Topic: Deleted posts in the Hardware BFL Thread, Double Standards, and Hypocrisy - page 8. (Read 8354 times)

Well, I can answer a few of those for you, others I don't know.

A. You are right, BFL has spent a substantial amount of advertising on BCT, not in the last 6+ months, but you are correct. Back when they were advertising and this came up very frequently, mainly about corruption of Theymos, I did a calculation. BFL's ad purchases equaled an additional $1.17 per month paid to a moderator. So pretty good indicator that no moderators were into BFL for the money.

B. No idea if GMaxwell has any connections to Bitpay, I wouldn't necessarily call that a very plausible thought, but its not outside of the realm of reality I suppose.

C. Lawyerdude intentionally derailing the thread, doesn't that give reason to delete his posts?

D. Moderators do not remove Dox. The thinking behind this is that Dox tend to be public information. If you can obtain it without breaking into somewhere to get the information, its public info, ie phone numbers, name, addresses, etc all stuff you can find with a google search or in a phone book if those still exist.

E. I'm not sure what his motivations are, but I've seen it more than a few times. A thread will start out with a controvesial topic, proponents and opponents clash, people that are bored get involved for giggles, a web of spam and insults occurs, it gets exponentially worse to the point where the only way to handle it is a clean sweep through the entire thread.

That said, besides being a moderator GMaxwell is a Bitcoin core developer, BFL hasn't been the best shining example of why people should get involved in Bitcoin, so as far as I can still tell there isn't any reason for Gmaxwell to want to help BFL. That is unless he has some connection to Bitpay as you said as a possible option, which I don't think he does, but I do give you points for writing out feasible reasons, rather than that GMaxwell is actually an alien that probed Josh once, and liked what he found, so he now has a foundness for BFL or something like that.

Let me start by emphasizing this is purely speculation, but to give an example of "GMaxwell's motivation [...] for trying to benefit BFL in any way":

a. BFL has spend a substantial amount of advertising on BCT;
b. BFL has laundered millions through Bitpay;
c. once the "BFL fucked us over again" topic started finding more and more evidence of that this "lawyerdude" shows up intentionally derailing the thread;
d. dude gets doxed;
e. GMaxwell all of a sudden (yes, sudden) starts moderating the bejeezers out of cet topic...

Considering the amount of doxxing previously going on by BFL representatives (and that being allowed by the mod.) this seems highly suspicious.

So maybe BCT in general, or GMaxwell in particular still have something to gain from either BFL or Bitpay  

Again: SPECULATION, but motivation enough for you?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/us-legal-services-in-btc-representation-escrow-security-hc-wallet-mgmt-492749

What is even funnier that Stephen Mark Reid (Brush242) is having a legal signature attached to his pseudonym.  

I dont know, when I create a theory, I try to look for a reasonable explanation before I start making claims. What would GMaxwell's motivation be for trying to benefit BFL in any way? First off, no one likes BFL, they are the butt of so many jokes in the crypto scene, but aside from the small amounts of enjoyment people get from that, I really haven't seen anyone support BFL since the FPGA days, not counting people with preorders being hopeful. Does GMaxwell have any pending orders with BFL? Could they possibly pay him off enough to sell out?

If you can answer the underlined question with an at least plausible thought, then you have somewhere to start from.

My thoughts at this moment, unless anyone can prove otherwise, which I'd be happy to listen to if you can.
People are harrassing and poking fun at BFL, I've seen the thread its a complete mess. It was removed by Gmaxwell as spam, and the first thing people throw is the corrupt mod/censorship flag. It literally happens every day. Find some sort of motivation for Gmaxwell deleting posts, anything that would serve him or his interests, and you have a case to review. Could a post that had some substance get removed in a complete thread sweep? Yep, but that isn't what is being claimed here.

I haven't been in another one but there could be I guess. I just don't see a reason for him to delete anything but off topic stuff which my deletions clearly were.

Are you the same efx from the BTC-e troll box of long ago?

Earlier today I had a few pleasant exchanges with Max via PMs.

Now, what's this shit I'm reading about Steve Reid violating ABA rules? Guess I need to get up to speed.

