[ANN][Blocknet] truly decentralized exchange | token ecosystem infrastructure

[synechist]

Hmm... is someone digging up old FUD here, or do you have something new to discuss?

Crunch time. Contribute something new or get banned.

why ban???
let dan talk ,you also know more about util .
and why the dev not talk anymore.

One more chance.

Bring some new and *legit* information or get banned.

Don't let your next post be more empty remarks.

[1714938768]

1714938768

[1714938768]

1714938768

[1714938768]

1714938768

[synechist]

friendfromnobody, you've had your chance but have brought nothing to substantiate your remarks.

You're banned.


Future users: if you come here and make claims that look like FUD and are not promptly backed up by solidly, verifiably substantiated sources, they will be deleted promptly.

After the past week I have very little patience for your nonsense.

Also, don't chance it. I know what FUD looks like and since I'm the moderator, that makes me the judge. Don't chance it.

Either contribute constructively or don't contribute at all.



(First prize goes to constructive criticism, as always.)

[infinitechaos]

Is this language from the UTIL OP alluding to UTIL's involvement in Blocknet or does Dan have a more active role in UTIL? It's difficult to tell from this language and perhaps this could also be why this poor sir is confused.

We are pleased to announce that currency developer Dan Metcalf has decided to take part in the effort to make Utility

the most advanced platform for block chain 2.0 functionality as outlined in our introduction document. Three other

developers have offered their support and we are currently courting one other renowned developer. These developers

wish to stay anonymous while the project grows, but they have agreed to reveal themselves in the future.


Mr. Metcalf stated: "When I learned that Utility coin was created with a vision that seeks not only to be a currency

or to build on features of other coins, but rather be a launching pad for advanced blockchain features through

collaboration of multiple and potentially unlimited development teams, I was intrigued to learn more.  After

discussing the long term plans with the Utility team I decided to join the initiative.   We as cryptocurrency

developers must answer the call and to realize the potential of this platform.  I encourage other developers to join

in the effort as well and I look forward to working with the Utility team and other collaborators."

[synechist]

Is this language from the UTIL OP alluding to UTIL's involvement in Blocknet or does Dan have a more active role in UTIL? It's difficult to tell from this language and perhaps this could also be why this poor sir is confused.

We are pleased to announce that currency developer Dan Metcalf has decided to take part in the effort to make Utility

the most advanced platform for block chain 2.0 functionality as outlined in our introduction document. Three other

developers have offered their support and we are currently courting one other renowned developer. These developers

wish to stay anonymous while the project grows, but they have agreed to reveal themselves in the future.


Mr. Metcalf stated: "When I learned that Utility coin was created with a vision that seeks not only to be a currency

or to build on features of other coins, but rather be a launching pad for advanced blockchain features through

collaboration of multiple and potentially unlimited development teams, I was intrigued to learn more.  After

discussing the long term plans with the Utility team I decided to join the initiative.   We as cryptocurrency

developers must answer the call and to realize the potential of this platform.  I encourage other developers to join

in the effort as well and I look forward to working with the Utility team and other collaborators."

Yes I can see how this might confuse our friend friendfromnobody.

On the other hand, the paragraph above alludes to several other developers, so it's a mystery to me why the poster has latched onto Dan.

Add to this numerous public statements that Dan only reviewed and offered advice based on the review, and I fail to understand friendfromnobody as anything but a fudster.

(Thirdly, it makes sense to me that whoever wrote that paragraph would want to use rhetoric that enlarges Dan's role as he's the only public figure associated with it, and his reputation has obvious appeal. Unfortunately this kind of irresponsible writing seems to have happened a lot with Dan's code reviews. Perhaps it's for the best that he's no longer doing them.)

Anyway, moving on...

[aragoon]

Good man Synechist. Nobody can be 100% right all the time but it's definitely time to draw lines and tackle fudsters and manipulators. So please continue to ban as you see fit. You have established trust with me and I'm sure with many others. We are right behind you. 

[friendfromnobody]

so im confused lol

this is the truth .
now im gone

[synechist]

Good man Synechist. Nobody can be 100% right all the time but it's definitely time to draw lines and tackle fudsters and manipulators. So please continue to ban as you see fit. You have established trust with me and I'm sure with many others. We are right behind you. 

Thanks. Much appreciated.

