, Sabett’s, and Solinas’ paper—and thus, three papers authored or co-authored by Okamoto are amongst the 14 papers cited by Law, Sabett, and Solinas.

Oh, but Tatsuaki Okamoto is a Japanese name like “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  All japs are the same, amirite?  And Okamoto is mentioned and cited in the paper, so Okamoto wrote the paper.

As a rule of thumb, Hanlon’s razor suggests that I should call you merely stupid, not malicious.  However, this is far too blatant and too ridiculous to be adequately explained by only stupidity.  The only plausible explanation is stupidity, plus Alex Jones tier dishonesty.

Therefore, I am giving you red distrust.  This is not mere disagreement of opinion:  You’re a grifter spreading misinformation.  You should not be trusted with money, either.

Your unedited OP is archived.  (Page 2, page 3 shortly before my post.)

P.S., don’t bother making excuses like “a superintelligent AI summarized it for me” or “a dog ate my homework” or whatever.  You are responsible for what you write—and when what you write falls into the category of totally making shit up, no reasonable person will believe your excuses, anyway.

For the reasons thereby stated, I left them negative trust feedback:

Trust summary for legiteum

User	Date	Reference	Comments
nullius	2026-10-25	Reference	Blatantly makes up misinformation about Bitcoin, to weave conspiracy theories.  This is a matter of facts, not opinions.  It is the act of a dishonest grifter; therefore, I would not trust this person with money, either.

There response, hereby quoted in its entirety, completely dodged their lie about the authorship of the Law, Sabett, and Solinas (1996) paper.  Rather, it quoted something I snipped above from my self-quote, replied to that with more authoritative-sounding bullshit, and told me to “calm down”.

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6727/67274380.html

My third major point:  Bitcoin was patently invented by an amateur.[/anchor]  I should write a post about that sometime.  But this thread is not the appropriate place for it.

Suffice it here to note that much of Bitcoin’s design and original implementation are riddled with mistakes, which no cryptographer (let alone a team of NSA cryptographers) would have made.  I am on record as saying that Bitcoin Core is rock-solid—but that’s only because crypto-wizards and A-grade software engineers have devoted years of their lives to cleaning up Satoshi’s mess.  Nonetheless, Bitcoin still bears the imprint of design by one lone, intelligent, passionate, idiosyncratic, slightly paranoid amateur.

This is consistent with Satoshi being an average software worker within the CIA/NSA/DARPA/etc. Just because you work in a US government agency, that doesn't mean you are an expert on... anything. It's also consistent with a small group as well. Again, just because you have a project in one of these agencies doesn't mean your project garners the input of every single expert within the US government, or even anybody else besides yourself for that matter.

As for the rest of your apoplectic post... dude, calm down...  

They also left me a retaliatory red mark, which is funny because no one trusts their judgment:

Trust summary for nullius

User	Date	Reference	Comments
legiteum	2026-10-25		Abusing the trust system. I started a thread that triggered this poster and they wrote a totally incoherent, hate-filled rant and then used the trust system to "get back at me", which is sorta insane :-).

I subsequently followed up on the thread:

Attention, everyone who’s scrolling by to shitpost in this spam megathread:

Take three seconds to look at the link in OP.  “legiteum” totally made up the premise. 

• Tatsuaki Okamoto did not contribute to the cited paper.
• Tatsuaki Okamoto did not work for NSA.
• Tatsuaki Okamoto was a famous cryptographer.
• Only a knuckle-dragging racist idiot would equate “Tatsuaki Okamoto” with “Satoshi Nakamoto”.

This is grade A grifter bullshit to weave a conspiracy theory.

legiteum did not respond to me in their next post there:

https://loyce.club/archive/posts/6727/67275650.html

From their standard grifter behaviour, I had a hunch they must be selling something.  But what?


What are they selling?

The account’s current stats, at the time of this writing:

October 25, 2026, 04:01:47 PM *

Name:	legiteum
Posts:	2366
Activity:	672
Merit:	221
Position:	Full Member
Date Registered:	December 19, 2023, 05:25:52 PM

At this time, the account is showing personal text that claims, “World's fastest digital currency”, an avatar that looks like a logo, no signature, and no other details.

The account’s third post:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025180645/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478165.0#msg63352849

The absolute simplest means of numerically-delineated value transfer ever invented is called Haypenny. It's not cryptocurrency, it doesn't use PKI, it's simply anonymous value transfer between two entities whose standing in the transaction depends entirely on the possession of a secret token (called a "block", although this has nothing to do with a blockchain "block"). The Haypenny system is absolute heresy to anybody devoted to the cryptocurrency religion, but say what you want about it, the trading paradigm is as simple as it gets.

