WTB 20,000 Darkcoin for 1 BTC, PM me!
Topic: SCAM Darkcoin instamine 2 millions DRKs (50% of darkcoin in circulation) - page 4. (Read 82632 times)
April 22, 2015, 04:44:46 PM
Why someone would buy coin if he instamined 2M coins?
April 22, 2015, 04:38:51 PM
The launch of the coin was public! And was open to everybody that wanted to join.!!!
Nobody cares. You are missing the point that 500K coins mined within an hour and 35% of the current supply (growing very slowly because emissions were cut and redirected) within a day -- all while a plethora of misleading and deceptive statements are made by the developer -- does not pass the smell test. Terminator gene implanted.
I'm going to bed, smooth. Good luck baby sitting.
April 22, 2015, 04:36:44 PM
Where he say that it was not instamined???
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.
Very sad to witness...
This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.
fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."
Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.
The launch of the coin was public! And was open to everybody that wanted to join.!!!
UNLESS THEY WENT BACK TO BED BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS THE NEXT DAY OR THEY WERE USING WINDOWS
April 22, 2015, 04:36:14 PM
The launch of the coin was public! And was open to everybody that wanted to join.!!!
Nobody cares. You are missing the point that 500K coins mined within an hour and 35% of the current supply (growing very slowly because emissions were cut and redirected) within a day -- all while a plethora of misleading and deceptive statements are made by the developer -- does not pass the smell test. Terminator gene implanted.
April 22, 2015, 04:33:58 PM
Where he say that it was not instamined???
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.
Very sad to witness...
This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.
fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."
Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.
The launch of the coin was public! And was open to everybody that wanted to join.!!!
April 22, 2015, 04:33:44 PM
April 22, 2015, 04:32:34 PM
Great, so the instaminers (35% of the current supply) and a few other whales can vote everything in their favor forever, whitewashing the centralization with a veneer of "decentralization." Its the dash way.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
No one can prove if those coins were sold to new owners or sold to the same owner(s)--and trying to convince anyone outside of the Dash commune to trust Evan's word is an exercise in futility.
April 22, 2015, 04:29:43 PM
Great, so the instaminers (35% of the current supply) and a few other whales can vote everything in their favor forever, whitewashing the centralization with a veneer of "decentralization." Its the dash way.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
April 22, 2015, 04:27:31 PM
Blocka, were 500k coins mined in an hour? Yes.
Did Evan mine some of those coins? Yes
Was Dash instamined? If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine, then yes dash was instamined.
I never claimed Evan mined them all, only that the coin he developed was instamined. So he can admit it and have the coin delisted, or you can defend him and bitch about having to do it.
Did Evan mine some of those coins? Yes
Was Dash instamined? If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine, then yes dash was instamined.
I never claimed Evan mined them all, only that the coin he developed was instamined. So he can admit it and have the coin delisted, or you can defend him and bitch about having to do it.
April 22, 2015, 04:19:19 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.
Very sad to witness...
This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.
fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."
Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.
Basically, you're sounding like an idiot because you keep accusing Evan of instamining, but you have no proof of how many coins he mined or where they went. Not worth me continuing.
If you can produce physical evidence of how many coins Evan mined and then show that he decieved users from that, you have a case.
But you can't prove a negative, without evidence, you, Smooth, Fluffy are the fraudsters, using libel and slander to pump your sh*tcoin. Sorry but enough...
April 22, 2015, 04:16:47 PM
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
wikipedia: "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
The various misleading and deceptive statements made by Evan (and in some cases continue to be disseminated by the dash community in the FAQ) are outlined and documented with specific quotes here.
Monero supporters criticize dash because: a) it is an instamine scam (which dooms its already-minimal prospects for lasting success), b) its technology is weak and poorly designed, and c) the project and technology are inherently centralized (as explained by your whistleblower former core developer vertoe)
The strength and innovation of Monero's cryptonote techonology is well documented.
Sure Smoothie. But for investment advice, I would rather write to Bernie Madoff in jail and ask for his opionions. Sorry, you are widely known as a pure troll posing as a dev...
April 22, 2015, 04:14:06 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.
Very sad to witness...
This is why I provided the definition of fraud which you obviously didn't read and proved my intuition about you correct.
fraud (n.) Look up fraud at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "criminal deception" (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin); from Old French fraude "deception, fraud" (13c.), from Latin fraudem (nominative fraus) "a cheating, deceit," of persons "a cheater, deceiver." Not in Watkins; perhaps ultimately from PIE *dhreugh- "to deceive" (cognates: Sanskrit dhruti- "deception; error"). Meaning "a fraudulent production, something intended to deceive" is from 1650s. The meaning "impostor, deceiver, pretender; humbug" is attested from 1850. Pious fraud (1560s) is properly "deception practiced for the sake of what is deemed a good purpose;" colloquially used as "person who talks piously but is not pious at heart."
Instamining a coin but never admitting it in literature or in media is a deceptive (fraudulent) act and cryptocoinmarketcap should delist dashcoin. Thank you for making my case.
April 22, 2015, 04:13:56 PM
Great, so the instaminers (35% of the current supply) and a few other whales can vote everything in their favor forever, whitewashing the centralization with a veneer of "decentralization." Its the dash way.
