I feel I need to give a response to the recent Coinfire article. Like their previous article, they’ve make a lot of claims without giving any kind of proof to their claims. I know many people don’t take coinfire very seriously these days, which is good.
It's almost as if he believes nobody knows about Coinfire's actual history when it comes to getting the scoop on three-letter-agency investigations into this industry.
Do they think Coinfire would piss away all the credibility they earned with their GAW/Garza/Paycoin reporting, on publishing a similar expose about Cryptsy but for it not to be supported by the same standard of evidence?
Cryptsy would have done better to have spun a little more of a reasonable response into their statement, at least along the lines of admitting that, due to the situation with Garza they were cooperating with the ongoing investigation and that the allegations they were implicated in wrongdoing were false.
*That* would have at least been a sensible way to react, instead of their ridiculous knee-jerkery of denying absolutely everything and anything and then trying to question Coinfire's credibility, in the face of a proven history of their journalism being on the mark!
Swing and a miss, Vern.
