Topic: [SCAM] BLOCKNET: The Metcalf/Prom Alt-Coin Cartel Scam Exposed - page 13. (Read 100174 times)

I wouldn't touch Blocknet with a 10foot pole but hold supernet.

Funny I didn't know if this was a scam or not until you came out in support. You should have kept your mouth shut.

I didn't say anything about dumping the premine if you read it again.

And no in that thread I wasn't answered fully and don't expect to be. I was in this one by Synechist though.

I think the actions themselves tell the story. Putting together all that's happened paints its own picture. I don't need to discredit anyone. You say crap has been fabricated, I haven't been fabricating anything. I'm making moral judgements on the available evidence. If you've witnessed everything that I have and you still consider Dan et al. ethical, then that's your prerogative.

See, this is one of the most obvious red flags in this entire saga: the reaction of the BlockNet PR team (ie mostly synechist) to any form of criticism, and their portrayal of themselves as the victims of an orchestrated FUD campaign.
Look at the use of language: intolerably belligerent, onslaught, brutality , to describe what is, so far, fairly sane and reasonable questioning of the BlockNet project, it's communities and Dans bona fides. Shit, even Spoetnik was being very restrained.

I'm gonna give some examples of the fun-filled shit I've seen from other FUD campaigns:

Death threats, gun waving, crank telephone calls, threats of malicious prosecution, accusations of drug addiction, doxxing (including photos+addresses), accusations of mental illlness.

Has anything comparable happened to Dan ? No is the answer you're looking for, I think.

BlockNet would be a lot better of answering questions honestly, even if it does get repetititive, rather than trying to claim that they are the victims of the worlds most hardcore FUD campaign. The thing about lying about one aspect of a  project is that that it tends to bring the rest of the project into doubt.

My main contention is that there has been unethical behavior. I'm not trying to argue the semantics of the word scam. I'm not interested in a smear campaign, I'd be happy with the full truth.

There's been a consistent lack of clarity and honesty from my observations over the months. It's your job to cover it up and dress it in the best possible manner.

I mainly want to make sure we're at the point where everyone involved has the ability to make an informed choice based on all the available information.

If someone has a full understanding of everything that's gone on and perceives these actions as ethical, then I'm not going to try convince them otherwise. The XC community's classification of every criticism or anything that could potentially be perceived as negative as "FUD" creates an echo chamber effect where there's lots of people who I feel really don't understand the full story.

I'm going to cut and paste another reply here on a similar issue. But the tl;dr summary of it is that is all possible scenarios related to Dan and the HAL code review, him doing the review while involved with Promethus should be considered unethical. And the code reviews alone were already widely considered unethical even before the Prometheus reveal among the community.

---

There are many possible scenarios indicated by the language that Dan has used to describe his relationship with HAL. I personally think he has at least some coding ability, and potentially lots, but we do know that he outsources a large amount of his coding. Dan repeatedly made statements like "I didn't code for HAL", which may very well be true statements. There exsits many possibilities in between where he could have still developed for HAL, but outsourced the actual coding. Prometheus mentioned that Dan 'took the HAL anon to another level', he may have designed it and had Christian Howe code it. He may have not done that, and simply worked with Promethus on a strictly theoretical level, outlining the tech while Prometheus paid his own man to code it(although the 'Dan's coin' talk from both Prom and Coinada makes this seem less likely). So while there are many different scenarios that might have taken place - and we're obviously not going to be getting the full truth anytime soon - either Prom and Coinada are lying about Dan's involvement in HAL, or Dan had some level of involvement in it.

If Prom and Coinada are not lying, then was it unethical for Dan to do a code review for HAL?

If Prom and Coinada are lying, and Dan had actually had zero involvement with HAL specifically before the code review ,would it be ethical for him to review HAL's code considering by this time he was already involved with Prometheus?

If this seemingly unlikely course of events look place, it still reflects very poorly on Dan. All of those code reviews he did. Even when we as a community naively assumed that he was in fact an unbiased third party. The community at large certainly did not know about his connection with Prometheus. If you think that would have been ignored after reading the XC thread where multiple members put forth the belief that XC was somehow different and not associated with the shady underground of altcoins, then you weren't paying attention. The XC echo chamber shielded many of those community members from the true opinions of people, but I can guarantee you that you could mention XC on any trollbox or non XC thread and hear some real opinions about XC and Dan Metcalf. If you think I'm lying, I'd advise you to try it sometime posing as someone making a legit inquiry about XC and watch the reactions you get.

