The Story of Bob Surplus

[bitcoinbelieve]

it was good read.

[1713558723]

1713558723

[1713558723]

1713558723

[1713558723]

1713558723

[1713558723]

1713558723

[Investing123]

Never thought I could enjoy reading about people ruining the alt market. 
Truly, OP, you have some serious talent writing.
Such a great read.

[synechist]

What a fascinating story, and not just for its literary merits, but for its curiously revealing subtext. This is to say that the story has a highly fascinating relationship between its narrator and one of its protagonists, and that this relationship reveals the protagonist in question to be the narrator.

First off, it frames the goings-on of a bunch of pump-and-dump scammers in terms of the morality of ancient Greek mythology, in which the mighty are brought low, and in which attaining glory in battle is the highest aspiration of its protagonists. Whose morality might this be?
- Bob's? No.
- Paul's? No.
- Zimbeck's? No.
- Steve or Lin's? No.
- The Salamander's? Yes.

Second, the relation between the narrator and the Salamander is striking.
- He's the only character not called by his real name.
- The narrative is shaped by the Salamander's morality.
- The Salamander's morality appears to be a classical battle code: (1) stand and fight - like a man - or lose your honour, (2) the highest glory is glory in battle, (3) all's fair in love and war. This is the only sort of morality that bring the footsoldiers to attention, recalling them to duty and instructing them to leave off their shame.
- The narrative thus functions as a call to arms for the footsoldiers. It amounts to "stick to your code. Stand and fight your enemies. Don't be hypocrites, doxxing people and hoping someone else will confront them. The mighty must fall. And the task is ours."
- The story ends, but the narrative itself clearly doesn't: the story ends with a promise to avenge the "hypocrites" and the "doxxers" - which of course entails the continuing of the narrative beyond the story's end. In the story, Paul achieves glory while Bob and the Salamander fall. The next cycle, classically, would of course be the Salamander's vengeance, the fall of Paul, and - so our narrator hopes - the Salamander's glory.


So what is the Salamander doing?
- The morality of the narrative is the only sort of morality that the narrator can use to self-mythologise.
- Under no other framework would he appear morally defensible to himself. He needs this in order to be what he is.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander be the core protagonist.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander sound the rallying cry to bring the mighty - Paul, Lin, Zimbeck, and others - low again.


What is the Salamander?
The Salamander's coldness, his ruthlessness, his commitment to destroy his enemies - this is the ethics of an assassin.
Without painting himself in the colours of classical mythological glory, he's just brutal, vicious, cold, and self-concerned.
(No wonder, then, that the narrator is moved ultimately to tell a story about himself; the world of an assassin is centred upon himself alone.)


Will the Salamander succeed?
The Salamander lives by a code. He learned to justify the code by recourse to classical mythology.
But he has not yet learned that the bedrock of Western history, laid in the dark years following the fall of the Roman Empire, is upon the grave of the classical Greek narratives. A later and deeper narrative - upon which the great medieval code of chivalry was built - embodies bravery and honour as before, but also humility, grace, and redemption. King Arthur and his knights surpassed the ancient Greeks just as the Roman narrative surpassed that of Carthage. The great arc of innocence, fall from grace, and redemption remains the narrative of our world.

It is this code that still determines our world today. The real world will not rest, and no narrative will truly achieve completion, until different kinds of figures emerge from the ones in the Salamander's story. The mighty may rise and fall, but the real lesson of history is that there is no revolution until a self-sacrificing messiah comes. True victory only comes when one's enemies are transformed into likeness with oneself - look at what Christianity did to the Roman Empire, and look at what Nelson Mandela did to Apartheid. The only means to achieve it is to love one's enemies. The only future is redemptive. And the only heroes are self-sacrificing.

[btcney]

Next story should be about the XC/Blocknet scam 

[djm34]

What a fascinating story, and not just for its literary merits, but for its curiously revealing subtext. This is to say that the story has a highly fascinating relationship between its narrator and one of its protagonists, and that this relationship reveals the protagonist in question to be the narrator.