Wanting more than the Haypenny system approach, therefore, means you demand additional requirements from your means of value transfer, such as protection from a central government (fiat currency and the banking/financial system), physical protection and possession (physical currency), or... all of the stuff you demand that cryptocurrency and blockchain give you.

The account’s seventh post starts a new topic titled, Fast / easy / cheap / free way to create my own altcoin?  The OP:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025173052/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478814.0

If I wanted to create my own altcoin, what is the easiest/fastest/cheapest way to do it?

By "create" here I mean a coin I could give to my friends, offer to trade for other altcoins, and store in a wallet.

After about seven weeks of what, at a glance, looks like mostly posting confident-sounding nonsense, legiteum created a topic in Announcements (Altcoins) titled, Haypenny is now in beta!  It got zero replies.  Current snapshot 2026-10-25.  The OP:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025144003/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5484449.0

Haypenny is the ultimate platform for altcoins, allowing anybody to create their own digital currency in just a few minutes, free of charge and completely private. By leaving the technical platform to us, currency creators only focus on what they do best, which is to create a great brand and promote their coin.

Besides being able to create your own currency for free, anybody can trade Haypenny currencies using our trading system, which provides a hybrid clearing price auction and buy-it-now mechanism. All of this is connected to your totally private client-only Wallet app.

Haypenny is not cryptocurrency, and is not based on blockchain. It is a completely new paradigm in digital currency that we believe is the simplest form of numerically delineated value transfer ever devised. The paradigm is much more user-friendly than any blockchain-based system, as there are no private/public key pairs, and as such there is no notion of identity at all in the transaction system--the currency itself is completely anonymous. And the Haypenny Promise is a simple set of rules that all currencies on the platform will follow, making it a safe place for the average consumer.

Haypenny is currently in an extended beta testing period. We are doing this because we want to be absolutely sure the system is safe and effective for negotiable currencies. As such, during the beta period there is no mechanism to trade your currencies for US dollars or any other negotiable currency. (We are currently securing partnerships with online cryptocurrency brokerages in order to allow the exchange of Haypenny currencies with external ones e.g. US dollars).

Please take a look at the platform and let us know what you think. Technical folks might want to start with the the Haypenny Whitepaper or just take a look at our APIs on the Haypenny developer site.

The haypenny.net website is a JavaScript app, which reveals negligible information without enabling JavaScript.  No, thanks.  So, I don’t know how it takes your money; I reasonably presume it does.

Domain haypenny.net was registered 2022-06-21T21:16:43Z at Amazon Registrar, according to RDAP.  First archive is 2023-09-15.

The purported “whitepaper” is more interesting:

• First snapshot 2024-02-03 identifies itself as “Version 1.00. Last updated: 240117”.
• Current snapshot 2026-10-25 identifies itself as “Version 1.11. Last updated: 260904”.

This is literally the worst financial project whitepaper that I have ever seen.  It talks about why they chose Amazon AWS hosting, it goes into detail about why they chose the Java programming language over C, and it cites the Wikipedia article on REST, which they make sound more sophisticated by spelling it out as “‘Representational state transfer’” (internal quotes are Haypenny’s).

Without reading in detail a pile of substance-free buzzwords and irrelevant nonsense, all I can find about Haypenny’s security model is:

For Split operations, the client creates a "secret number" that is presumed to be a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number². It is 64 bits in size.

The "secret number" is included in the Split call, and that number is logged along with the rest of the transaction data.

In the event that a user does not obtain a response from the server due to a network error (i.e. the operation completed on the Haypenny system but the response was not received), the user may make use of an API call and provide the secret number and Block string used to make the call, and subsequently receive the lost Block string in an email.

[...]

References

• "Representational state transfer"
• "Cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator"
• "The Average Number of Credit Card Transactions Per Day & Year"
• "ISO/IEC 27001 and related standards"

This isn’t even a shitcoin:  It’s a shit non-coin.

It looks to me like a cover to run a weirdo unlicensed bank.

I think it’s probably a scam.  It’s definitely nonsense, it definitely pegs the b.s. meter—and it’s definitely run by, or with the involvement of a liar who’s puffing up their own forum reputation (and slowly leveling up rank) with standard con-artist tactics.

Make shit up, say it authoritatively, always act confident.  This actually works—well, until it doesn’t.

It appears indeed that with their bullshit project having been ignored for zero credibility, legiteum turned to establishing their forum reputation by such means.  See e.g. this thread OP, which somehow got +6 merits from people who should know better:

Merited by panganib999 (3), philipma1957 (2), ABCbits (1)
[...]