---

We could get deeper in to why I and others considered Dan's implicit approval of those coins that he reviewed was unethical, but I don't feel the need. A lot of the issue stemmed from the way they were presented, and press releases calling them "the defacto standard of legitimacy". This was of course before the public had any idea of the Dan and Prometheus connection. But that's not really necessary at this point. Really the only thing left to do is for someone to make a full timeline of events with all of the comments that were made and make it available and let people make their own judgement. That's unlikely to happen though unless someone really wants to take the time to put something like that together. A journalist might.

One can look at Prometheus' twitter history and collocate his promotions with the charts of the coins that he was behind the funding of. If this doesn't paint the picture of one of crypto's most notorious pump and dumpers, I don't know what will. Of course, no one can prove that he ever sold a single coin in his life. Short of getting his account history from the exchanges. So yes, there's always going to be some reasonable doubt you can point to. In Dan's defense, he could have been naive, and not understood what Prometheus' history is with altcoins. But he didn't, and he went as far to say he considers Prometheus 'an ethical promoter'. People who are okay with this(and I'm sure there are many) are welcome to spend their money as they wish. I worry about people who aren't as familiar with the history of alts who might not know what kind of people they're associating with though.

That is 3 minutes I will never get back. What a pretentious stain.

Here! Here! Instructor Goebbels will be leading a presentation today.

synechist has literally talked himself into a complete circle.

or
- direct answers
- the truth

fixed that for you.

I decry all our posts deleted by synechist were because we were read uncharitably.


“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

See this is the trouble - all your concerns were answered, and satisfactorily. If you dont believe so - not anyone's fault but yours. No I didn't click your link as you are only interested in pushing your agenda and not actually dealing with the facts.

I have read answers to all your/threads questions from dan and co, what more do you want ? besides someone to admit some lies are truths ?  isn't that what torture is for ?   then just because you ask the same questions over and over doesn't make it valid question anymore when its dealt with, much like this entire thread and the OP. The thread creator has nothing and he knows it, he types for the sake of it twisting words - which is all he has - semantics, word play = read - NO EVIDENCE whatsoever so he is clutching at straws playing some intellectual card - and failing.  Have you actually gone into the premine address and looked at it yourself ? looked at the dates? there is NO DUMPING.  As I said, all these convenient bullshit little untruths spew out from the shit cess pool part of this community, the premine has been used to pay people/development and you can see it being used over months.  (it was never dumped)...this isn't news but didn't stop people trying to use it with everything else.

In the end, the people that are having a cry will lie hard for their cause, everyone else is just sick of it.  

And yes I am well aware of whats current and not.  I am just laughing at the attempts some good people have gone on to tarnish their names all in the sake of profit, I hope the smear campaign pays well, sell outs. One person has already left, not for trying to find the truth but because this place is a pile of crap attitudes and greedy people which is what this thread/forum attests too.  Its so childish that you are pushing more people away from crypto then bringing them in.  Pathetic groups of people have a cry because someone does something similar and they dont want anyone else to catch up/profit/copy their scams. (hello pump groups)....anyway... deal with it sooner or later because in a few weeks you wont even care as you will move onto another coin to fud to make your bags of your chosen coins look much better...and let me guess, dark coin, sdc will somehow be unaffected by it all - meaning the same scumbags will be behind it much like this load of crap that has been fabricated lately.

Again verifiable concrete proof ? not in this thread.  I believe a dev over a no body on the forum with an agenda to discredit.

I think it is hard for you to actually step back and see this from outside the box. If you stop your worshiping of the magical super dev you might be able to come up for air briefly and see what is really going on.

That being said, this is not even close to a doxxing of Dan (he has already told me specifically that he can't be doxxed because he already made himself known publicly).
This is a public service announcement to both investors and non investors alike. You harboring ill feelings towards me is asinine. Clean up your own house.

False? continuation of a smear campaign? Listen up Bumsbeen, a "smear campaign" has never existed regarding Dan, yourself or blocknet. Get over yourselves.