It's gonna be really simple around here. I suppose it should always have been:

There's just insufficient reason to allow claims against the Blocknet's legitimacy a place unless they have real backing.


Above all I prize constructive criticism. Almost nothing else can help to spot weaknesses and blind spots in the ideas behind a project. There were some very rewarding moments in the first 30-odd pages of this thread. People had real questions and expressed them frankly and without emotively loaded terms (e.g. most FUD) and/or overextended hypotheses (e.g. Leewilson).

I'm well trained in rhetoric and can spot it a mile away. Fudsters, you'll not fool me, and I'll not be tolerant.

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

[biskyb33]

(First prize goes to constructive criticism, as always.)



[/quote}

Good man Synechist. Nobody can be 100% right all the time but it's definitely time to draw lines and tackle fudsters and manipulators. So please continue to ban as you see fit. You have established trust with me and I'm sure with many others. We are right behind you. 

arlyn, i'm not sure aragoon is sincere. that "prize" is paid out in xc, right? anyway, MY constructive criticism is for you not to listen to that alt-motivated brown-noser.

so. do i get the prize?  

[URSAY]

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

The federal tax lien document was a fake?

[aragoon]

Yes it must be an extreme challenge for folk in the crypto world to differentiate between truth, sincerity and falsehood but it's just up to each individual to draw his/her own conclusions. I support anyone making an effort to clean up this space.

[filflarn]

I only had enough btc to buy about 108 BLOCK, so my share is extremely small but I do believe in the project as I dumped my last bit of BTC in it. Congrats to the DEV team and Im looking forward to seeing where Blocknet goes

[synechist]

so im confused lol

this is the truth .
now im gone

Ah, so now you want to paste your source?

Thank you. I'll address it.

Let's start with the things that Prometheus states that are factually incorrect:

- "XC is nearing completion". Nope. It hasn't even launched publicly yet. Its a vision of a truly mobile-friendly currency integrated into real world point-of-sale and commerce systems. XC hasn't even completed its initial mobile app, never mind blockchain 2.0 services and everything else.

- "Util is Metcalf's project". Nope. Everyone knows very well that if Dan shifts emphasis even slightly away from XC, all hell would break loose. The 1000+ hours he's personally invested into XC? Gone in a swift dump. XC is Metcalf's project. It's his baby, really.

- My impression of this portion of the conversation between 00Smurf and Prometheus is that Prom is clearly pitching to Smurf. He's making his offer as attractive as he can. And it appears he's mistaken about Dan or perhaps only vaguely aware and stretching the truth in ways that seem ok to him but in fact are way off the mark.

- "We're building our own supernet". This is interesting. The conversations are dated later than when talks about the Blocknet had begun, and they place Util at the centre of the "supernet". This entails that Prometheus did not know Dan's actual plans about the Blocknet.


So, to summarise:
- Prom's picture: Util = his own supernet, Dan "on his team", XC nearing completion.
- Dan's picture: Util = merely a participating coin in the Blocknet, Dan strictly freelance, XC not even launched yet.

Interesting differences of perspectives here. It looks like Prometheus was acting on a combination of partial information and his own intentions for Util. Turns out these diverge sharply from the facts of the matter: Util is not the Blocknet, Dan no longer does any code reviews,  and XC has a long timeline.

So let's not put any weight on Prometheus's claims about Dan being the Util dev. He only said that because he wanted Util to be the Blocknet.
Util isn't the Blocknet. Therefore Dan isn't the Util dev.

[BTCwriter]

Hmm... is someone digging up old FUD here, or do you have something new to discuss?

Crunch time. Contribute something new or get banned.

Hey synechist if you're serious about this banning then you should setup this XSTerminate;
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850210.new#new

It would give you better sleep. I think you can't just stay up 24 hours a day 7 days a week without having health problem.
Will, if you take this seriously then you should setup one.

[synechist]

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

The federal tax lien document was a fake?

I'm not in a position to tell.

But you can read my full response to Leewilson in a FUD thread.

Basically his/her post was an argument based upon that alleged tax lien document, rather than just a presentation of the document.

The argument presented was Lee's usual overextension of hypotheses beyond what the facts can support. Its claim, in a nutshell:
- a tax lien against Dan puts all the Blocknet's funds (and BLOCK) at risk [incorrect: they do not belong to Dan and will not be under Dan's control.]
- therefore Dan is unethical.