When I first designed the Haypenny transaction platform, my first task was to calculate the number of monetary transactions going on in the whole world on any given day, and then calculate that number for peak times of the year (e.g. Christmas), and then [...]

That is what is required for a currency to replace the current status-quo, and Bitcoin and other blockchain-based cryptocurrencies can't do it, and they can't even get close. [...]

Wherefore...


Additional trust feedback

Upon the posting hereof, I will leave legiteum additional negative trust feedback with reference to this Reputation thread, and with an advisory to distrust Haypenny.net.

legiteum (u=3597964) is puffing themselves up with authoritative-sounding baseless assertions, spreading conspiracy theories about Bitcoin based on objectively false misinformation, and also operating or involved with a shady-looking financial project:  A shit non-coin called “Haypenny”.

Do not trust legiteum, do not help them rank up with reputation to promote their project, and DO NOT trust Haypenny.net with your money.

[nullius]

Reserved to add or forward-link new information, without editing OP.

[eddie13]

So a Satoshi identity conspirist shilling a goofy project you got into a neg trust war with?
Subscribed..

[icopress]

eddie13 is back online.
Subscribed..

[DireWolfM14]

Subscribed..

 

Rumors of TMAN cussing out the forum to come back, nullius returns, and now eddie13 returns from the depths...

WTF is going on?  

Welcome back, btw.

[alani123]

User legiteum has some odd views but I think they're able to formulate a train of thought in a way that is much more logical and coherent than the vast majority of members here.

The thread linked in the OP that was made by them and ended up getting some merits made a decent point. It doesn't add any credence to their own project but it doesn't make them a scammer either.

There have been thousands of itterations of financial technology projects that get promoted among bitcoin and cryptocurrency fans over the years. If legiteum is to be called a scammer, then there should be some tangible signs of that. Misleading people into making financial decisions on false pretenses for instance. Having created an altcoin is not an act of scamming on its own. Having a personal opinion and even speculating about who Satoshi might be is also not an act of scamming. Albeit the extraordinary claim that Satoshi might have been a US federal agent needs better proof to be believed, holding such an opinion is still far from being a scammer.

[nullius]

So a Satoshi identity conspirist shilling a goofy project you got into a neg trust war with?
Subscribed..

So for your first post in over four years, you chose my thread about a neg trust war with a Satoshi identity conspirist?

If I’d known, I would have put out bitbeers, worked in some remarks obiter dictum on my conversion to liberalism, and awaited measurements of your reactions, for the sake of science.  Furthermore, I would’ve released another PHP zero-day to give you a better thread for a grand entrance.

Why didn’t I take an archival snapshot of your profile page with your last-active timestamp, when it was on a list of profiles I checked a few days ago?  Though web.archive.org seems to have tossed the snapshot I made of mine right before my return.

Well, since this is Reputation, where everyone is always sane, I know that no one will notice that “eddie13” disappeared only 24 days after “nullius” disappeared in 2022, and “eddie13” reappeared only 4 days after “nullius” reappeared in 2026.  Oh, and why did “eddie13” choose a “nullius” thread to pop up?  How many alts does “Lauda” (a.k.a. “theymos” (a.k.a. “satoshi”)) have!?  CONNECT THE DOTS!!!

Rumors of TMAN cussing out the forum to come back,

Woah, what!?

Or as “TMAN” would say, what cunt the fucketty fuck?  How fucking many fucking alts does fucking “Lauda” (a.k.a. fucking “theymos” (a.k.a. fucking “satoshi”)) fucking have!?

You did not read the OP.  Read the OP.  Read the part of the OP that shows where legiteum leveraged objectively false misinformation to spin an Alex Jones tier mountain of bullshit.  Read... the whole OP.

Though I guess you love bullshit.

⇾ Re: Users who spread false/fake/unhelpful information on technical board

User: alani123

User: legiteum

[DireWolfM14]

~

All your alts are fumunda cheese dick toesucking jam cunts.  Except for TMAN, that's a good one.

[alani123]

Alex Jones objectively could be called a scammer because he makes false health claims in his self sponsored ads.
If you ascertain that legiteum indeed caused financial or in any way physical or otherwise harm to anybody the claims in the OP could hold more weight.

To this point, and even in the essence of the trust rating left to legiteum, it is demonstrated that this whole ordeal is made about disliking certain opinions. Which is not what the trust system was made about.

Don't get me wrong OP,  you're free to say what you want and criticise anything anyone has ever said. However freedom of speech dictates legiteum and you enjoy the same rights to talk smack.
And it shouldn't boil down to leaving trust ratings unless it's about actual goods or services exchanging hands.

