For avoidance of doubt, questions posed and opinions expressed here and in my past and any future posts on this thread are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of any other person or group of people. I certainly do not claim to represent any of the ops on any of the Bitcoin IRC channels on Freenode except myself.
As per previous conversation with you, you are more than welcome to email me with any questions; [...] please direct questions regarding the personal backgrounds of staff through the appropriate channels in future.
Personally, I do not find the answers given thus far to form a satisfactory answer to the questions posed.
If you choose not to provide further elaboration here, so be it, but I will not be using e-mail for this enquiry; I respectfully decline your invitation to take the questions to a medium in which the content, and the absence of a reply by either party, couldn't be independently verified by others. Since you've invited me on IRC to "post a summary of the conversations" anyway if one were to be held by e-mail, I don't understand your reluctance to address it here. It'd only take one post to answer the questions to a level that would satisfy anyone interested, presently or in future. You could even edit the one you already made to save on post-noise.
Observation: There's a good reason people often qualify what they say with "I Am Not a Lawyer" on the Internet, and it's not hard to see why someone would be reluctant to be seen as one even if they were paralegals or did any other legal work. You don't seem to share that reluctance, in my opinion. People who are qualified are usually, understandably, quite proud and open about the fact that they are qualified, and how they came to be qualified. I'm neither inferring nor implying that you're therefore not qualified; merely observing that your reaction to this line of enquiry seems uncharacteristic of those qualified people I've known.
To stray a little from the specifics of the question, so that it's clear why I ask at all, and why I ask here: reputation in the Bitcoin world has historically been earned and justified in the open[1]. Some who might work with you, invest in you or entrust money to your escrow service or completed exchange might require more reputation than you have yet earned in the ~18 days you've been here (as of this posting). Therefore it might be to your (business's) benefit to provide more evidence of what reputation you've earned prior to your Bitcoin involvement, or under what other names you've participated in the Bitcoin community previously if you have. As I'm sure you'll point out, those who might work with you/entrust money to you are free to take you or leave you, but you might encourage more to
take you by making at least some of your previous successful accomplishments, qualifications, business relationships, and your identity, more open. You're doubtless aware that you're entering
a market in which ~45% of entrants have so far failed[2], and therefore of how important this stuff is to your potential customers.
... as opposed to derailing an ongoing /development/ thread.
It's true that this thread is posted under "Project Development", but you seem happy to "derail" it yourself to reply to other non-development questions, including:
[1] I'm not claiming to have any substantial reputation in the community myself in the mere ~69 days I've been interested in Bitcoin, but then I'm also not asking anyone in that community to trust me with their money, save for isolated individual counterparties in the minimal number of
OTC and
escrowed BitBargain trades I've participated in.
[2] I've not checked whether that paper includes Bitfloor, Bitcoin-24 and Bitcoin Central, none of which are currently executing trades, so the 45% figure may be out of date already.