Topic: Re: Farewell - page 4. (Read 3053 times)

I will not read through all these giant walls of text, most of it is rehashing things which have been discussed many times already, but I will comment on a few of the posts I did read. Oeleo might've had some extreme views on certain issues but I don't hold him responsible for the actions of those who were renting his signature space. I only ever saw him recommend custodial mixers when people were specifically willing to trust a custodian to mix their coins. He could've been more outspoken about the risks associated with them but it is not his responsibility to stop people from doing something stupid. That doesn't make him complicit or a partner in their actions. It's something I hate about this forum but most people try to stay on the good side of those throwing lots of money at them.

I am not in agreement with zkSNACKS decision to prohibit supposedly "tainted" coins from entering their coinjoins but as a private business they have the right to deny their service to whomever they choose. Clearly regulators are not big fans of privacy services, and from my perspective, there was a high enough probability that if they had not made this choice their lead developers would be in a jail cell sitting next to the Tornado Cash devs, ChipMixer operators, and countless other mixers who have passed through this forum. It should be up to the free market to decide if they are willing to accept this compromise. While there is justifiable criticism against Wasabi, I find that a lot of it is entirely hypocritical or outright dishonest. Address reuse is not ideal when it happens in Wasabi, but it also isn't ideal when it happens in Samourai, or when it happened in Chipmixer. For some reason only when it happens in Wasabi do people on this forum consider it bad. In those other cases it was completely ignored because nobody wants to agitate certain merit sources and campaign managers who can ruin their reputation or exclude them from campaigns. Wasabi is also not "spying on their users". WabiSabi coinjoins are designed in a way where the coordinator can't really gather any useful information from participants. Some of these scenarios where they could deanonymize users seem too complex and expensive to be viable without it being detected. Somehow these spying concerns are dismissed when it comes to Samourai having access to xpubs. Developers lying directly to people's face is also not a concern. Developers and community being toxic assholes, also not a concern for the Whirlpool enthusiasts who will criticize Wasabi for these exact things. I'm not really a partisan and have used Wasabi, Samourai and other privacy services but there is a lot of inconsistency and double standards that sometimes I will defend Wasabi when certain arguments seem to be made in bad faith.

Between the time that you made this responsive post and my earlier post, I made did some further editing of my earlier post... so it is not exactly a comfortable topic for me.

I will admit that I read through one or two Wasabi wallet threads, and I had not been much of a fan of wasabi wallet in the last couple of years when a lot of the negative press had been coming out regarding some changes that were made regarding coordinators, and I am likely not even able to clearly articulate my concerns, and I don't really want to use the mixing services because I think that other members are raising plenty of concerns regarding why not to trust the wallet in terms of cooperation agreements that Wasabi has with chain analysis firms. Maybe historically I had agreed with some of the judgements of o_e_l_e_o on the topic and even BlackHatcoiner and some other fairly vocal Wasabi critics. I don't see any problems with the kinds of statements from o_e_l_e_o  and his continued assertions of not trusting Wasabi wallet... maybe he is wrong about some things, but I doubt that his conduct rises to the level of intentionally lying or misleading even if he was wrong or admitted that he was wrong about some of Wasabi's practices.

I am surely not technical enough to even understand a lot of the assertions, even though from time to time I do read through some of those kind of technical and/or privacy threads, but sometimes it is not easy for me to relate to all of the things that are being claimed, even though I am not retarded so I do understand some of the claims and/or some of the overall assessments and generally from time to time, I end up relying on various representations and assessments of other forum members who seem to have more technical knowledge than me...and yeah if it starts to appear to me that one or another member is lying or being disingenuine in his posts and/or his assertions then I might choose to rely less upon their representations in future posts... and I still believe that o_e_l_e_o tended to post in good faith, even though I can recall that sometimes he took some pretty strict privacy stances, and I am not even clear if I would be willing to take similar steps as him because sometimes there is a need for greater technical knowledge if any of us were going to take some of the additional privacy steps such as discontinuing to use some of the consumer-friendly phones or applications, but that still does not mean that I have been very excited about Wasabi in the last few years, even though I don't claim to completely understand all of the details - but in the last year or two I have not been feeling any inclinations to want to use Wasabi. 

In the coming weeks, I will try to make some time and look at that 5 page Wasabi thread that you highlighted with o_e_l_e_o 's participation therein, even though no member has posted in that thread since mid 2022.

That's a fair (albeit long) statement.


You'll notice that I have not referred to any "disagreements" between myself and o_e_l_e_o for proof, in fact, most of the evidence I quoted from o_e_l_e_o was authored before I joined Bitcointalk.


The OP is rather intimidatingly long, so if you want to focus on the "smoking gun", the first two quotes are the ones that reveal o_e_l_e_o was aware that a coordinator spying on Wasabi users is not possible:

Don't you judge yourself to be the most trusted here?   That's pretty clouded judgement...
And then you enjoy learning new insults for the dead/dying?