I'd argue that any other use of the trust system kind of diminishes bitcoin's importance in the bitcointalk forum.

[eddie13]

Good chance of nully buddy generating interesting content, and that top reply slot was too tempting..

4 days back you say and straight to war? Good spot to pull up with my popcorn no?

Where was this attitude back in the day when a thousand eth scam icos on this board nearly ruined crypto as a whole?
Precident not to red tag suspected scam investments without hard proof, or were the favorite campaign managers and escrows in power at the time just making too much to let anything be done about them?

[LoyceV]

eddie13 is back online.
Subscribed..

I was thinking the same thing. If this is what it took to bring back eddie13 (who I'll always remember for this post), I'll subscribe too

[mindrust]

~

All your alts are fumunda cheese dick toesucking jam cunts.  Except for TMAN, that's a good one.

Lauda was pretty dope too.

Possibly marlboroza as well

[shahzadafzal]

~

All your alts are fumunda cheese dick toesucking jam cunts.  Except for TMAN, that's a good one.

Lauda was pretty dope too.

Possibly marlboroza as well

Something big is cooking or what? TMAN's clone was seen other day before it got nuked.

Please continue...

[nullius]

Help me out here, eddie.  Why is it that I’m the only person who noticed that legiteum misattributed the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas, 1996] paper to Tatsuaki Okamoto?  It was the core of legiteum’s bizarro-logic argument.  legiteum linked to the paper prominently in their own OP.  The very top of the paper identifies its authors as “Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas”.  Why did only I notice?

Is the con-artist shtick of making bold, authoritative-sounding statements so very effective, people fail to see what’s right before their eyes?

4 days back you say and straight to war? Good spot to pull up with my popcorn no?

Oh, hell, no.  Well, I hope not.  When I returned here, I said to myself that I should ignore trolls—such as certain DT members.  At the time of all that Reputation drama years ago, I forgot the old adage about wrestling with a pig.  My lifetime is precious—scarce in supply; I’ve wasted far too much of it arguing with such idiots who don’t matter. ☽︎

What does matter?  Look to the future, by learning from the past.  When you see persistent misinformation that just won’t go away no matter how often it’s debunked, and when you observe the harm that it can cause, do you pause to wonder how it started?

I think there’s a chance, a not-insignificant chance, that a year or five years from now, we’ll be futilely struggling to stop a popular urban legend that NSA spook Tatsuaki Okamoto wrote a paper presaging Bitcoin in 1996, and then invented Bitcoin in 2008 as “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  It won’t matter that (a) Okamoto didn’t write the paper in question, (b) Okamoto didn’t work for NSA, and (c) there is no apparent connection whatsoever between “Tatsuaki Okamoto” and “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  Look at legiteum’s thread.  In empirical reality, you can see that the facts don’t matter.

I seek hereby to stop that chance.  Kill it with fire.  Terminate it with extreme prejudice.  Crush the seed of a rumour, the poisonous acorn that looks so small, before it can take root and grow into an urban legend.

A more mundane risk, which I think has a bigger chance:  legiteum is transparently leveling up their account, in what appears to be probably a long con to promote Haypenny.  If you look at Haypenny’s substance-free whitepaper, and at what legiteum has said about it on this forum, you’ll see on its face that it practically screams SCAM.  At best, it has zero credibility.  And this is purportedly a financial network.

legiteum’s early attempts to promote it here fell flat, so they turned to building rank and reputation with prolific posting of fake-expert bullshit.  They’ve been doing this for almost three years.  What will happen if they get up to Sr. or Hero rank, they have name recognition and a forum following, and then, they create a new ANN for Haypenny?

Don’t wait for me to say, “I told you so.”

When epidemiologists successfully stop a potential epidemic in its early stages, few people notice, and fewer thank them.  After all, bad things didn’t happen.  Here, that is the outcome for which I hope.

Where was this attitude back in the day when a thousand eth scam icos on this board nearly ruined crypto as a whole?
Precident not to red tag suspected scam investments without hard proof, or were the favorite campaign managers and escrows in power at the time just making too much to let anything be done about them?

I think that a part of the problem was that DT politicking was 80% corrupt bullshit—at the time of which you speak, which antedated new DT; now, it’s 90% corrupt bullshit.  The other part is an irreconcilable difference of opinions about what deserves a red tag.

As you know, some people interpret tags so narrowly, they’ll let dishonest, untrustworthy people run amok unless or until they get caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar.  theymos created the flag system for that purpose.  They didn’t get the memo.