Either of the only two of your opinions that you are presenting as the only possibilities of fact and are unethical and lawsuit worthy? First off, you trying to make your opinion absolute facts in my world does not work on me Giftzwerg. You must be thinking of these turd worthy ezines/blogs and cult followers you deal with. The only people being sued should be you and Dan. Period. The practices that you chose to sell your wares and that you continue to use are inexcusable and in my opinion criminal on multiple levels. Multiple members of bct have brought up your PR as ghastly and even have members resigning.

As a matter of fact all of the blocknet tokens belonged to Dan until some were sold for btc and other alts. I never was specific to blocknet tokens. I mention all of the currencies together. You're not trying to isolate one segment of the statement out to try and discredit the whole thing are you? And technically now, all of the excess block he owns. There is nothing legally binding that says otherwise. What matters though is that he didn't want to hold blocknet tokens he wanted btc and boy did he get some. The problem is those are considered property and technically should be seized.

Backwards, eh? So if I would have bought blocknet tokens without doing any research and afterwards I did research then and only then would it be "believable" to you.
Do you really believe your own drivel? And again, scary way to force people to buy your wares. If I don't purchase, then I am not allowed an opinion. Makes sense.


"Look at the big brain on Brett" On a serious note, if you went to any type of higher learning institute I am certain you did not pay for it so whoever did please find them and apologize for wasting their time and money. It just didn't work out for you. Go pop off some fireworks.
What you consider suspicions for the most part were direct and easy to follow questions that not only I was asking. Many of these questions still have not been answered and those that were were usually vague and shifty, the rest were deleted from your thread. So instead of answering those questions which most all could have been prevented by actions taken previous to even launching the ito, you instead come to this thread to continue confabulating or deceiving. If for instance any hypotheses regarding this new information and how the IRS will possibly handle it I am sure we could just call the number at the top of the document and ask them. That should clear it right up. Good thinking.

Troll? I have yet to get off topic. Do you understand what the word troll means? Or are you just trying to be mean with bullying tactics?

Do you have any evidence that the many concerns that were raised were nought but a 'smear campaign' and, more importantly, were from a competitor?

Because simply dismissing the valid concerns of people who were being critical of this ITO and those behind it, isn't helpful and paints you as somebody who will simply declare everything that doesn't agree with you to be FUD.

Well Blocknet made its goal, so it is going to happen, sorry but the competitors smear campaign failed, but feel free to go on

I've asked this in the blocknet thread but got deleted. Everything is fud and smear campain now. This whole blocknet community is like Justin Biebers believer's.

We've been frank and apologetic about this. We dropped the ball and did not report expenditures as they happened. Again, we apologise.

This does not constitute anything resembling a "scam." It's an oversight. And the premine was not dumped. Dan did not treat it as his private stash of wealth. It was used, as promised, for development.

This is testament to our ethical intentions. It does the exact opposite of you assert.


"Excuse"? "Caught"?

You don't get "caught" by a fact that is already known on both sides.

What you do get is frustrated beyond the ability to continue conversation with an individual as intolerably belligerent as Longandshort. And then you just get out, in desperation.

Dan's statement affirms that he was unable emotionally to deal with the persistence and brutality of the onslaught against him and simply shut it down.

After shutting it down, he then issued his statement to reconfirm the truth.

Call it "lying"? That's like an attacker calling his victim's cries of anguish "cowardly." Brute.


A "lie"? Be careful not to overextend your claims beyond the grounds they're based on. We don't know if Loljosh launched the chain, and neither does it matter to anything.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that Loljosh launched the chain. Or maybe Loljosh showed Dan how to launch it. Or maybe Loljosh just delivered the QT code and Dan asked someone else how to launch it. Is this a problem? No. It does not impinge on Dan's ability as a developer or diminish his reputation. Dan's track record, pace of development, and reliability/professionalism is beyond doubt, based on XC alone, never mind his contracts outside of crypto.

It pretty much makes no difference what Loljosh did or didn't do. XC is real, and its privacy tech is so far ahead of anything else out there that it's completely irrelevant whether, when, or how he learnt about launching a chain.


I'd seriously love to hear a defense for continuing with this smear campaign. It's been soundly repudiated.

