GAW / Josh Garza discussion Paycoin XPY xpy.io ION ionomy. ALWAYS MAKE MONEY :)

[bumpershot]

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

One of those sources quoted the other end of the sale, revising the $1.1 million number GAW provided to $1.0 million provided by Domain Guardians.

I think it's pretty solid.

[bitpop]

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

One of those sources quoted the other end of the sale, revising the $1.1 million number GAW provided to $1.0 million provided by Domain Guardians.

I think it's pretty solid.

No you shill

[bumpershot]

If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack.

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again. Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

I think every question you pose has already been answered. Just reread the replies to your prior posts.

[Cash BTC]

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again.

That is call Propaganda.

Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

No, Propaganda never stops.

[vObh0n]6W]

rolling the scam back into cloud mining is hysterical.

As to the previous derail about GAW being broke, I dont' see how. What are their expenses? Not paying bills and being broke are not the same thing.

million bucks for btc.com for one

The million bucks was done in payments, and those almost already stopped once, and can easily stop when they need to.

Their income was selling things that don't exist, dumping paycoins, and will be walking with all the coins left in paybase (and probably the other exchange) when the time comes. There isn't much income, but they don't need any, because they have no business. All the money given to them will eventually filter to the employees, which is the whole point.

i dont think there was ever proof of 1m. We only saw record of 25k installments

http://www.coindesk.com/btc-com-domain-sold-gawminers-record/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/08/an-interview-with-josh-garza-ceo-of-gaw-miners-on-his-1-million-purchase-of-btc-com/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-domain-btc-com-acquired-1-1-million-usd-josh-garza-gawminers/
http://coinbrief.net/btc-com-josh-garza-gaw-miners/

How many more do you need for proof?  Just google GAW buys btc.com

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

The closest we have to proof that I could find is http://domainguardians.com/btc-com-tops-this-weeks-domain-sales-chart-via/

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/08/05/inside-the-btc-com-sale-with-mike-robertson-of-domain-guardians/ is also relevant, and says:

As mentioned, we got responses from over 150 different parties.  Our industry contacts allowed us to discuss the opportunity with everyone from the Winklevoss twins, to executives at BlockChain, BitPay, CoinBase, KNCMiner.com, OKCoin and, of course, many more. Of these 150, we were in serious negotiations with 2 other parties.

They seem to be ICANN accredited, so if they're lying about the sale price they should get in trouble.



Do you really think someone would own btc.com and sell it for much less, anyway? 1 million doesn't seem so much for that domain.

[bitpop]

rolling the scam back into cloud mining is hysterical.

As to the previous derail about GAW being broke, I dont' see how. What are their expenses? Not paying bills and being broke are not the same thing.

million bucks for btc.com for one

The million bucks was done in payments, and those almost already stopped once, and can easily stop when they need to.

Their income was selling things that don't exist, dumping paycoins, and will be walking with all the coins left in paybase (and probably the other exchange) when the time comes. There isn't much income, but they don't need any, because they have no business. All the money given to them will eventually filter to the employees, which is the whole point.

i dont think there was ever proof of 1m. We only saw record of 25k installments

http://www.coindesk.com/btc-com-domain-sold-gawminers-record/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/08/an-interview-with-josh-garza-ceo-of-gaw-miners-on-his-1-million-purchase-of-btc-com/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-domain-btc-com-acquired-1-1-million-usd-josh-garza-gawminers/
http://coinbrief.net/btc-com-josh-garza-gaw-miners/

How many more do you need for proof?  Just google GAW buys btc.com

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

The closest we have to proof that I could find is http://domainguardians.com/btc-com-tops-this-weeks-domain-sales-chart-via/

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/08/05/inside-the-btc-com-sale-with-mike-robertson-of-domain-guardians/ is also relevant, and says:

As mentioned, we got responses from over 150 different parties.  Our industry contacts allowed us to discuss the opportunity with everyone from the Winklevoss twins, to executives at BlockChain, BitPay, CoinBase, KNCMiner.com, OKCoin and, of course, many more. Of these 150, we were in serious negotiations with 2 other parties.

They seem to be ICANN accredited, so if they're lying about the sale price they should get in trouble.