So it was yet another piece of insinuating, conspiracy-theorist-style FUD from Leewilson attempting to masquerade as legitimate argument.
Oh, and it was an attempted doxxing. Delete on sight.
And Lee is banned here. Delete on sight.

So Lee's post failed on multiple counts, and should stay in a FUD thread where it belongs.

[synechist]

Hmm... is someone digging up old FUD here, or do you have something new to discuss?

Crunch time. Contribute something new or get banned.

Hey synechist if you're serious about this banning then you should setup this XSTerminate;
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850210.new#new

It would give you better sleep. I think you can't just stay up 24 hours a day 7 days a week without having health problem.
Will, if you take this seriously then you should setup one.

I've downloaded it, but I haven't gotten python running on Windows yet.

Do you know how to get XSTerminate to run on Windows?

[URSAY]

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

The federal tax lien document was a fake?

I'm not in a position to tell.

But you can read my full response to Leewilson in a FUD thread.

Basically his/her post was an argument based upon that alleged tax lien document, rather than just a presentation of the document.

The argument presented was Lee's usual overextension of hypotheses beyond what the facts can support. Its claim, in a nutshell:
- a tax lien against Dan puts all the Blocknet's funds (and BLOCK) at risk [incorrect: they do not belong to Dan and will not be under Dan's control.]
- therefore Dan is unethical.

So it was yet another piece of insinuating, conspiracy-theorist-style FUD from Leewilson attempting to masquerade as legitimate argument.
Oh, and it was an attempted doxxing. Delete on sight.
And Lee is banned here. Delete on sight.

So Lee's post failed on multiple counts, and should stay in a FUD thread where it belongs.

For investors this is very important information as it would effect us all.  To suggest otherwise doesn't make sense when you consider this basic info...

irs.gov says:

How a lien affects you
-Assets:  A lien attaches to all of your assets (such as property, securities, vehicles) and to future assets acquired during the duration of the lien.
-Credit:  Once the IRS files a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, it may limit your ability to get credit.
-Business:  The lien attaches to all business property and to all rights to business property, including accounts receivable.
-Bankruptcy:  If you file for bankruptcy, your tax debt, lien, and Notice of Federal Tax Lien may continue after the bankruptcy.

Link:  http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Understanding-a-Federal-Tax-Lien

[EDIT]  I have no interest in doxing Dan but I am interested in protecting my investment in a reasonable manner.  If you are unable to comment, I"ll look into the matter myself.  Thanks.

[Don Flamenco]

When does the market open on Bittrex?

[synechist]

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

The federal tax lien document was a fake?

I'm not in a position to tell.

But you can read my full response to Leewilson in a FUD thread.

Basically his/her post was an argument based upon that alleged tax lien document, rather than just a presentation of the document.

The argument presented was Lee's usual overextension of hypotheses beyond what the facts can support. Its claim, in a nutshell:
- a tax lien against Dan puts all the Blocknet's funds (and BLOCK) at risk [incorrect: they do not belong to Dan and will not be under Dan's control.]
- therefore Dan is unethical.

So it was yet another piece of insinuating, conspiracy-theorist-style FUD from Leewilson attempting to masquerade as legitimate argument.
Oh, and it was an attempted doxxing. Delete on sight.
And Lee is banned here. Delete on sight.

So Lee's post failed on multiple counts, and should stay in a FUD thread where it belongs.

For investors this is very important information as it would effect us all.  To suggest otherwise doesn't make sense when you consider this basic info...

irs.gov says:

How a lien affects you
-Assets:  A lien attaches to all of your assets (such as property, securities, vehicles) and to future assets acquired during the duration of the lien.
-Credit:  Once the IRS files a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, it may limit your ability to get credit.
-Business:  The lien attaches to all business property and to all rights to business property, including accounts receivable.
-Bankruptcy:  If you file for bankruptcy, your tax debt, lien, and Notice of Federal Tax Lien may continue after the bankruptcy.

Link:  http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Understanding-a-Federal-Tax-Lien

Yes I understand all this.
But it's just of no consequence to either the Blocknet or XC.
He doesn't own them. He doesn't control the coins. His business doesn't either.

So unless there's reason to believe that (a) that lien does in fact pertain to Dan, and (b) it also pertains to the Blocknet or XC, it just looks like a continuation of the smear campaign or a gross invasion of privacy.

[URSAY]

But genuine, hard questions are very welcome here.