First off, it frames the goings-on of a bunch of pump-and-dump scammers in terms of the morality of ancient Greek mythology, in which the mighty are brought low, and in which attaining glory in battle is the highest aspiration of its protagonists. Whose morality might this be?
- Bob's? No.
- Paul's? No.
- Zimbeck's? No.
- Steve or Lin's? No.
- The Salamander's? Yes.

Second, the relation between the narrator and the Salamander is striking.
- He's the only character not called by his real name.
- The narrative is shaped by the Salamander's morality.
- The Salamander's morality appears to be a classical battle code: (1) stand and fight - like a man - or lose your honour, (2) the highest glory is glory in battle, (3) all's fair in love and war. This is the only sort of morality that bring the footsoldiers to attention, recalling them to duty and instructing them to leave off their shame.
- The narrative thus functions as a call to arms for the footsoldiers. It amounts to "stick to your code." Stand and fight your enemies. Don't be hypocrites, doxxing people and hoping someone else will confront them. The mighty must fall. And the task is ours.


So what is the Salamander doing?
- The morality of the narrative is the only sort of morality that the narrator can use to self-mythologise.
- Under no other framework would he appear morally defensible to himself. He needs this in order to be what he is.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander be the core protagonist.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander sound the rallying cry to bring the mighty - Paul, Lin, Zimbeck, and others - low again.


What is the Salamander?
The Salamander's coldness, his ruthlessness, his commitment to destroy his enemies - this is the ethics of an assassin.
Without painting himself in the colours of classical mythological glory, he's just brutal, vicious, cold, and self-concerned.
(No wonder, then, that the narrator is moved ultimately to tell a story about himself; the world of an assassin is centred upon himself alone.)


Will the Salamander succeed?
The Salamander lives by a code. He learned to justify the code by recourse to classical mythology.
But he has not yet learned that the bedrock of Western history, laid in the dark years following the fall of the Roman Empire, is upon the grave of the classical Greek narratives. A later and deeper narrative - upon which the great medieval code of chivalry was built - embodies bravery and honour as before, but also humility, grace, and redemption. King Arthur and his knights surpassed the ancient Greeks just as the Roman narrative surpassed that of Carthage. The great arc of innocence, fall from grace, and redemption remains the narrative of our world.

It is this code that still determines our world today. The real world will not rest, and no narrative will truly achieve completion, until different kinds of figures emerge from the ones in the Salamander's story. The mighty may rise and fall, but the real lesson of history is that there is no revolution until a self-sacrificing messiah comes. True victory only comes when one's enemies are transformed into likeness with oneself - look at what Christianity did to the Roman Empire, and look at what Nelson Mandela did to Apartheid. The only means to achieve it is to love one's enemies. The only future is redemptive. And the only heroes are self-sacrificing.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what a load of bullshit....  
by morality, I guess you mean the writer...  
self-sacrificing   seriously the only thing which has been sacrificed is the btc of your foot-soldier (yeah yeah, that's a way a battle is won, got it...)

but please stop self-praising yourself over a fraud you organized and which miserably failed even though you were in control of everything (supply/demand/etc...)

Actually the funny thing is that it shouldn't even have failed, but still it failed 
 
I think you are the writer trying to glorify himself under another name.
greek hero...   please  The 3 stooges is a better example 

[synechist]

Ha ha. You goofballs are the noise floor of Bitcointalk.


djm34: I think you failed to notice the basic fact that I'm doing the opposite of calling the Salamander "moral." Better work on your reading comprehension before replying.


btcney: you'd do well to note that *both* XC and the Blocknet undergo development in the absence of a pump. For example, from June until now XC has developed an incredible array of features, and the Blocknet has just created the first ever messaging protocol between nodes on different blockchains. Neither of these developments were pumped. No pumps, just code. Get with it sir.

[djm34]

Ha ha. You goofballs are the noise floor of Bitcointalk.


djm34: I think you failed to notice the basic fact that I'm doing the opposite of calling the Salamander "moral." Better work on your reading comprehension before replying.

yeah probably, in my defense that was pretty long and got tired before I saw a clear conclusion or an indication on which side you were.... and still wondering what was your point too... (since apparently I didn't get it  )


edit: wondering as well "what christianity did to the roman empire" (and how that compare to what Mandela did to apartheid)...
 