April 22, 2015, 04:12:09 PM
Wow look at that rise of Dash, 12% increase over the last 24 hours
and it just keeps that rank 4 on http://coinmarketcap.com/ too, the market seems to really like Dash.
Its like nothing can get this coin down anymore, not the long dead posts that desperate trolls keep bumping up from ages ago
and certainly not any trolls posting pathetic looking posts like ''Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission?''
or ''we should contact the authorities!!''.
Oh well, i guess its business as usual for Dash + one sweet looking development teaser concept :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/
edit : oh uhm.. carry on guys with this thread, i'm sure it matters to someone ... somewhere .. in a galaxy far far away
and it just keeps that rank 4 on http://coinmarketcap.com/ too, the market seems to really like Dash.
Its like nothing can get this coin down anymore, not the long dead posts that desperate trolls keep bumping up from ages ago
and certainly not any trolls posting pathetic looking posts like ''Does EVAN DUFFIELD regret instamining DRK/DASH at 100x emission?''
or ''we should contact the authorities!!''.
Oh well, i guess its business as usual for Dash + one sweet looking development teaser concept :
https://dashtalk.org/threads/self-sustainable-decentralized-governance-by-blockchain.4708/
edit : oh uhm.. carry on guys with this thread, i'm sure it matters to someone ... somewhere .. in a galaxy far far away
April 22, 2015, 04:09:47 PM
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
wikipedia: "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain."
The various misleading and deceptive statements made by Evan (and in some cases continue to be disseminated by the dash community in the FAQ) are outlined and documented with specific quotes here.
Monero supporters criticize dash because: a) it is an instamine scam (which dooms its already-minimal prospects for lasting success), b) its technology is weak and poorly designed, and c) the project and technology are inherently centralized (as explained by your whistleblower former core developer vertoe)
The strength and innovation of Monero's cryptonote techonology is well documented.
April 22, 2015, 04:04:02 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
Instamine isn't fraud you dolt. That's why Coin Market Cap doesn't list instamines lol. Fraud is when you defraud someone.
Monero community is clinging to this word 'instamine' as it's the only criticism of Dash it can find. And it wants to hurt Dash because (aparently) Monero has zero unique features or innovation so it's the only way it can continue.
Very sad to witness...
April 22, 2015, 04:02:39 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course. It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission. Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them.. Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.
Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.
I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.
Wrong on so many levels, don't know where to begin (or be bothered too - sorry
)Blocka, the only time you shut up is when you're wrong and are too stupid or too cowardly to admit it. So which is it.
April 22, 2015, 03:59:56 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Copy of the wiki :
"Was Darkcoin Instamined?
~2mn coins were issued in the first 48 hours due to problems with the difficulty readjustment. That represents approximately 10-15% of the total money supply that will ever be issued.
The majority of these coins were distributed through the market in the following weeks and months at very low price levels* (0.0000x BTC per DRK to 0.000x BTC per DRK) and a lot of them were also absorbed in the April/May 2014 price increase.
- Examples of prices and selling action almost two weeks after launch:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4861558
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4889177
- Forum member coins101 did a blockchain analysis of Darkcoins distribution as of September 2014:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/analysis-of-darkcoins-distribution-as-at-sept-2014-778616"
Now have Evan put in writing that Dash coin was instamined, so I can make it my signature--then I'll be satisfied. Because what you have there is qualifying it without saying it and then claiming that it was redistributed fairly--not the same thing in most anyone's book. And where was that found? Was it on the main page of the Dashcoin page or tucked into the Q and A section where only someone looking for it or who stumbled on it while looking for another answer would see it?
April 22, 2015, 03:58:41 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course. It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission. Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them.. Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.
Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.
I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.
Wrong on so many levels, don't know where to begin (or be bothered too - sorry
) April 22, 2015, 03:50:53 PM
I'll just write something and hope the syllogism disappears.
Yeah, that's the confusion
Re-read until your cognitive dissonance clears up.
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fraud&allowed_in_frame=0
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
Then again Evan may be really stupid and not know what words mean, either way I don't want him running a project I'm involved with or getting others to risk their money without knowing all the details.
apparently you are confused on logic as well, because with your definition 'the fraud' is a logical syllergy of course. It's the definition (the axioms in your syllergistic logic) that are confused, because instamine just mean fast emission. Saying that is a fraud is an additional step, you have to know who instamined them.. Which seeing as it was launched on a public forum, you can't.
Maybe learn about cognitive dissonance too; presenting a tautology to prove an argument where you have confused the definitions means that your argument demonstrate cognitive dissonance, it doesn't mean that generically someone you disagree with is wrong?
If 500k coins in an hour is an instamine
and Evan claims in the literature that it wasn't an instamine
then Evan is fraudulent if 500k coins were mined in the first hour.
I don't need to prove what the word fraudulent means anymore than I need to prove what the word If means. The definition was provided for you as I don't think you know what it means. The syllogism stands because Evan continues to misrepresent the fact that there was an instamine. You can haggle over what constitutes an instamine, but not that Evan was aware of the amount of coins mined or that he has never admitted to it as an instamine. So either reinvent what an instamine is in most people's opinion or STFU and stop wasting my time.
I did give him the out of being stupid by the way. Because he may be like you and not think 500k in an hour constitutes an instamine.
Jump to: