I see Wanderlust (Blockafeat) has shown his true colors at last.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7QKhfCRlRU
This video is pretty funny, but then you realize the comments are made by sockpuppets registered around the same day, basically the tactic of Bytecoin trolls is to accuse Monero of their own dirty tactics. Some did not even bothered to change nick when registering as administrators of bytecointalk.org, hilarious.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 873. (Read 4670673 times)
Yes buhbye lovie sorry you don't have the capacity to make your point.
If only you had one ... Yes maybe then
If only you had one ... Yes maybe then
OK … one more shot.
1) you're the guy who says Satoshi is a scammer
2) YOU MISSED MY POINT? Really? My point is you guys got nothin' on BCN. No real evidence. Nothing.
whatever u say about them your whole reason for existing is cause you feel BCN is a scam. A scam that you borrowed code from. And you ritually bash your anonymous patrons. Kinda sick.
If your theory is proven to be correct I apologize in advance.
In the meantime you're just throwing shit around IMO.
And this BCN thing is totally 50/50.
Sorry but you're off topic. Mind taking it to an appropriate thread?
Yes buhbye lovie sorry you don't have the capacity to make your point.
If only you had one ... Yes maybe then
If only you had one ... Yes maybe then
You Monerians with your righteous indignation. How many times has smooth caused FUD and panic in other threads here? Serves you boys right. What goes around comes around. You should probably stop feeding me now, I smell blood.
I keep pulling at this thread and the whole tapestry comes unwoven, savvy?
You wont hear from me again as long as you guys stop playing crypto-guardians. You cant even best me. And this BCN thing is totally 50/50.
And yes, having your devs ID's known is risky moving forward. Anon currency requires Anon devs. WAKE UP FFS and get with the program… it's Big Brother shit out there!!!
p.s. IF u quote me at least have the respect the quote me fully… Laterz
* Wanderlust wanders off
ROFL. Bye now.
You Monerians with your righteous indignation. How many times has smooth caused FUD and panic in other threads here? Serves you boys right. What goes around comes around. You should probably stop feeding me now, I smell blood.
I keep pulling at this thread and the whole tapestry comes unwoven, savvy?
You wont hear from me again as long as you guys stop playing crypto-guardians. You cant even best me. And this BCN thing is totally 50/50.
And yes, having your devs ID's known is risky moving forward. Anon currency requires Anon devs. WAKE UP FFS and get with the program… it's Big Brother shit out there!!!
p.s. IF u quote me at least have the respect the quote me fully… Laterz
* Wanderlust wanders off
You're damn right, tbh I had a similar thought toward you - you just don't do that shit irl. Unless you're a scammer or dead.
Ohvwell, just another reason for people to call the whole thing bullshit.
Yes I would consider someone who made off woth10% of billions of dollars and stopped communication midway through a project only a few years later a scammer.
Quote of the day. Are you for real?
STAHP feeding this guy.
Yes I would consider someone who made off woth10% of billions of dollars and stopped communication midway through a project only a few years later a scammer.
No, I am not calling Satoshi a shitdev..
However, I am pointing out to you that at least two of the Monero Core Devs are public about their identities.
AND
I am refuting your assertion that "everybody" is "so protective of their anonymity."
AND
I am saying that shitty-ass devs and scammers and shills are almost always "protective of their anonymity."
It's one of the "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of statements.
Not everyone who maintains their anonymity is a shill or a scammer or a crap-ass dev.
But, nearly every scammer, shill, and stooge-dev tries to maintain their anonymity.
Did I break it down Barney-style enough for you?
EDIT: I am a proponent of Monero, the best secure, private, and untraceable cryptocurrency in existence, to my knowledge
and I have been for more than a year.
With that stated (Thank you, Captain Obvious), I would think someone could understand that I believe in the right to privacy of individuals;
and that each individual should be the one to decide when they want to be public and when they want to remain private.
However, I am pointing out to you that at least two of the Monero Core Devs are public about their identities.
AND
I am refuting your assertion that "everybody" is "so protective of their anonymity."
AND
I am saying that shitty-ass devs and scammers and shills are almost always "protective of their anonymity."
It's one of the "if the shoe fits, wear it" type of statements.
Not everyone who maintains their anonymity is a shill or a scammer or a crap-ass dev.
But, nearly every scammer, shill, and stooge-dev tries to maintain their anonymity.
Did I break it down Barney-style enough for you?
EDIT: I am a proponent of Monero, the best secure, private, and untraceable cryptocurrency in existence, to my knowledge
and I have been for more than a year.
With that stated (Thank you, Captain Obvious), I would think someone could understand that I believe in the right to privacy of individuals;
and that each individual should be the one to decide when they want to be public and when they want to remain private.
The origin story suggests the circles were close. I doubt they were known to each other personally since every
^^FTFY
FYI, here in MoneroLand, several of the devs are quite public about their identities.
public about their identities? good luck with that.
I'm confused about your "fix". Are you calling the still anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto a shitdev? Maybe he's a scammer too since he doesnt meet the "transparency requirements" of Monero peeps?
Or did you simply forget that anonymity is not the calling card of scammers alone?
The origin story suggests the circles were close. I doubt they were known to each other personally since every
^^FTFY
FYI, here in MoneroLand, several of the devs are quite public about their identities.