[dload.1]

What a fascinating story, and not just for its literary merits, but for its curiously revealing subtext. This is to say that the story has a highly fascinating relationship between its narrator and one of its protagonists, and that this relationship reveals the protagonist in question to be the narrator.

First off, it frames the goings-on of a bunch of pump-and-dump scammers in terms of the morality of ancient Greek mythology, in which the mighty are brought low, and in which attaining glory in battle is the highest aspiration of its protagonists. Whose morality might this be?
- Bob's? No.
- Paul's? No.
- Zimbeck's? No.
- Steve or Lin's? No.
- The Salamander's? Yes.

Second, the relation between the narrator and the Salamander is striking.
- He's the only character not called by his real name.
- The narrative is shaped by the Salamander's morality.
- The Salamander's morality appears to be a classical battle code: (1) stand and fight - like a man - or lose your honour, (2) the highest glory is glory in battle, (3) all's fair in love and war. This is the only sort of morality that bring the footsoldiers to attention, recalling them to duty and instructing them to leave off their shame.
- The narrative thus functions as a call to arms for the footsoldiers. It amounts to "stick to your code." Stand and fight your enemies. Don't be hypocrites, doxxing people and hoping someone else will confront them. The mighty must fall. And the task is ours.


So what is the Salamander doing?
- The morality of the narrative is the only sort of morality that the narrator can use to self-mythologise.
- Under no other framework would he appear morally defensible to himself. He needs this in order to be what he is.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander be the core protagonist.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander sound the rallying cry to bring the mighty - Paul, Lin, Zimbeck, and others - low again.


What is the Salamander?
The Salamander's coldness, his ruthlessness, his commitment to destroy his enemies - this is the ethics of an assassin.
Without painting himself in the colours of classical mythological glory, he's just brutal, vicious, cold, and self-concerned.
(No wonder, then, that the narrator is moved ultimately to tell a story about himself; the world of an assassin is centred upon himself alone.)


Will the Salamander succeed?
The Salamander lives by a code. He learned to justify the code by recourse to classical mythology.
But he has not yet learned that the bedrock of Western history, laid in the dark years following the fall of the Roman Empire, is upon the grave of the classical Greek narratives. A later and deeper narrative - upon which the great medieval code of chivalry was built - embodies bravery and honour as before, but also humility, grace, and redemption. King Arthur and his knights surpassed the ancient Greeks just as the Roman narrative surpassed that of Carthage. The great arc of innocence, fall from grace, and redemption remains the narrative of our world.

It is this code that still determines our world today. The real world will not rest, and no narrative will truly achieve completion, until different kinds of figures emerge from the ones in the Salamander's story. The mighty may rise and fall, but the real lesson of history is that there is no revolution until a self-sacrificing messiah comes. True victory only comes when one's enemies are transformed into likeness with oneself - look at what Christianity did to the Roman Empire, and look at what Nelson Mandela did to Apartheid. The only means to achieve it is to love one's enemies. The only future is redemptive. And the only heroes are self-sacrificing.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz what a load of bullshit....  
by morality, I guess you mean the writer...  
self-sacrificing   seriously the only thing which has been sacrificed is the btc of your foot-soldier (yeah yeah, that's a way a battle is won, got it...)

but please stop self-praising yourself over a fraud you organized and which miserably failed even though you were in control of everything (supply/demand/etc...)

Actually the funny thing is that it shouldn't even have failed, but still it failed 
 
I think you are the writer trying to glorify himself under another name.
greek hero...   please  The 3 stooges is a better example 

lol   synechist is one of the few people in this thread that understands the person behind story. the rest of these idiots are ready to give him the pulitzer prize  but your right about the rest, they had free coins free btc , a dev and and an exchange on board and still couldnt pull this off     i think i will start calling them APPLE DUMPLING GANG.    

[Vlad2Vlad]

What a fascinating story, and not just for its literary merits, but for its curiously revealing subtext. This is to say that the story has a highly fascinating relationship between its narrator and one of its protagonists, and that this relationship reveals the protagonist in question to be the narrator.