Pretty much sums up the problem.

Even if Blocknet is legit, Dan and his crypto career so far is based on deception and no one knows the full truth. He avoids straight answers with his wording, so he can avoid further legal consequences, regarding HAL, XC and relationship with Prom.

This pretty much made me avoid investing in Blocknet even tho it is more than most coins did for crypto.

From the looks of it, user Stealthcoin had this name registered 6 months before the coin StealthCoin was released.
Were they trolling him?

Stealthcoin isn't a stealthcoin xst dev!
He is a troll using this name!

While I'm sure there are people here who own one or more of the coins you listed, I do not. Not that there's anyway for me to prove that as far as I know. I'm open to suggestions though.

The big difference here is that while some people have made some pretty wild claims(Spoetnik), most people here are simply attempting to find the truth about XC.

One problem is that a lot of the information in this saga is spread out over many threads, each with a lot of noise and a lot of posts to sift through. So given your attitude I'm going to assume you aren't familiar with everything that's been revealed.

I made a post yesterday in this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846801.0;all with a few simple points that have yet to be addressed by someone from XC:

1) Dan drained the XC premine when there was a promise of transparency. And Synechist lied saying that it was drained by mid-September when in fact there was money being taken out of it up until late October according to the blockchain.

2) Dan has been consistently deceptive. If you honestly think that he doesn't frequently bend the truth and dodge legit questions then you're being willfully ignorant.

3) Dan deceived at best and lied at worst when directly asked if he had involvement in HAL by claiming he had no role in the development despite Promethus saying that Dan helped develop their anon. Even if Dan didn't physically write any code, he was involved in the development. It was confirmed by Prometheus that he was involved with more than just a code review.

His wording has consistently been deceptive. It is unethical period. Please explain how that is not unethical.

Dan doing a code review under the pretense of being an unbiased third party to lure unsuspecting investors in to a Prometheus pump and dump is the epitome of unethical behavior. How is could it not be?

4)Lie:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9396234


Dan's excuse when caught was that he was 'frustrated'...

5) He was confirmed to have loljosh launch the clone coin by both n00bnoxious and Synechist in my deleted post from the blocknet thread. Him saying he "assisted with some QT work" is a lie. Launching the chain is much more than "assisted with some QT work".

I'd seriously love to hear a defense of these actions.

And yes, lots of people knew about the shadiness surrounding XC for a very long time. Dan Metcalf already had one of the worst reputations in the alt scene. But XC supporters would never know that outside their circlejerk of a thread.

And to call it smear tactics is insane. It's mind boggling to see these shell shocked people continue to follow this group. It's wild to see these actions carried out while a group approves of them and applauds. It's like the Twilight Zone.

This is either an attempted doxxing, or, if the documents are fabricated or apply to a different individual, a continuation of the smear campaign against Dan and the Blocknet.

Lee do you realise how unethical either of these alternatives are? You deserve to be sued.

As for your claims about its implications for the Blocknet, they are, as is your custom, inflated and speculative (which is to say, their correct denotation is either "FUD" or "conspiracy theorism").


Are you joking? In what world do Blocknet tokens belong to Dan? They don't. Moving on...


That's backwards. You'd only have no reason to lie if you wereinvested in the Blocknet or a participating coin. Someone with a stake in the Blocknet who came out with this information would be intrinsically believable. You're in the opposite position here, thus you are not believable.

Furthermore your post history is a string of paranoid hypothetical suspicions with manifestly insufficient basis given the facts, so you're clearly biased against the Blocknet and Dan.

This makes you a prime candidate for not presenting the facts truthfully.

Get lost, troll.

FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information.

The information provided is neither dubious nor false.
I'm just the messenger.

If you are speaking regarding the dev and his fudding of facts all the while trolling to get more and more btc that could all disappear overnight along with the block and alts taken in, then an astounding yes that is the worst fudding I have ever heard of.

To my knowledge, both Bittrex and Poloniex are.
They consider jurisdiction to be anywhere a US citizen stands or where he keeps his money especially in regard to possible tax evasion.
Just ask Swiss banks that gave up all of the private ownership info of US citizens and companies who had bank accts with them.

This is a new low for FUDDING.