Do you really think someone would own btc.com and sell it for much less, anyway? 1 million doesn't seem so much for that domain.

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

Wake up ikeboy

[SDRebel]

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

One of those sources quoted the other end of the sale, revising the $1.1 million number GAW provided to $1.0 million provided by Domain Guardians.

I think it's pretty solid.

i don't think that's proof, but if that makes you happy..

[SDRebel]

rolling the scam back into cloud mining is hysterical.

As to the previous derail about GAW being broke, I dont' see how. What are their expenses? Not paying bills and being broke are not the same thing.

million bucks for btc.com for one

The million bucks was done in payments, and those almost already stopped once, and can easily stop when they need to.

Their income was selling things that don't exist, dumping paycoins, and will be walking with all the coins left in paybase (and probably the other exchange) when the time comes. There isn't much income, but they don't need any, because they have no business. All the money given to them will eventually filter to the employees, which is the whole point.

i dont think there was ever proof of 1m. We only saw record of 25k installments

http://www.coindesk.com/btc-com-domain-sold-gawminers-record/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/08/an-interview-with-josh-garza-ceo-of-gaw-miners-on-his-1-million-purchase-of-btc-com/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-domain-btc-com-acquired-1-1-million-usd-josh-garza-gawminers/
http://coinbrief.net/btc-com-josh-garza-gaw-miners/

How many more do you need for proof?  Just google GAW buys btc.com

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

The closest we have to proof that I could find is http://domainguardians.com/btc-com-tops-this-weeks-domain-sales-chart-via/

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/08/05/inside-the-btc-com-sale-with-mike-robertson-of-domain-guardians/ is also relevant, and says:

As mentioned, we got responses from over 150 different parties.  Our industry contacts allowed us to discuss the opportunity with everyone from the Winklevoss twins, to executives at BlockChain, BitPay, CoinBase, KNCMiner.com, OKCoin and, of course, many more. Of these 150, we were in serious negotiations with 2 other parties.

They seem to be ICANN accredited, so if they're lying about the sale price they should get in trouble.



Do you really think someone would own btc.com and sell it for much less, anyway? 1 million doesn't seem so much for that domain.

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

Wake up ikeboy

knowing homero. ..maybe he did another shady thing. Like buying the domaim himself, for, say 100k, and then gaw leases it at 25k
something like that to "withdraw" money from gaw...just a wild speculation

[GAW_DUMP_ANALYSIS]

Just noticed this and not sure I've seen it mentioned here yet. I know some here were awaiting this moment:

https://i.imgur.com/7oalvXQ.jpg

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

I thought it was bought on escrow.  They have to keep paying on time or they loose the domain and the money they already paid for it.

[strangerdanger101]

Just noticed this and not sure I've seen it mentioned here yet. I know some here were awaiting this moment:

[suchmoon]

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

I thought it was bought on escrow.  They have to keep paying on time or they loose the domain and the money they already paid for it.

Yes. Why is there even a discussion about it. They did not pay $1 million, that was a pointless PR stunt. That was clear back then and it's confirmed now.

[vObh0n]6W]

If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack.

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again. Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

I think every question you pose has already been answered. Just reread the replies to your prior posts.

Could you point me to where someone said "You thought I meant X, but I really meant Y"? I don't see many of the replies saying things like that. There are useful points being raised, but I really don't see a lot of clarification.

For example, above Paul said that a company would shield its owners from prosecution and liability. (Or at least that's how I understood it.) I then posted something showing how that doesn't apply when there was fraud committed. He should either have clarified that his claim was different from how I understood it, admitted it was wrong, or defended it, none of which were done.

I've read all the recent replies. There is a lot of "this is so obvious I'm not even going to tell you why", a lot of "you're stupid", and occasionally something that makes sense, which I usually acknowledge and respond to.

There does seem to be a lot of misinterpretation here, and combined with people always assuming bad faith, it makes for very bad communication.

How about this: whenever I feel that I might be misunderstanding something, I'll first post something along the lines of "I think X is what you mean, is that an accurate depiction of your argument", rather than argue right away. That way, if I've misinterpreted something you can tell me before I argue with a misinterpretation.