The federal tax lien document was a fake?

I'm not in a position to tell.

But you can read my full response to Leewilson in a FUD thread.

Basically his/her post was an argument based upon that alleged tax lien document, rather than just a presentation of the document.

The argument presented was Lee's usual overextension of hypotheses beyond what the facts can support. Its claim, in a nutshell:
- a tax lien against Dan puts all the Blocknet's funds (and BLOCK) at risk [incorrect: they do not belong to Dan and will not be under Dan's control.]
- therefore Dan is unethical.

So it was yet another piece of insinuating, conspiracy-theorist-style FUD from Leewilson attempting to masquerade as legitimate argument.
Oh, and it was an attempted doxxing. Delete on sight.
And Lee is banned here. Delete on sight.

So Lee's post failed on multiple counts, and should stay in a FUD thread where it belongs.

For investors this is very important information as it would effect us all.  To suggest otherwise doesn't make sense when you consider this basic info...

irs.gov says:

How a lien affects you
-Assets:  A lien attaches to all of your assets (such as property, securities, vehicles) and to future assets acquired during the duration of the lien.
-Credit:  Once the IRS files a Notice of Federal Tax Lien, it may limit your ability to get credit.
-Business:  The lien attaches to all business property and to all rights to business property, including accounts receivable.
-Bankruptcy:  If you file for bankruptcy, your tax debt, lien, and Notice of Federal Tax Lien may continue after the bankruptcy.

Link:  http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Understanding-a-Federal-Tax-Lien

Yes I understand all this.
But it's just of consequence to either the Blocknet or XC.
He doesn't own them. He doesn't control the coins. His business doesn't either.

So unless there's reason to believe that (a) that lien does in fact pertain to Dan, and (b) it also pertains to the Blocknet or XC, it just looks like a gross invasion of privacy.

Obtaining public records is not an invasion of privacy.  As long as these projects are closed source then all investors are at a liability when considering info similar to this potential lien.

[Hueristic]

so im confused lol

this is the truth .
now im gone

Ah, so now you want to paste your source?

Thank you. I'll address it.

Let's start with the things that Prometheus states that are factually incorrect:

- "XC is nearing completion". Nope. It hasn't even launched publicly yet. Its a vision of a truly mobile-friendly currency integrated into real world point-of-sale and commerce systems. XC hasn't even completed its initial mobile app, never mind blockchain 2.0 services and everything else.

- "Util is Metcalf's project". Nope. Everyone knows very well that if Dan shifts emphasis even slightly away from XC, all hell would break loose. The 1000+ hours he's personally invested into XC? Gone in a swift dump. XC is Metcalf's project. It's his baby, really.

- My impression of this portion of the conversation between 00Smurf and Prometheus is that Prom is clearly pitching to Smurf. He's making his offer as attractive as he can. And it appears he's mistaken about Dan or perhaps only vaguely aware and stretching the truth in ways that seem ok to him but in fact are way off the mark.

- "We're building our own supernet". This is interesting. The conversations are dated later than when talks about the Blocknet had begun, and they place Util at the centre of the "supernet". This entails that Prometheus did not know Dan's actual plans about the Blocknet.


So, to summarise:
- Prom's picture: Util = his own supernet, Dan "on his team", XC nearing completion.
- Dan's picture: Util = merely a participating coin in the Blocknet, Dan strictly freelance, XC not even launched yet.

Interesting differences of perspectives here. It looks like Prometheus was acting on a combination of partial information and his own intentions for Util. Turns out these diverge sharply from the facts of the matter: Util is not the Blocknet, Dan no longer does any code reviews,  and XC has a long timeline.

So let's not put any weight on Prometheus's claims about Dan being the Util dev. He only said that because he wanted Util to be the Blocknet.
Util isn't the Blocknet. Therefore Dan isn't the Util dev.

I think this type of refutation should have been done when this all started and alot of this would have been avoided. Please elaborate on the bolded part. As in why? Is it true that he cannot program? I started gwbasic in 83 and have a degree in CE with 7 languages (including c++) under my belt but cannot program a coin.

Also please refudiate the Tax lien if it is indeed false. BTW I have a lien on my home so I do-not automatically see this as fuel to prove anything accept the state is throwing it's weight around as they have done with me. My lawyer has been fighting for years, I have irrefutable prove the back taxes owed are incorrect yet I cannot even get it in front of a judge.