Let’s put it this way:  I tagged Gavin Andresen.  Gavin is untrustworthy.  Anyone who doesn’t know why is new to Bitcoin, and should ask me for an explanation in an appropriate thread (which this is not).  Well, the folks who push a ridiculously narrow interpretation of tags won’t like my tag on Gavin.  I suggest that they should ~ me and fuck off.  Complaints >/dev/null.

I don’t tag every low-ranking Satoshi conspiracist; if I did, I would run out of red ink.

Furthermore, I must make this clear:  I don’t red-tag for mere disagreements of opinion.  alani123 is trying to spin it that way, which is absurd to anyone who actually reads OP.

If I red-tagged for mere disagreements of opinion, I’d need to red-tag every single account on this forum, starting with theymos.  I’d need to cat-scratch Lauda, which would be sad.  You, eddie, would get a nice collection of red tags.  I’d need to use alts to red-tag myself, too; I have changed some of my opinions over the years, so nullius (u=976210) definitely needs a “WRONG OPINION” tag.

I tag people who are untrustworthy.  Here, I tagged someone (a) whom I caught in a whopper of a lie, and (b) who peddles a financial project which (c) has zero credibility on its face.  I would not trust them with money.  I would not trust them with information.  I would not trust even one word they say.  I would not trust them to take out my garbage.  They’re untrustworthy.  What else is the trust system for?

Thereupon, indeed, I can meet the strict requirements for a newbie/guest flag:  “Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.”  Concrete red flags:  (a), (b), (c) above.  legiteum is lucky that I haven’t thought my time is worth lobbying for flag support, when half of DT has petty personal grudges against me.

Sorry to tell you what I think you very well know, eddie13.  It’s nicer to explain it to you, than to ELI5 it to alani123.

You still “did not read OP”.  I’m curious about why you’re so intent on repeatedly dodging all what I said in OP—just like legiteum repeatedly has dodged being caught in a lie.  To dodge is the only way to argue against it, but why do you care?

You already ~ed me over six and a half years ago.  (It must have been an eventful week in Reputation drama-land; it was the same week when suchmoon and DireWolfM14 ~ed me.  Off the top of my head, I don’t recall why.)  It matters only to you and your friends, because you’re not in DT.  I suggest that you ~nullius again, if it makes you feel any better, or open a Meta thread petitioning theymos for a new feature that lets you do this:

Code:

~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
[...repeated 2^256 times...]
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius

Would that feel good to you?

However freedom of speech dictates legiteum and you enjoy the same rights to talk smack.

• I do not “talk smack”—except when emulating TMAN, from obsequious gratitude for how when I was a Newbie, and I said please Sir give me merits so I can get good bounties, TMAN showered me with golden merits until Thermos told him to piss off and baned him from the forum .
• I did not accuse legiteum of “talking smack”.  I am not so silly.
• Help!  Help!  alani123 is repressing my freedom of speech by dictating what red tags I may or may not express.

Code:

$ alani123 < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1 &

All of the above was substantially written late on 26 October.

[DireWolfM14]

DireWolfM14 ~ed me.  Off the top of my head, I don’t recall why.

Again, I'd rather not dig up old flame wars and would rather welcome you back with the hopes that we can re-start our interactions with our best feet forward.  I actually really enjoy having you around.  You have the capacity to be fun and keep this place interesting.  I suggest you too try to refrain from necromancing past injustices, real or perceived.  This is just an internet forum, after all.  Yes, we all want to be liked, respected, and made to feel significant in every aspect of our lives, analog or digital, but we don't always get what we want.

Regarding the tilde preceding your name in my trust list it comes down to one simple thing; I don't find your prior use of the trust system compatible with my philosophy of how it should be used.  It's as simple as that.  Don't misconstrue that as meaning that I don't trust you, quite the contrary.  I would have no reservations about entering into a financial agreement or transaction with you.  I have all the confidence that you would honor your word in such a situation.  However, it's my opinion that your usage of the trust system is objectionable, and therefor ~.

[alani123]

That's a lot of words, too bad I'm.. Reading them all...

You still “did not read OP”.

I don't know why you said I didn't read the OP. I read every part of it.

I’m curious about why you’re so intent on repeatedly dodging all what I said in OP

I feel like I provided some very thorough responses of why I support my reasoning in response to your thread.

but why do you care?

Posting something in a public forum you're bound to get some opinions I guess.


Anyway, I think I should try to focus on the fact that the essence of my argument here is that whatever is mentioned about legiteum in the OP isn't something that would call for a red trust rating. I already said in response to your OP that your comparison to Alex Jones doesn't hit. If that guy had an account here I'd tag him too though. Promoting health supplements under false pretenses is certainly a scam in my book. Somebody could literally die. Merely having a FinTech project and mentioning its existence publicly isn't even comparable. Is there evident of harm caused? Has money exchanged hands? As far as I'm concerned by reading your OP, I don't see any of that.

lani123 is trying to spin it that way, which is absurd to anyone who actually reads OP.