Then, after TECShare died from a stroke:

I believe that it is a bad idea to purposefully make arguments that are aimed at someone's credibility and past conduct at the news of his announcement that he is leaving the forum due to his belief that he does not have much time left on this planet (perhaps a matter of months in terms of his representations), and we have no reason to believe that Leo is making up his reason for leaving the forum.. even though we likely are not able to completely confirm his claims either - except that he had been considered a reliable and credible person on the forum, and I have not seen any significant and/or meaningful posts to establish that o_e_l_e_o engaged in the conduct that you are accusing him of having had done, including that lying is a kind act that seems to need to establish bad intentions, and largely I came to this thread in order to post my response to the news of o_e_l_e_o's farewell since o_e_l_e_o had locked his thread by the time I was in the process of drafting my response that I was going to post in that thread that he closed.  

Admittedly, I am not very much interested in the topic of your OP in terms of your framing it as o_e_l_e_o  being a bad intention person, which seems quite contrary to my own interactions and experiences with his post history to the extent that I had come across his posts, read them and/or felt that I might have understood some of them, so maybe it is my own mistake to participate in this thread and to mostly ignore what seems to be the intentions of your OP, which many members are repelled by your behavior rather than the substantive points that you proclaim to be making (which is difficult to believe that you would really need to make your points in the denigrating ways that you did. and several members have added neutral (but still negative) comments about your conduct to your trust page based on the way that you are going about the raising of these supposed concerns.. ... report me for being somewhat off-topic and my not being very interested to engage in the substantive points of your OP, if you must...

Another thing, I think that if you had disagreements with o_e_l_e_o in regards to various posts that he made in various threads then you would have had already likely addressed those concerns inside of those other threads, or maybe you will repeat your claims against o_e_l_e_o in those threads, but based on his farewell thread and even his post claiming that he is not posting any more on the forum, now you know that he is not going to be responding to your posts, and it seems that he is the best person to respond to the claims contained within the specific kinds of posts that you are making that raise issues of his credibility or his bad intentions as you characterize them to be...

Maybe you are wanting me to read your OP with more detail?  Is that what you are requesting, even though I am not really that interested in complaints of past behaviors in regards to a guy (o_e_l_e_o  in this case) who is not going to be defending himself, and so his posts likely speak for themselves in terms of how much credibility they deserve.  You are suggesting that there are some smoking gun pieces of evidence contained in your OP outline of evidence that I need to review in order to change my opinion (or my historical trust) of o_e_l_e_o and/or his historical representations?  And, at the same time, you raise your concerns in such a way that is largely distasteful and reprehensible rather than anything that any of us should really treat seriously. I would imagine that forum administrators/mods may even be considering whether you should be punished for this post/thread, even though the forum is generally pretty tolerant towards a certain level of brashness and bad tastes in the way that members raise, present and/or respond to issues.

Edited:  After posting I had to read through various parts of this post and make some additional changes to my various responses.

JayJuanGee, what do you think about the proof that o_e_l_e_o betrayed the Bitcointalk community by lying about non custodial privacy software, which led to users losing their data and deposits to the government?

We do not know enough to make that kind of a conclusion.  Sure Leo said that he knew about his illness for 10 years, yet we cannot conclude that he had enough information in order to take a course of action that would have had been more appropriate than the one that he had chosen to take - including the fact that many folks will fight their illness and even the idea of their mortality for much longer than is reasonable in order to expect any kind of recovery or any reversal in the degeneration that they might be undergoing. .and yeah we do not even know those kinds of specifics with any kind of level of detail or even generally, so we just might try to reasonably infer from what he had said.

I got the sense that Leo was purposefully being vague in his Farewell OP about specifics of his illness in order to potentially lessen the chances that some folks might read more details into his chosen explanation than what would be warranted. .and sure I suppose with any of us, we run risks when we choose to share any of our personal details.. and maybe we should not, even though Leo had stated some of the reasons that he had chosen to provide a kind of overview of the situation rather than details as a courtesy to some folks who he felt that he should provide some kind of framework to understand why he was going to be disappearing from the forum.. so maybe one of the lessons of how much Leo chose to disclose might be 'damned if you do, and damned if you don't."

I'm sorry you feel that way - Leo knew he was unwell for a decade ^{(yet chose to behave in a certain way)} then choose to abruptly terminate his participation in the forum without (on his part) making any gesture to mend broken fences.  Having read his posts I knew the only way to get a response was a little shock and awe when I reached out from my side to see if he would clear his conscience before he finished posting.

Leo removed his DT trust/distrusts enmase after he made his last post.

---

---

I won't be responding to any more of the woke posts in this thread about this subject.

As I said in a post that was deleted by an admin/mod that has a personal vendetta against me:


Stop trolling and let the man die in peace.