Topic: Jasinlee - one of XC's "Team Members" is a master fraudster - page 7. (Read 11045 times)

And PoBC is not XC's code. But will be combined with XC after implemented.
Stop FUD if you have no idea on a unknown thing.

Your post title is so misleading.    Jasinlee is not "one of the developer" of XC.    He might deliver PoBC in the future, but he's definitely not one of the developer of XC.   He doesn't even have any hands in the core of the codes now.   So, by you spreading FUD about XC and trying to tank the price of XC, who do I go after for that?   That's your ultimate objective isn't it?  Trying to drag XC down since you lost money on some stupid purchase of an ASIC.   

XC is not something that Jasin created.  Dan is the creator of XC.   How many times does it take for people to get it through your troll skull?  Go troll in the Cache coin thread instead.

It's a small section and from a phone screenshot. Someone on the chat thread was asking. 

If people want to know the exact number of cache and have proof I can figure out a way to get it from my computer.

It may be dozens of screenshots.  You can easily go back to crypsy and track the prices with jasins announcement.

I stated I would answer questions from anyone who was not the wordplay guy and was attempting to do so.

Hmm... your screenshot shows that you purchased a total of 0.016261148 btc of cache.    What are you trying to show there?  I don't get it.

Sure I said I'd be happy to answer any other questions.   Just have low tolerance for word games and Synchillis has worn out my patience.

Not really sure exactly what this proves except the price I purchased cache with.

http://imgur.com/zU9f4pF

I plan on following my post up with timelined quotes from Jasin and the people in lite coin forums who have been scammed.  

I've been offered a refund w cache being worth $0.04 - worthless now that it's not being pumped by Jasin.

Jasin was offering .01btc per cache so I would've purchased $7,200 worth of cache.  Since I was getting it at 65% price on average at Cryptsy I suppose I probably spent  4,600ish in real dollars.

So my 1,500 cach worth  4,600 would be worth $75 if I took a refund.  

I was able to get a lower rate  on ASIC hash power that Jasin is promising in two months a week ago for a lower price per mhs than what I paid him.

At the hash rate jasin is promised in a few months (what hes promised for the 3rd time?) it won't be worth much more than the cache refund.  If I was guessing - if he does deliver (doubtful) it'll be a ripoff of buying someone else's old chip design.

I'm really unsure of what else to say.  It's a bad idea to invest in a closed source coin that claims world class anon when one of the three devs has repeatedly lied and defrauded dozens of customers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and the entire XC team continues to back and defend him?

It isn't your problem if you are content with everything I suppose.  I just find it odd that you are.

Maybe I'm just sour grapes (happens when someone cheats you out of thousands of dollars with lies).  I'd planned on letting this go even though Jasinlee likes the world to think he's part of your project.  If my goal was strictly spreading FUD against XC I would have posted this long ago.

But then I saw people in XC talking about how he's still associated with the project.

I've pointed out the conflicts of interest between Cache and XC.

Buyer beware?

LOL how the fuck does XC have ANYTHING to do with what one of the members did in the past? This coin was created WITHOUT Jasinlee, and he was later added. So because he offered his services, we all have to suffer for some mishap that occured in the past with him? Seriously guys, go reach out to him personally and stop trying to stir the pot and create FUD. I've read these stupid threads before and they are laughable and hold zero relevance to XC. Dan is the lead dev and he has proven to be trustworthy and transparent. Jasinlee is aiding in the development and is just a small piece of the big puzzle.

You're now repeating yourself.

I won't do the same.

Instead, here's a link: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8693958

Teka

While I believe I understand what you are saying - that I need more "proof".  Proof is in the eye of the beholder.  It isn't really up to me or the XC team to decide how much proof is needed to warn investors on a project he's pretty intimately involved with

However.  Promising to deliver a product in May/June, then July, then August.  Then October.  Then refusing to provide any tangible proof that the product (ASIC) was ever worked on.  Then removing the ability to login to a website that has the only ledger or proof of original orders and turning it into a sales pitch for XC/Cachecoin.   And then going AWOL from the project entirely.  I would argue is plenty of proof for any non biased person.

I understand that it is XC's stance that this is not proof enough.  But I'm afraid in this we will have to disagree.  Quite frankly I'm baffled at the responses on here.  Investors have lost hundreds of thousands to your developer.  But the stance of your lead PR is that I am simply spreading FUD.

I am completely at a loss as to why you've chosen to defend, entrench and refuse to even take a close look at the facts presented.  I want as many contemplating jumping into this project to comprehend what they are getting into.  Thank you for your clarification and explanations.