[bitpop]

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

I thought it was bought on escrow.  They have to keep paying on time or they loose the domain and the money they already paid for it.

They already lost their Cloudflare

[vObh0n]6W]

rolling the scam back into cloud mining is hysterical.

As to the previous derail about GAW being broke, I dont' see how. What are their expenses? Not paying bills and being broke are not the same thing.

million bucks for btc.com for one

The million bucks was done in payments, and those almost already stopped once, and can easily stop when they need to.

Their income was selling things that don't exist, dumping paycoins, and will be walking with all the coins left in paybase (and probably the other exchange) when the time comes. There isn't much income, but they don't need any, because they have no business. All the money given to them will eventually filter to the employees, which is the whole point.

i dont think there was ever proof of 1m. We only saw record of 25k installments

http://www.coindesk.com/btc-com-domain-sold-gawminers-record/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/08/an-interview-with-josh-garza-ceo-of-gaw-miners-on-his-1-million-purchase-of-btc-com/
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-domain-btc-com-acquired-1-1-million-usd-josh-garza-gawminers/
http://coinbrief.net/btc-com-josh-garza-gaw-miners/

How many more do you need for proof?  Just google GAW buys btc.com

that's 0 proof.  It's equivalent to him saying he paid 8M for Zen, Eric told us that is not true. A press release is not proof of anything

The closest we have to proof that I could find is http://domainguardians.com/btc-com-tops-this-weeks-domain-sales-chart-via/

http://www.thedomains.com/2014/08/05/inside-the-btc-com-sale-with-mike-robertson-of-domain-guardians/ is also relevant, and says:

As mentioned, we got responses from over 150 different parties.  Our industry contacts allowed us to discuss the opportunity with everyone from the Winklevoss twins, to executives at BlockChain, BitPay, CoinBase, KNCMiner.com, OKCoin and, of course, many more. Of these 150, we were in serious negotiations with 2 other parties.

They seem to be ICANN accredited, so if they're lying about the sale price they should get in trouble.



Do you really think someone would own btc.com and sell it for much less, anyway? 1 million doesn't seem so much for that domain.

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

Wake up ikeboy

Do you have any proof of that or even strong reason to believe that? Domain Guardians said they sold it to Gaw Miners, not someone else, for that price. I suppose there isn't any good way to prove they told the truth, although someone could technically verify the other claims they made (like contacting any of the other companies who they said were interested in btc.com).

[bitpop]

If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack.

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again. Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

I think every question you pose has already been answered. Just reread the replies to your prior posts.

Could you point me to where someone said "You thought I meant X, but I really meant Y"? I don't see many of the replies saying things like that. There are useful points being raised, but I really don't see a lot of clarification.

For example, above Paul said that a company would shield its owners from prosecution and liability. (Or at least that's how I understood it.) I then posted something showing how that doesn't apply when there was fraud committed. He should either have clarified that his claim was different from how I understood it, admitted it was wrong, or defended it, none of which were done.

I've read all the recent replies. There is a lot of "this is so obvious I'm not even going to tell you why", a lot of "you're stupid", and occasionally something that makes sense, which I usually acknowledge and respond to.

There does seem to be a lot of misinterpretation here, and combined with people always assuming bad faith, it makes for very bad communication.

How about this: whenever I feel that I might be misunderstanding something, I'll first post something along the lines of "I think X is what you mean, is that an accurate depiction of your argument", rather than argue right away. That way, if I've misinterpreted something you can tell me before I argue with a misinterpretation.

Paul would never say that

[kken01]

they can of course make a deal of paying in monthly payments with requirement that if they default the domain returns
which was discussed xxx pages ago

and about your volume thing... of course not because blockchain is pretty large already. building relationships between addresses is hard

GMT: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:12:22 GMT
GMT: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:44:24 GMT

if you put some relationship markings that time frame creates 40mb file


i took an example pic from a force directed graph within above time range. very hard problem is to see what connects to the blue vein flow and if its detectable at all (eg. it obeys GAW bot/script pattern. they could still make transfers by hand and then it might be impossible to say if its GAW or mixed XPY). i mark candidates into a sheet i can manually check up, if they do (as they have) make transactions that are not governed by the bot/script


tx involved
d8732d017bca25961360989cf90fb17532d6dabce0c9b4cf649faa9a02fa9f84 red - biggest transfer to any exchange (in above timeframe) - 25k from GAW/related source
a01578abe81b9cd6ab626bc133d66f48b7b3284ea27a677e1ed5018bd376a97b dark red - lot of dust
4863b2455b6f235e47bcce81f1e1c5f01f7557a0a274e033e60d1ffda3ea1825 green - typical GAW pattern starts



as you can see main GAW activity is pretty clear. this one had pretty large stacks so its obvious but still it obeys the same pattern from day 1.