Like I've stated, I haven't a clue as to what Steve tried to accomplished by having posts that mentioned his name deleted, for now instead of having ONLY one place where such info could've been found, there's now many, all within 24 hours and now indexed by the search engines to boot. Ergo, he has to be a BFL lawyer, for they only contract geniuses.  

This isn't the first thread pertaining to gmaxwell's moderation. However, the most immediate incident is the only instance I've seen with possible consequences against revealing relevant information.  Afaik, everything else is just about personal attacks and 'if you remove this, why not this' kinda stuff.  

Or, maybe via their BBS days which overlap.

http://markmail.org/message/azp6mfi7mrsfuqje


At that time Josh administered BBSs (plural) outta TN.

I was wondering why the page count is incorrect...


So about this 'line of reasoning',

As already admitted, we do not know of the brush lawyer's exact affiliations. Add in a bit of heavy-handed (yet oddly focused) moderation and suddenly, we are less likely to reach an accurate conclusion.

I suppose certain people have forgotten how a combination of similar moderation and lack of consumer due diligence directly led to BFL being able to perpetrate their operation more successfully. Of course, one may find it rather difficult to blame consumers when potentially relevant information has been suppressed.

 



I too be a butterfly.

Anyways, this isn't the first time certain parties have exhibited an idiosyncratic understanding of topic relevance, 'personal attacks' and uninfluenced moderation.

I don't think I've ever seen Maxwell be overly biased in favor of or against anyone. He's usually pretty balanced in moderation here and IRC. You an I were bullshitting about professionals posting here and it was off topic and got deleted. I know better, it was my mistake. I know to say something about the topic if I'm going to say something off topic and I didnt. He left one of my off topic posts because there was also relevant content in it.

Maxwell can eat shit! (I need to prove I'm not just kissing his ass. lol).

You know what would be interesting to know Bruno; whether the service of Stephen M. Reid as an army interrogator crossed paths with the service of a certain Korean army linguist aka Inaba aka BFL_Josh aka Joshua Ryan Zerlan...

That would certainly shed some light on the entanglement of these here "actors" on BCT....

Well, at the vary least, he can:

Either feel good because he got his money's worth by hiring Stephen M. Reid to do his bidding here;

Or be delighted that Stephen M. Reid is helping him more for free than some paid "essential employees" are...

Well I be a butterfly! It sure does look like Stephen M. Reid was acting against section 7.3 of the model rules of professional conduct of the American Bar association by soliciting his business here on BCT. (Not surprising as he advocated BFL's lawyers were acting professionally too.) It's a good thing then (for him) that he deleted those posts and got the remainder of these incriminating posts deleted by the moderator...

Very much agree! Beautifully said.

I am not an attorney but did a little bit of research. Is Stephen Reid acting against section 7.3 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_7_3_direct_contact_with_prospective_clients.html by soliciting his business here.

Feel free to discuss. 

Yes. I smell BFL wind blowing in this direction. I can see Sonny Vleisides roasting chestnuts by the fire...excited.

Thank you for avoiding the questions.

I agree. But this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Cryptic pages of picture of chickens doesn't aid people in recovering their losses, ten pages about people who have nothing to do with BFL beyond having posted in that particular thread, do nothing to aid people recover their losses-- in fact, it does precisely (and I think, intentionally) the opposite.

dear @gmaxwell, I agree that many of those deleted posts were rather pointless, and there was way too much re-re-quoting and re-re-posting of the same material.  However, many of them were actually about people and facts connected to BFL.  Unfortunatly, only "insiders" of that thread would understand, for example, that a post about "chickens" refers to Jody Drake, a BFL manager who raises chickens and posts pictures of a pet chicken.  And ditto for many other posts.  

Many BFL victims could have been spared of their losses if they had known about the criminal precedents and dubious business history of some BFL managers.  Some of the bitcoins that were mined by BFL with customer equipment may be in the hands of BFL staff and associates, such as their mysterious forum manager and the owners of certain mining pools.  Much material in that thread is about trying to uncover the identity, past, and improper actions of those people.

It is the right of customers to know the managers and key employees of a company that they are considering to order from -- or, worse, that has swindled them.  People who choose to be in such positions or be part of such scams, even passively, have no right to remain anonymous or to hide their past.

I do not understand your response.

Please elaborate.