Did I really do that? I mean, sorry if I did, but that's not my intention. I didn't mean to say you're making accusations out of spite but I do get a sense you're getting some things personally. Which is also not my intention.

You already ~ed me over six and a half years ago.  (It must have been an eventful week in Reputation drama-land; it was the same week when suchmoon and DireWolfM14 ~ed me.  Off the top of my head, I don’t recall why.)  

Had you not mentioned that I would have never noticed. Are you sure you don't recall why all these peeps ~ your own account? I don't recall why I did it myself but I would guess it was because I didn't agree with some trust ratings of yours. Isn't this how the trust system is supposed to work? Also, big euphemism to call anyone in this forum my friend. Had any of the people behind these accounts actually been my friends I would have had many more merits I guess. I think it's pretty obvious I haven't received any favors by any sort of "gang" here. Of course you can rate anyone in any way you want but that's just my criticism.  

lani123 is trying to spin it that way, which is absurd to anyone who actually reads OP.

Did I really do that? I mean, sorry if I did, but that's not my intention. I didn't mean to say you're making accusations out of spite but I do get a sense you're getting some things personally after me trying to explain why I don't really agree with your conclusion in the OP. I agree with a lot of the thought process, but not the conclusion to leave a negative rating.

To keep saying I didn't read and calling other people my friends for example!?

I tend to agree with you on many things actually, I hate racists, I despise Alex Jones, I don't appreciate "gangs" here and I very much so dislike people giving ratings over opinions other that objective facts. You giving this ratings isn't a big problem in my book, I just wouldn't do it myself maybe and explained why. Otherwise, I think I'm the person who provided the most coherent responses to your whole thread so to say I can't read is a bit unfair maybe.

In any case, as an offhand suggestion, I'd say maybe this energy should be directed towards going after something causing actual harm. For instance, hight now, in the meta board, there's a thread very clearly dozens of accounts with valid red trust (and/or with a proven connection to account farms) get paid in signature campaigns: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597163.0

Has any action been taken about it? Doesn't seem like it. If you're that good digging into things people have said and done here over the span of years maybe this is a better thing to go after.

Anyway, keep up the fighting spirit I guess.   Just realise I'm not against you or anything haha

[ABCbits]

Is the con-artist shtick of making bold, authoritative-sounding statements so very effective, people fail to see what’s right before their eyes?

Have you consider possibility some people decide to add him to their ignore list? That's what i did after reading his "information" about LN.

legiteum’s early attempts to promote it here fell flat, so they turned to building rank and reputation with prolific posting of fake-expert bullshit.  They’ve been doing this for almost three years.  What will happen if they get up to Sr. or Hero rank, they have name recognition and a forum following, and then, they create a new ANN for Haypenny?

If your speculation turned out to be true and there's many or obvious red flags on the ANN, this is when you or someone else create a flag and hope enough member support it.

[nullius]

Update:  legiteum is now stacking a lie atop another lie:  They lie about what they said in their OP, and misquote themselves to accuse me of lying.

Verbatim full-quote of the post, for the record:

Seriously, do I need to explain this?  Go read the Bitcoin whitepaper (PDF).  Observe that at the top, it says, “Satoshi Nakamoto”, and at the end, under the bibliographic “References”, it cites W. Dai, H. Massias, X.S. Avila, J.-J. Quisquater, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, A. Back, R.C. Merkle, and W. Feller.  Pop quiz:  Who wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper?

I appreciate the offer but I have to politely decline. No, please do not explain anything to me in relation to this thread. I am no longer interested in anything here therefore it is my last post in this thread. There are plenty of threads around the forum that I can enjoy reading (and participate in) and prefer to spend my time elsewhere.

As for the OP, his feedback seems apt.

Please clarify:  Do you mean my feedback to him, or his feedback to me?

I was referring to the feedback that all members have left for the OP.

This is an amazing exercise in how people simply don't read posts. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I never said that Okamoto wrote the paper, I said he was referenced in the paper, which he was.

But people are so insanely emotional over the (very plausible) possibility that Satoshi was working for the US government when he/she/they made Bitcoin that they are unable to read simple English.

Of course, after that falsehood about the OP (all one has to do is actually read the OP to see it's a falsehood for chrissakes), then somebody here made the conclusion that was not mere oversight, but rather that I, personally, must be... a linebacker for the LA Rams "a racist". And also a  "scammer" (trying to steal what from people, they do not explain).