First off, it frames the goings-on of a bunch of pump-and-dump scammers in terms of the morality of ancient Greek mythology, in which the mighty are brought low, and in which attaining glory in battle is the highest aspiration of its protagonists. Whose morality might this be?
- Bob's? No.
- Paul's? No.
- Zimbeck's? No.
- Steve or Lin's? No.
- The Salamander's? Yes.

Second, the relation between the narrator and the Salamander is striking.
- He's the only character not called by his real name.
- The narrative is shaped by the Salamander's morality.
- The Salamander's morality appears to be a classical battle code: (1) stand and fight - like a man - or lose your honour, (2) the highest glory is glory in battle, (3) all's fair in love and war. This is the only sort of morality that bring the footsoldiers to attention, recalling them to duty and instructing them to leave off their shame.
- The narrative thus functions as a call to arms for the footsoldiers. It amounts to "stick to your code. Stand and fight your enemies. Don't be hypocrites, doxxing people and hoping someone else will confront them. The mighty must fall. And the task is ours."
- The story ends, but the narrative itself clearly doesn't: the story ends with a promise to avenge the "hypocrites" and the "doxxers" - which of course entails the continuing of the narrative beyond the story's end. In the story, Paul achieves glory while Bob and the Salamander fall. The next cycle, classically, would of course be the Salamander's vengeance, the fall of Paul, and - so our narrator hopes - the Salamander's glory.


So what is the Salamander doing?
- The morality of the narrative is the only sort of morality that the narrator can use to self-mythologise.
- Under no other framework would he appear morally defensible to himself. He needs this in order to be what he is.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander be the core protagonist.
- Under no other framework could the Salamander sound the rallying cry to bring the mighty - Paul, Lin, Zimbeck, and others - low again.


What is the Salamander?
The Salamander's coldness, his ruthlessness, his commitment to destroy his enemies - this is the ethics of an assassin.
Without painting himself in the colours of classical mythological glory, he's just brutal, vicious, cold, and self-concerned.
(No wonder, then, that the narrator is moved ultimately to tell a story about himself; the world of an assassin is centred upon himself alone.)


Will the Salamander succeed?
The Salamander lives by a code. He learned to justify the code by recourse to classical mythology.
But he has not yet learned that the bedrock of Western history, laid in the dark years following the fall of the Roman Empire, is upon the grave of the classical Greek narratives. A later and deeper narrative - upon which the great medieval code of chivalry was built - embodies bravery and honour as before, but also humility, grace, and redemption. King Arthur and his knights surpassed the ancient Greeks just as the Roman narrative surpassed that of Carthage. The great arc of innocence, fall from grace, and redemption remains the narrative of our world.

It is this code that still determines our world today. The real world will not rest, and no narrative will truly achieve completion, until different kinds of figures emerge from the ones in the Salamander's story. The mighty may rise and fall, but the real lesson of history is that there is no revolution until a self-sacrificing messiah comes. True victory only comes when one's enemies are transformed into likeness with oneself - look at what Christianity did to the Roman Empire, and look at what Nelson Mandela did to Apartheid. The only means to achieve it is to love one's enemies. The only future is redemptive. And the only heroes are self-sacrificing.

Brilliant!

[illodin]

Neither of these developments were pumped. No pumps, just code. Get with it sir.

What made you change your approach if I may ask? Earlier you were releasing announcements that there will be an announcement coming about about a yet to be announced feature, and utilized the PR network to its fullest.

[synechist]

Neither of these developments were pumped. No pumps, just code. Get with it sir.

What made you change your approach if I may ask? Earlier you were releasing announcements that there will be an announcement coming about about a yet to be announced feature, and utilized the PR network to its fullest.

We haven't changed our approach.

We still announce upcoming developments, and we still don't pump.

[synechist]

edit: wondering as well "what christianity did to the roman empire" (and how that compare to what Mandela did to apartheid)...

Christianity transformed the Roman Empire into itself, from within.

Mandela transformed South Africa into a nation in his own image - one founded upon a narrative of humility, forgiveness, and celebration of diversity.

Incidentally, Ghandi's nonviolent protest did the same basic thing: it transformed the colonials into individuals who could do nothing but respect their victims as human beings, and in so doing see them as like each other.

Add to this the great archetype of self-sacrificial love: Jesus.

