Topic: Piece of Shit Bitcoiners et al. Hall of Fame - page 4. (Read 15813 times)

Have you said here that I'm a thief? http://web.archive.org/web/20160404110355/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1414944.msg14417575

Yes... 133% ever

Stick to bikini girls...

Instamine + compounding Masternode payments + control of Dash budget = 33% of all Dash ever

Perhaps my estimate is too low.  Did you get a higher number?   

It is hilarious that still don't understand the elementary school math of my rebuttal.


You claim truth is not integrity.

Goodbye asshats.

It's noteable that the quantity of insults and abusive rhetoric in your posts is in inverse proportion to the integrity of your arguments.

The elephant in the room here is the market because that's who your real truck is with - not Evan. Yet you won't admit it because it's far easier to try to trash an individual with insinuations and aspersions than it is to challenge the investment priorities of thousands of legitimate participants spending their own money.

When Dash was launched it was worth nothing. The market is what gave it value. You can have your say there just like everyone else but if it goes against you and you resort to endless add hominems and publicly trashing a known individual by attempting to paint a miss-fired cyrpto launch as "theft" or "scam" then don't be surprised if it backfires on you like it already has.

Icebreaker's argument was:


Your attempt to patch it up is pathetic at best.

Can you continue pretending you didn't read (or comprehend) my rebuttal to that.

Ask someone with sufficient IQ to translate this elementary school math for you:

33% ever of 84mn = 27.7mn
33% ever of 21mn = 6.93mn

Neither of these are even possible 26 months later (because the coin supply is still less than 33% of 21mn - currently at 6.3mn).

And you continue pretending I don't make sense?

Seriously...?

Well thanks for admitting you have no shred of an argument remaining, as you are now resorting to complete nonsense.

Now we've determined that another likely reason for your inability to comprehend the trouble you are in, is because you simply lack sufficient IQ (or are so disingenuous and deluded into thinking people are stupid enough to not understand you just stated nonsense).

You are not helping the "Icebreaker #REKT" case. The argument is even worse with a larger coin supply. Basic maths man: 33% of 84mn (original spec) means Evan should have at least 27.72 million darkcoins to have instamined 33% ever.

Both #REKT.

He shrank the planned coin supply once already.

But that is not even needed. You are totally disingenuous. The masternode scheme pays out the new coins proportional to the holdings percentage of the coin supply at inception. Duh!

Come on dufus. Get the fuck off my lawn. I am tired of playing with your dumb, redundant asshat.

Not sure if serious

The list is certainly not all

Now you are arguing the Statute-of-Limitations can turn an unquantified but generally exposed "rip off" into a legal activity and thus there was never anybody ripped off.

Holy shit. You just verified for everyone the way your twisted criminal mind rationalizes Evan's what I allege is to be illegal activity.

Note it is 10 years in the USA from the last act for financial crimes, so Evan won't be safe from criminal proceedings until 2026 at the earliest.


We feel we sufficiently proved the scam to argue for him being on a list of who this community thinks scammed and ripped off some of us in the community.


Not in terms of public opinion. You seem to realize that, which is why you are desperately trying to obscure the truth here.


Let's take it to court and subpoena all the records so you can have your proof of the scam and a conviction in a court-of-law (civil or criminal or both) of the scammer. I will counter-sue for damages and seek an injunction to escrow/lockup DRK masternode developer funds to cover costs of losing the case. If those collapse in value due to the court case, will seek an injunction to seize for escrow against Evan and accomplice's real assets. Based on the manipulative nature of what has transpired, I would expect Evan and accomplices to try to hide and dispose of real assets and would argue that to the court.

Out of ~20mn coins, a "33% ever" is around 6.6mn coins. And DASH has only 6.3mn, after 26 months running (and inflating)... yet somehow Evan instamined more than the entire current monetary supply.

Stick to posting "bikini girl incidents" because in terms of facts you aren't very good.

Icebreaker #REKT.

There is something objective, and I can expand on this if you want to learn about it (it extends to re-writing game theory to account for un-factored costs that have gone unnoticed for decades) but it's on a layer that is untouched by 99.9999% of the population. So, for the intended discussion, and since for the public at large ethics are "shoulds", I will just quote your link:

=>

Although the terms “morality” and “ethics” are sometimes used synonymously, it is useful to adopt the following distinction:

Morality is descriptive, it is concerned with social norms and people’s moral intuitions. Ethics on the other hand is normative; it doesn’t describe how people act, but how they should act (this still requires a clarification for the word “should”!).

If I say "I had 100 bitcoins and you stole them from me" then I'm not admitting possession in real time. I *had* them. I don't *currently* have them thus such information would not be incriminating in a future where cryptocurrency becomes illegal. You cannot break the law with retro-active effect in any serious constitutional state. The law must first exist so that you can the break it. So if I say, right now, you stole my BTCs, and a law comes in effect next year saying I'm not allowed to have BTCs, I've not broken any laws.

For someone who has an attorney as a father, these are pretty elemental.


Ok, so you are not OK with proving the scam so you just want to declare people "sleazy scammers".

That's OK, as far as I'm concerned. You can make a list of "Sleazy scammers" and put Evan in there, along with anyone else you like - or more precisely anyone else you *don't* like. After all it'll be your thread, your criteria, etc etc. But you are here arguing to put Evan on a list of people where actual scams have taken place. You can't do that. What you can do, to approximate this and be somewhat legitimate in your claims, is to make a "potential scam" list and add Dash in there, if you so like, and also add Evan as a "potential scammer".

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty, you know... And, if you call people scammers when they haven't actually scammed people, that's a criminal offense in itself. But I don't really care about the various laws like these as we are literally in the cryptojungle where anything flies.... How many coins, claiming anonymity, came post May 2014 and said "ohhh Evan is a scammer, DRK is a scam and we'll do it better and non-scammy"? What happened in virtually every single case? All the investors got scammed and/or lost their money by those who claimed that they weren't scammers like Evan. XCurrency was the first... reached something like 15mn usd if I remember correctly... then came a whole list of "anonymous" coins that all resulted in catastrophic (for the investors) dumps. And all these happened while claiming DRK and Evan are scams. So the people who promoted this narrative about DRK and Evan actually became enablers to the biggest scams in cryptospace.

Cripes man, did this point completely fly over your head that you are the one who is demanding that everyone disclose everything so we can count and prove all the victims.

I am arguing it should be sufficient to just declare Evan a sleazy scammer who rips off people by designing a scam to control the float and manipulate the price and volume, as well printing press coins out of thin air masternode scheme, handing them to insiders, and dumping them on the market.

Could I ask that you please don't waste my entire day on this redundant shit.


Yes Bitcoin.


That is what someone with no ethics says. Ethics are quite objective. But I don't have time to go off on that tangent with you which you can begin by unconflating morality and ethics. For example, pursuing zero-sum games (where you must take from others in order to gain) is objectively unethical when a non-zero-sum alternative(s) exist. This is why Communism is objectively unethical.