And of course the point about Okamoto was only a minor point about the broader NSA paper story, which was only one item of evidence among others that Satoshi could have been a person or group working within the US government.

Look, this is just a theory, and there's no proof--or proof of any other theory at this time. I am fine with people giving counter-evidence and even simply doubting the theory it because it doesn't "feel right" to them.

But I guess for some people, this would destroy their entire world view, so they react... emotionally to the idea.  

A brief excerpt of my reply:

https://web.archive.org/web/20261025042804/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5597690.0

Today I came across this paper, which was created in 1996 by employees at the NSA including Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto:

How To Make A Mint: The Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

Is the con-artist shtick of making bold, authoritative-sounding statements so very effective, people fail to see what’s right before their eyes?

Have you consider possibility some people decide to add him to their ignore list? That's what i did after reading his "information" about LN.

I usually ignore such things.  There is too much nonsense in the world to pursue all of it.  I pursued this one, because:

• The seed of a new, totally false conspiracist rumour should be killed early, before it can grow.  Otherwise, it could become dangerous.  How many people ignored CSW early, before he became dangerous?  I know I did—and I later regretted ignoring him.
• I thought this one would be fast and easy to debunk.  On the face of their OP, legiteum flat-out lied about the authorship of a paper—and linked to the paper.  All that people need to do is to click through, and look at the authors’ names at the top.  It takes ten seconds or less.  Add ten minutes to look up Tatsuaki Okamoto, if one doesn’t yet know who that is, and verify that Okamoto was a Japanese employee of NTT, not an employee of American NSA.  What could be easier?
• Reasonable suspicion of a long con, addressed below.

Quite frankly, I’m now shocked at how obtuse people are.

legiteum’s early attempts to promote it here fell flat, so they turned to building rank and reputation with prolific posting of fake-expert bullshit.  They’ve been doing this for almost three years.  What will happen if they get up to Sr. or Hero rank, they have name recognition and a forum following, and then, they create a new ANN for Haypenny?

If your speculation turned out to be true and there's many or obvious red flags on the ANN, this is when you or someone else create a flag and hope enough member support it.

There is a common complaint, sadly oft too true, that the “little people” never get a chance to succeed.  If someone seeks to found a new, honest project without any big-name backers, they will likely face an uphill battle to establish themselves.  They struggle just to get attention.  Unless they have a stroke of spectacular luck, they may labour in obscurity for years—perhaps never to reach a breakout to success.  It seems the system is rigged, the deck is stacked against them.

Yet a glib talker can build reputation and gain attention, with nothing but superior bullshitting skills.  It happens again and again.  Such people know how to work the system.  Case in point:  Observe how smoothly legiteum now misquotes themselves to accuse me of falsehood, then says that all people need to do to see my falsehood is to read the post which shows their falsehood; to lie so boldly with a straight face shows extraordinary skill at deception.

I think it’s wise to recognize the latter case early, and stack the deck against them before they have name recognition and a significant following.  We’ve all seen what happens when a shady financial project with a popular following has defenders come out of the woodwork, to attack anyone who tries to warn people.

You still “did not read OP”.

I don't know why you said I didn't read the OP. I read every part of it.

What do you make of how legiteum claimed that Tatsuaki Okamoto was amongst “employees at the NSA” who “created” the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas 1996] paper?  It’s entirely false—and it is the central point of an OP in a Bitcoin Discussion thread now on its sixth page, with no end in sight.

I scoffed at you before, largely because you seemed not to see that.  Your latest post here was much more reasonable, but still misses it.  I’d like to come back to some of what you said—I’m not ignoring it!  But perhaps, if I keep this reply shorter, that one key point can be snapped into focus.

I put this at the bottom and sharply trim it, because I’m not the topic of this thread—not from any disrespect to DireWolfM14:

Again, I'd rather not dig up old flame wars and would rather welcome you back with the hopes that we can re-start our interactions with our best feet forward.

We’ve been having a nice discussion in the other thread.  FYI, I about 95% wrote a reply to you before...

You're going to give the pea-brain that started this thread an aneurysm if you keep that up.

...OP there had an aneurysm, and locked the topic.  What a shame that I spend so much time writing and editing my posts—especially the fun ones; now, I’ll need to start another topic to continue our social intercourse.  (Already planned.)

That being said—not about you, but in vague reference to about three or four unnamed DTs who systematically attacked my reputation before:

This bitch does not forgive, and does not forget.

P.S., thanks so much—being new here, I just didn’t know the difference between ~ and a tag.