The process in each case is the same:
- treat your enemies in a self-sacrificial way
- don't oppose your enemies; don't fight them; don't hate them; give them respect and sacrifice yourself for this
- at some point the enemies start to adopt the same stance toward you that you take toward them
- henceforth, they can no longer be your enemies; you've transformed them - at your own expense
- the revolution is thus complete; the narrative concluded, leaving no fallen mighty ones to rise up again and wreak revenge.

[barabbas]

edit: wondering as well "what christianity did to the roman empire" (and how that compare to what Mandela did to apartheid)...

Christianity transformed the Roman Empire into itself, from within.

Mandela transformed South Africa into a nation in his own image - one founded upon a narrative of humility, forgiveness, and celebration of diversity.

Incidentally, Ghandi's nonviolent protest did the same basic thing: it transformed the colonials into individuals who could do nothing but respect their victims as human beings, and in so doing see them as like each other.

Add to this the great archetype of self-sacrificial love: Jesus.

The process in each case is the same:
- treat your enemies in a self-sacrificial way
- don't oppose your enemies; don't fight them; don't hate them; give them respect and sacrifice yourself for this
- at some point the enemies start to adopt the same stance toward you that you take toward them
- henceforth, they can no longer be your enemies; you've transformed them - at your own expense
- the revolution is thus complete; the narrative concluded, leaving no fallen mighty ones to rise up again and wreak revenge.

Nice essays. But not even par with the course with The Sound and the Fury's "story" which leaves obvious clues as to who The Salamander is and who the narrator may be. As the only main character not called by his real name, it is blatantly obvious, it is Ryan Wrights. The fixer. Is he the narrator too? That's for you, the reader, to decide. Does it matter? Not really. The piece is priceless as literature and as a glimpse into the gutters of the darkest side of the world of crypto. But nothing, really, that we did not read and subsequently saw in The Wolf of Wall Street. Only difference is that these "ronin" and his leaders are cowardly criminals operating in the dark and, for now at least, in a world not protected by conventional laws. Given the natural cowardice and lack of morals, even at the criminal level, there's not going to be any vengeance or retribution. These cowardly caricatures of ronin will simply take the fact that their leader left them to dry and will continue on, as clumsy foot soldiers, hoping for another leader to allow them to keep on victimizing innocents... or idiots, as the case might be.

Bobsurplus is done, but not Robert. He will come back as Keanu2 or whatever and continue doing the exact same thing. Until one of the cowards -it will have to be a new one-, becomes the real ronin, the enforcer that jumps from the cowardly protection of the dark to the real world and hangs Robert by the ball one morning, potentially in Barbados. Or Thailand. Or Cabo. Same will be the fate of The Salamander/Gekko. Or, maybe, if they keep on playing their cards right, neither the FBI nor impending regulation, will affect them and will die a "peaceful" death like Michael Corleone or even Vito. Most likely though, Robert will continue being what he has always been and will ever be: a travelling salesman, rather pathetic and with extreme limitations and flaws that will end his life way earlier than would otherwise been natural and with Ryan being shot on any corner, at dusk, probably by mistake.

[dannyspk]

Oh boy. Although I can't verify the accuracy of the said tale, but damn the OP has solid storytelling skills. It kept me hooked till the end.

[djm34]

edit: wondering as well "what christianity did to the roman empire" (and how that compare to what Mandela did to apartheid)...

Christianity transformed the Roman Empire into itself, from within.

Mandela transformed South Africa into a nation in his own image - one founded upon a narrative of humility, forgiveness, and celebration of diversity.

Incidentally, Ghandi's nonviolent protest did the same basic thing: it transformed the colonials into individuals who could do nothing but respect their victims as human beings, and in so doing see them as like each other.

Add to this the great archetype of self-sacrificial love: Jesus.

The process in each case is the same:
- treat your enemies in a self-sacrificial way
- don't oppose your enemies; don't fight them; don't hate them; give them respect and sacrifice yourself for this
- at some point the enemies start to adopt the same stance toward you that you take toward them
- henceforth, they can no longer be your enemies; you've transformed them - at your own expense
- the revolution is thus complete; the narrative concluded, leaving no fallen mighty ones to rise up again and wreak revenge.