(ps: bottom of the pic is the famous ~2.7 mil cleaner address. nexus node is clipped form the pic because its huge already )

[vObh0n]6W]

If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack.

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again. Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

I think every question you pose has already been answered. Just reread the replies to your prior posts.

Could you point me to where someone said "You thought I meant X, but I really meant Y"? I don't see many of the replies saying things like that. There are useful points being raised, but I really don't see a lot of clarification.

For example, above Paul said that a company would shield its owners from prosecution and liability. (Or at least that's how I understood it.) I then posted something showing how that doesn't apply when there was fraud committed. He should either have clarified that his claim was different from how I understood it, admitted it was wrong, or defended it, none of which were done.

I've read all the recent replies. There is a lot of "this is so obvious I'm not even going to tell you why", a lot of "you're stupid", and occasionally something that makes sense, which I usually acknowledge and respond to.

There does seem to be a lot of misinterpretation here, and combined with people always assuming bad faith, it makes for very bad communication.

How about this: whenever I feel that I might be misunderstanding something, I'll first post something along the lines of "I think X is what you mean, is that an accurate depiction of your argument", rather than argue right away. That way, if I've misinterpreted something you can tell me before I argue with a misinterpretation.

Paul would never say that

I was referring to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.msg10742449#msg10742449

Once the fraud is complete and the now bankrupt corporation is collapsing it is discarded, along with any liability.

I still don't see how that could mean something other how I interpreted it, but if he wants to he can clarify what he meant by that.

Edit: sure looks like he isn't interested in clarifying at all, just in ad hominem.

[vObh0n]6W]

Let me clear this up, someone bought the domain, Homero leased it from them

I thought it was bought on escrow.  They have to keep paying on time or they loose the domain and the money they already paid for it.

Yes. Why is there even a discussion about it. They did not pay $1 million, that was a pointless PR stunt. That was clear back then and it's confirmed now.

Where was there a confirmation? Did I miss something?

[bitpop]

If my interpretations of other posts are wrong (which is possible), I'd like for them to clarify. I often include a question about what was meant, but rarely get a response other than a personal attack.

The problem is that people have clarified. Over and over again. Eventually, they just get tired of saying the same thing in different ways.

I think every question you pose has already been answered. Just reread the replies to your prior posts.

Could you point me to where someone said "You thought I meant X, but I really meant Y"? I don't see many of the replies saying things like that. There are useful points being raised, but I really don't see a lot of clarification.

For example, above Paul said that a company would shield its owners from prosecution and liability. (Or at least that's how I understood it.) I then posted something showing how that doesn't apply when there was fraud committed. He should either have clarified that his claim was different from how I understood it, admitted it was wrong, or defended it, none of which were done.

I've read all the recent replies. There is a lot of "this is so obvious I'm not even going to tell you why", a lot of "you're stupid", and occasionally something that makes sense, which I usually acknowledge and respond to.

There does seem to be a lot of misinterpretation here, and combined with people always assuming bad faith, it makes for very bad communication.

How about this: whenever I feel that I might be misunderstanding something, I'll first post something along the lines of "I think X is what you mean, is that an accurate depiction of your argument", rather than argue right away. That way, if I've misinterpreted something you can tell me before I argue with a misinterpretation.

Paul would never say that

I was referring to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=857670.msg10742449#msg10742449

Once the fraud is complete and the now bankrupt corporation is collapsing it is discarded, along with any liability.

I still don't see how that could mean something other how I interpreted it, but if he wants to he can clarify what he meant by that.

Wake up ikeboy, he said financial liability

Criminal is always personal, corporations don't fit in jails

Go read Enron