 Let me know if there's anything else I can do.  I'm trying to be honest and upfront here.  Be happy to deal with you even if we disagree as long as you don't waste my efforts to dialog with word games.  If you decide XC has a different official response I will be happy to update the OP.

Failure to understand context of a phrase and moving goal posts now?

Perhaps you've never heard of the saying "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck"? Given sufficient observable evidence to arrive at a conclusion with almost certainty, it is no longer up to me to prove the conclusion with absolute certainty, but for you to refute my arguments.

Again, Jasin has taken money, failed to meet contractual obligations (not just by a little bit, but by a huge margin), failed to produce proof of any work done to meet contractual obligations, removed/concealed financial transaction data, and has disappeared for the past week and a half. A rational person, court, etc. would see these chain of actions as a scam. I am no longer obligated to provide further arguments. Rather it is up to Jasin, or rather you to refute the arguments.

Here is the tally so far:
Jasin has taken money: You have admitted that he has.
Failed to meet contractual obligations: Your argument is that because delivery is late does not mean it is a scam. This is a weak argument since you could extend the delay out indefinitely and nothing would ever be considered a scam. Again, it's not just a few times or a small delay, it has been every time, indefinite delay.
Failed to  produce proof of work done to meet contractual obligations: Jasin has refused to provide information of foundry for order verification because the foundry does not like crypto-currencies...
Removed/concealed financial transaction data: Removed user login and reworked Fibonaci.io. Promises to have it restored by last weekend. Has not delivered or addressed the issue. Again, I suppose if you give him till the end of time, he will eventually deliver right?

It is not my responsibility inform anyone of Jasin's condition. In fact, I don't give much credence to the statement given that work seems to have been done on the Fibonaci.io site in the mean time. Also, it has somehow escaped the conversation where his unresponsiveness was a major driving point in the complaints until now.

Your response has been ambiguous because you have said elsewhere that he is involved in "discussions."
Apparently Jasinlee is still involved in an "unofficial" capacity. You need to be be clear and unambigous about what this is.


Your opinion s about the other matter is irrelevant. The other matter has nothing to do with XC.
   I don't care whether you talk to him. He is innocent (until proven guilty). So whether you are in communication with him is irrelevant.

What matters is his current role in XC.

How is this unambiguous?

- "As you might see from the website, Jasin is no longer listed as a team member in an official capacity. So, no."


Furthermore it is not irrelevant to be candid about both our continued interaction with Jasin and our expectations about Jasin's ASIC project. In fact, it is pretty important that we remain candid about this, since it would be bad faith if we were to lead investors to think that his lacking an official capacity with XC meant that he was not in communication with us.

I don't care if you talk to him. What is his role in XC?
Can't you please give an unambiguous response?
I don't care about your expectations of Jasinlee. Your expectations about him are 100% irrelevant.

Sorry its 3am here, I should have mentioned that you need to explain proof. Also proof of order is nearly always vital in these type of threads.

Is Jasinleee and XC developer? Yes or no? In what way is he "associated" with XC?
Talking to people in discussions on skype does not make someone "associated" with XC.
Come on...you need to make some unambiguous statements about this. Be clear.

Fair enough.  I've provided plenty of proof in the raw data frome litecointalk but it sounds like you guys really haven't looked into it much. 

I will post this

If you could include this in the op even as a direct qoute I will be extremely happy:

- You can not guarantee that people will loose many because Jasin is involved ( in a small capacity, chatting on skype currently)
         - Our core community is aware of this situation and has expressed their opinon, none of them have dumped or a dumping because of Jasin.

- He's not in position of power.
         - He has no access to any of the funds like the premine
         - He can't dictate what the team does or who works for XC

- Jasin's involvement with cachecoin was public

- Blockchain 2.0 and POBOC ('Interchains') was public and we released that we will be working with Cache on this
           -Currently this in very very early stages

- Anon features were a part of Cache, we addressed the fact that the implementation was different. We never tried to hide the fact that Cache had Anon features. In fact we even discussed it with members. Although these features seem similar they have nothing to do with XC.

- This means that most people knew about nearly every detail of cache and the collab with XC

- You cannot prove that Jasin is stealing any code. As you said this your gut feeling.
        - None of the current tech published by XC was created by Jasin


Also if you a serious about this put a disclaimer that currently you have published no proof. You might have some, I have no idea if you do but currently you haven't put anything out.