Nice essays. But not even par with the course with The Sound and the Fury's "story" which leaves obvious clues as to who The Salamander is and who the narrator may be. As the only main character not called by his real name, it is blatantly obvious, it is Ryan Wrights. The fixer. Is he the narrator too? That's for you, the reader, to decide. Does it matter? Not really. The piece is priceless as literature

   3 pages with a rushed ending... When was the last time you saw a real book ?  

[benthach]

Oh boy. Although I can't verify the accuracy of the said tale, but damn the OP has solid storytelling skills. It kept me hooked till the end.

yes, the op got played in the ass so he/she could have the story to tell everyone. this is the reason he didn't use his main stupid dumb fuck username   you ask why i know? because his juicy inside out detail about the chats.

[barabbas]

edit: wondering as well "what christianity did to the roman empire" (and how that compare to what Mandela did to apartheid)...

Christianity transformed the Roman Empire into itself, from within.

Mandela transformed South Africa into a nation in his own image - one founded upon a narrative of humility, forgiveness, and celebration of diversity.

Incidentally, Ghandi's nonviolent protest did the same basic thing: it transformed the colonials into individuals who could do nothing but respect their victims as human beings, and in so doing see them as like each other.

Add to this the great archetype of self-sacrificial love: Jesus.

The process in each case is the same:
- treat your enemies in a self-sacrificial way
- don't oppose your enemies; don't fight them; don't hate them; give them respect and sacrifice yourself for this
- at some point the enemies start to adopt the same stance toward you that you take toward them
- henceforth, they can no longer be your enemies; you've transformed them - at your own expense
- the revolution is thus complete; the narrative concluded, leaving no fallen mighty ones to rise up again and wreak revenge.

Nice essays. But not even par with the course with The Sound and the Fury's "story" which leaves obvious clues as to who The Salamander is and who the narrator may be. As the only main character not called by his real name, it is blatantly obvious, it is Ryan Wrights. The fixer. Is he the narrator too? That's for you, the reader, to decide. Does it matter? Not really. The piece is priceless as literature

   3 pages with a rushed ending... When was the last time you saw a real book ?  

By "real book" you probably mean Jackie Collins... in which case a very long time ago. Appropriately enough one of my most recent has been a (third) read of "Chronicle of a Death Foretold".... but you wouldn't know the difference between that and the behind the scenes story of the Kardashians.

[The Sound And Fury]

Gentle readers.

Greetings from the darkness.

It was not my intention to speak again. When the words the end are spoken, one must have good reasons indeed to speak again.

So many fine words written from all of you. So many kind words. Thank you.

Regarding the recent discussions of greek vs christian mythology:

In, our tale, there was no redemption. The Salamander escapes, yes, but it is quite doubtful to me that he returns redeemed.

My guess is that the greek paradigm what is past is prologue will carry the day over any optimistic, christian redemptive  attempts at rescuing the Salamander - or ourselves, for that matter.

My guess is, the Salamander will return, and it will be same shit. Different day.

To my gentle readers who murmured, the end seems somewhat hasty  i can only concur. You are right.

I grew physically ill from the tale. Its telling, its complete lack of any moral redemption.  

My less than gentle readers attempted to hurl this very amorality back upon me.You said, yes, a fine piece of writing, but you are just glorifying thieves.

My question to them remains unanswered: why are BitSwift and BitBay still trading at the same level? Why are those devs still fully in control, supported by their communities?

I cannot give you a better moral world than you are yourselves creating, in this, your only waking moment. Don't expect thieves to -  out of nowhere  - bring morality to your amoral picnic.

Some of you are convinced that i am the Salamander. I am not. A second read of the story will surely clear that up for you.

As for Bob, the story is perhaps not over. After all, unpaid soldiers become ronin. And ronin do not simply disappear.

[barabbas]

Gentle readers.

Greetings from the darkness.

It was not my intention to speak again. When the words the end are spoken, one must have good reasons indeed to speak again.

So many fine words written from all of you. So many kind words. Thank you.

Regarding the recent discussions of greek vs christian mythology:

In, our tale, there was no redemption. The Salamander escapes, yes, but it is quite doubtful to me that he returns redeemed.

