Ikeboy, you've agreed with me on everything I've said once I supply you with the proof I've already based my decisions on. Albeit you post about things which you don't completely research or understand, such as merchant's ToS, which I have read through and spotted what GAW is breaking with it's plugin it bought or copied off ZincSave, you do a good job of questioning certain things. You just rarely question them in the other direction.
EDIT: By the way, that article is wrong. Don't believe everything on the internet
I've been with crypto for at least a year now. There have been uncountable PoW-PoS coins.
I didn't say that gaw isn't breaking the tos, but that it isn't illegal to break tos in general unless you've agreed to them. I did say that until we have the extension we don't know whather it will be breaking tos, and we should wait for that.
There was one time with you (with the redacted hashtalk post) that I was wrong and agreed. There are still some points of disagreement between us. I'll list some here:
Whether it's fraud to use reviews on a different version of a product from a different name.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9977023Whether changing the wording of an announcement is significant when the same claim has been made many other times
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9936695I don't understand each of the different reward structures so well, and when I tried to research, that article came up. Could you try assuming good faith for a while? How come you're calling me out for asking a question but not anyone who keeps on saying that the paybase reviews were false after they've been shown to be false? It seems that you only say something when you don't like something I say. Is that impression wrong?
I think you are genuine in your search for truth. Try not taking things too personally as many of us seasoned cryto users have been fed up by the amount of scams in our ecosystem so we have a very low patience. This has its tradeoffs because on one hand we can quickly smell a scam and on the other hand we can come off as pretentious strident closed minded jerks. There definetly are some jerks and trolls here but some of us are grumpy people who actually care for you and the communities best interest.
Again, why are you ignoring what I said? You're being hypocritical now. IF GAWminers bought ZincSave, which they say they bought something and also had the testimonials from that, they changed the service. They changed the code to do a different coin, they changed the name. Any testimonials on the previous service they bought to alter do not count. Does this make sense to you at all? If not, how? I'll give you an example. I buy Paypal. I call it Mypal. Then I change it so instead of using fiat, it uses crypto. Before it's even released, I plaster a bunch of Paypal testimonies on it. Do you think that's ok?
One of the claims made was that those statements came from beta testers which could be possible. It isn't of great importance as I think its misleading which is bad enough and is archived with the more damning claims made for any lawyer to go through.
inBitweTrust: thank you for that.
WaffleMaster: I was responding to suchmoon and was going to deal with you after. How was I hypocritical? I think that the issue of the testimonials should be talked about after paybase launches. We don't really know how it will work, how similar it will be to the previous service, a lot of things. I agree that if they were completely forged, that would be a bad sign, but they weren't. It's not like they're for a service that's available right now, so it's not really an advertising problem yet. Wait a few more hours, and we'll see. I'm not even sure if we can call it misleading or not until after paybase launches.
Also, right now the testimonials were taken down. If they were only up before paybase launched, I don't think that's much of a problem.