[eddie13]

Sorry to hijacked your thread, it wasn't my intention..
Im near 50/50 here, but have this terrible affliction of a contrarian nature and deep abstractions.. Debate class either way..
Will lurk it out..

May the force be with your intelligence and skill to fly straight at the heart of the monster avoiding these deflective twigs and leaves through the wilderness in riechous flight to the beast..



"racist" lol

[nullius]

"racist" lol

Say a Japanese person made a conspiracy theory that a famous, pseudonymous “Bill Wilson” is really a super-secret homage to Bob Robson, because the names are pretty much almost exactly the same.  “While I don’t think Mr. Robson himself was Bill, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the ‘author’ of Willycoin a name that recalled his.”  Say what!?  Is it like, you stinky gaijin are all alike, all fungible with your round eyes, your ghastly paleness, your insufferable body odour, and your names all ending in “-son”?

Satoshi Nakamoto Tatsuaki Okamoto

(While I don't think Mr. Okamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the "author" of Bitcoin a name that recalled his).

Satoshi Nakamoto Isoroku Yamamoto

(While I don’t think Admiral Yamamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the “author” of Bitcoin a name that recalled the author of the Pearl Harbor attack.  This is evidence that Bitcoin was invented by Imperial Japanese revanchists, as a virtual atomic bomb dropped on the United States.)

Re: eddie13 returns!

Sorry to hijacked your thread, it wasn't my intention..
Im near 50/50 here, but have this terrible affliction of a contrarian nature and deep abstractions.. Debate class either way..
Will lurk it out..

Aw, man.  I think it’s cool that for your grand entrance after over four years away, you picked my thread to hijack, even if (cough) I’m trying to make this a serious thread to deal with a serious issue.  Not joking that your profile was on the list I glanced over to see who was still active.

I hope I didn’t accidentally troll you by mentioning the ACLU in the other thread.  I’m cool with your NRA, too, which means that as a non-aligned crypto-anarchist, I have no friends except maybe the three or four libertarians in the whole wide world who still believe what libertarians believed ten or twenty years ago.

Seriously, you’re one of the few forum members who DGAF about DT politics.  After the shit some people put me through here, I’d be a fool not to appreciate your perspective, even if I don’t always agree with you.  Insofar as I’ve seen, you’re the only person here who will stick up for cryptohunter—not to troll, but with thoughtful arguments; that takes guts.  The forum needs less cowardice and groupthink, in my opinion.  (To be clear, I’m not agreeing with your opinion, but noting that your opinion is yours and you dare to express it.  And to be ultra-clear, I’m not disagreeing with your opinion.  I’m just trying to avoid ultra-derailing my own thread with an extended discussion of CH and of my own experience with people whose group modus operandi is to target an individual, provoke him as much as they can by trolling him with gross insult and humiliation that lack any connection to any substantive issue, systematically destroy his reputation with ad hominem personal harassment, and then turn around and paint him as an angry “troll”.  If or when I ever run my own forum, it’s the kind of group misbehaviour for which I’ll ban people; it makes for a hostile and unproductive community environment.  And I have no respect for those who say to “grow a thicker skin” when they’re not the ones standing alone, being poked with hot needles.)

Eh, I know we’re both busy.  You posted Proof of Girlfriend to WO, as I recall.  After my forum girlfriend turned out to be a scammer who’d scammed theymos first, so n00bs shouldn’t mistake me as easy to fool, I created a fictional girlfriend; I’ve gotta keep her going now that she woke up, as she’s probably more talented at making money than I am.  Very fucking talented.  You’ve probably got IRL stuff that draws you away from the forum, and I’ve probably got IRL stuff that pins me to the forum.

But it would be a shame for the forum if you left.  And I hope I didn’t make you feel unwelcome in your grand return thread which is supposed to be a serious thread on another topic, dammit... why didn’t you choose a trivial thread like php2shell to derail!?.

May the force be with your intelligence and skill to fly straight at the heart of the monster avoiding these deflective twigs and leaves through the wilderness in riechous flight to the beast..

Please don’t tell me that’s a puzzle, with your words hiding not only the private key, but also the public key I can hash to an address to see that you put 21,000 of your OG BTC into it.  Look, even if this is your grand return thread, it’s also a legiteum thread; the shit non-coiner doesn’t deserve a thread that’s guaranteed to run at least till the puzzle is solved.

Uh-oh.  I’m starting to think with legiteum-logic.  I heard myself say it, so it must be true.  I am now dead sure that the quoted paragraph is a Bitcoin puzzle worth 21,000 BTC.

Gunax lbh sbe lbhe xvaq jbeqf.  Znfgre Fha pbhyqa’g unir fnvq vg orggre.  Objf.