My guess is that the greek paradigm what is past is prologue will carry the day over any optimistic, christian redemptive  attempts at rescuing the Salamander - or ourselves, for that matter.

My guess is, the Salamander will return, and it will be same shit. Different day.

To my gentle readers who murmured, the end seems somewhat hasty  i can only concur. You are right.

I grew physically ill from the tale. Its telling, its complete lack of any moral redemption.  

My less than gentle readers attempted to hurl this very amorality back upon me.You said, yes, a fine piece of writing, but you are just glorifying thieves.

My question to them remains unanswered: why are BitSwift and BitBay still trading at the same level? Why are those devs still fully in control, supported by their communities?

I cannot give you a better moral world than you are yourselves creating, in this, your only waking moment. Don't expect thieves to -  out of nowhere  - bring morality to your amoral picnic.

Some of you are convinced that i am the Salamander. I am not. A second read of the story will surely clear that up for you.

As for Bob, the story is perhaps not over. After all, unpaid soldiers become ronin. And ronin do not simply disappear.

If it isn't Ryan himself, then it is someone really close to him... maybe even "Holly, from Taiwan", a somewhat key piece in this simple puzzle and, definitely, the key to the undoing of both Robert and Ryan. Don't lose her trail because, for sure, this isn't the last we have or will hear of her.

As for TheSound and the Fury, your tale is wonderfully framed and written, precisely because there's no redemption. There can't be any. This is Ripley (from Plein Soleil, not from Alien) and Brutus, make no mistake about it, not Jordan Belfort. Belfort had balls. He refused to be sheep and assumed the risk that went with it, much like Vito Corleone. Here, just a bunch of cowards plotting in the dark on unruled (yet) territory, assuming no risk whatsoever. There are no "soldiers" here. Not even mercenaries, just a bunch of despicable, cowardly plotters. Lets forget distracting euphemisms. If there's any redeeming quality here, it belongs solely to Robert, Bob, Bobby. Everyone knows who he is. When law enforcement comes calling, guess who's gonna have a rather buffed cell companion for quite a few years? Maybe Ryan will fall also. Zimbeck the Turd? No way. He will weasel his way out of this by staying somewhere in Asia or even Europe, the Halo and BC and BAY a distant nightmare and still trying to con his way out and not working for a living, but I doubt in jail where he belongs.

The cowardly plotters will.... plot, of course. Always in the dark. Always behind a flickering screen. Spraying lies as abject as they can concoct -or as they are told- hoping for the wages of sin and, on a much more secondary level, some pathetic cyber-revenge. Maybe charging a few Walmart items on Bob's credit card.

Some ronin.

[synechist]

Regarding the recent discussions of greek vs christian mythology:

In, our tale, there was no redemption. The Salamander escapes, yes, but it is quite doubtful to me that he returns redeemed.

My guess is that the greek paradigm what is past is prologue will carry the day over any optimistic, christian redemptive  attempts at rescuing the Salamander - or ourselves, for that matter.

My guess is, the Salamander will return, and it will be same shit. Different day.

Yes I agree. I don't think that the Salamander will return redeemed. That is not within the curve of the narrative.

Also, if he were to be redeemed, he would first have to return for vengeance, only to find himself transformed - perhaps despite himself - into the other.

But I don't think that people get redeemed when someone decides to embark on a mission to redeem them. It is too difficult to contrive circumstances appropriate to the task. The protagonist has to set himself against the martyr. The martyr is not the sort of character to deceptively make himself the enemy of the protagonist, since premeditated deception is never in keeping with love. So it has to happen organically. And it probably won't.

The narrative of Christendom isn't specifically one of redemption though (that's something the Hollywood pop-pysch peddling scriptwriters got wrong). It's a narrative of death and resurrection. That's what real protagonists go through - at least metaphorically, and out of love - in narratives with any real lasting power.

I cannot give you a better moral world than you are yourselves creating, in this, your only waking moment. Don't expect thieves to -  out of nowhere  - bring morality to your amoral picnic.

You are very right about this. We are, as in many cases, at the part of the narrative where a messiah is awaited. We have ransacked Bitcointalk, and crypto is a wasteland. Thieves will certainly not bring morality to our "picnic." Until someone is prepared to die for their enemies, there will be nothing new under the sun.