Indeed the CN Team do not dispute any of the BCN Team's version of events. No whistle-blowers crying scam. Not that it necessarily means much. In fact the early history suggests BCN devs helped CN devs implement the code. This has not been disputed by the CN Team either, at least as far as I'm aware
Oh, wait! Crap! You think the CN team and BCN Team actually might KNOW EACH OTHER?!??!??
You really are on another level.
The origin story suggests the circles were close. I doubt they were known to eachother personally since everybody in this space is so protective of their anonymity.
More importantly, since the CryptoNote team backed the story of the Java version being the first to be implemented [ https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=582 ] it is therefor not unreasonable to assume that they might cry afoul if BCN made fake claims. Just saying.
On the topic of bounties, I am looking for someone to create tutorial videos for Monero.
I'd prefer someone who is somewhat of an established community member.
Tutorials will cover getting started in windows & linux, mining, and secure storage.
Please PM me for more information. We can negotiate pricing for each tutorial. These will be of great use to a lot of newcomers.
I'd prefer someone who is somewhat of an established community member.
Tutorials will cover getting started in windows & linux, mining, and secure storage.
Please PM me for more information. We can negotiate pricing for each tutorial. These will be of great use to a lot of newcomers.
If I recall correctly, GingerAle already did some tutorials for getting started. So I would advise to PM him!
GingerAle Tutorials Channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6AgEvNeIFw3fiEzRQ_Yswg
ugh, I need to make a new one. My idiot self didn't check that the compile instructions had changed. " make release-static-64 " is the build command you should use, if anyone's following that rambling video series
In linux you can hit tab to see what commands/options are available. You could tell users to do that and explain generally what which one does:
For instance, these are the targets now available:
all cmake-release debug-test release-static release-static-arm6 release-test
clean debug release release-static-32 release-static-win32 tags
cmake-debug debug-all release-all release-static-64 release-static-win64
If you give people general clues like diference between release/debug, static/test , 32/64/win64, etc. The viewer would then be educated to discern what each target means, and even eventual new ones.... or not:
GingerAle has been my first go to and I think he is great for the task, but I think he has been busy lately so I wanted to let others know that if they are interested in helping to make these videos that I am willing to pay a bounty for them.
These videos will be not only helpful for myself, but for getting new people involved in XMR, especially before the GUI comes out, which could take a while.
Since we're on about quasi religious arguments about you can't be totally 100% certain of A therefore not A is as likely as A...
What makes you think there isn't another, earlier, one still waiting to be discovered on the even deeper web ?
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT BCN WAS THE FIRST CN COIN[/size].
What makes you think there isn't another, earlier, one still waiting to be discovered on the even deeper web ?
The Cryptonote devs didn't mention one or dispute BCN's claim to be the first. Indeed the CN Team do not dispute any of the BCN Team's version of events. No whistle-blowers crying scam. Not that it necessarily means much. In fact the early history suggests BCN devs helped CN devs implement the code. This has not been disputed by the CN Team either, at least as far as I'm aware.
@cAPSLOCK - there is not much "evidence", if any. In actual fact it is the almost complete lack of any "evidence" or certainly "conclusive evidence" that presents the problem. you need more than wonky dates on a whitepaper (what did CN guys say about these date issues btw?). thanks for the complement tho.
The problem with your entire argument rests on the fact that BCN presented itself in a false manner. The dates mean a lot and shows the entire BCN "operation" may have been an intended pump and *dead*dump(Since around 80%+ of the coins were mined relatively secretly). Either way you look at it, it is a fact that most of the coins in BCN were mined in secret, and that says enough. Lack of response by the CN/BCN guys actually helps to validate the theory that BCN may have been a pump and dump attempt gone wrong, either way it's too screwed up.
Indeed the CN Team do not dispute any of the BCN Team's version of events. No whistle-blowers crying scam. Not that it necessarily means much. In fact the early history suggests BCN devs helped CN devs implement the code. This has not been disputed by the CN Team either, at least as far as I'm aware
Oh, wait! Crap! You think the CN team and BCN Team actually might KNOW EACH OTHER?!??!??
You really are on another level.
PS Dark coin shills will bow down to you if they ever read your shit.
so true, they probably cream their pants with the amount of premine BCN pulled off and still plays "cool", like an axis of evil the scams back each other in public.
Wanderlust, why you insist in bringing BCN to this thread? Few people here actually care about it, Monero forked the code a long long time ago, there is nothing you can do about it.
Since we're on about quasi religious arguments about you can't be totally 100% certain of A therefore not A is as likely as A...
What makes you think there isn't another, earlier, one still waiting to be discovered on the even deeper web ?
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT BCN WAS THE FIRST CN COIN[/size].
What makes you think there isn't another, earlier, one still waiting to be discovered on the even deeper web ?
The Cryptonote devs didn't mention one or dispute BCN's claim to be the first. Indeed the CN Team do not dispute any of the BCN Team's version of events. No whistle-blowers crying scam. Not that it necessarily means much. In fact the early history suggests BCN devs helped CN devs implement the code. This has not been disputed by the CN Team either, at least as far as I'm aware.
@cAPSLOCK - there is not much "evidence", if any. In actual fact it is the almost complete lack of any "evidence" or certainly "conclusive evidence" that presents the problem. you need more than wonky dates on a whitepaper (what did CN guys say about these date issues btw?). thanks for the complement tho.
Jump to: