Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    It's funny how you've gone from insulting yourself to insulting me because you're not getting your way. If I gave you the status of Liar because you asked me to, it would be arbitrary when it is a very meaningful designation only given to people who prove in public that it is accurate.

    You've made big accusations that fall apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny so I guess it makes sense you're only willing to back up your accusations in a format where nobody can challenge you.

    If that's how your comfortable, I guess we'll pick up the conversation here after you've released your episode and somebody else has listened to it to figure out what you said. Great strategy to maximize your drama.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    yawn, just answer the questions or don't.

    @cryptonaut stop feeding the trolls.

    Here are the questions again, you're welcome to not answer them as it demonstrates once again that all you want is personal drama and are only trolling here to get people on the internet to like you and thank you.

    @adam

    @paulsnow @Adam, @brighton36, @junseth

    Here are 6 simple questions:

    1) You cite Factom's talking about developing solutions for Land Titles for countries, and assert we were discussing the Honduras project, even though we do not mention Honduras. What exactly is the ethical problem with discussing use cases that a startup is working to address?

    2) Provide one statement about land titles and/or the Honduras project made by Factom that was a lie. An actual quote please.

    3) You claim we withheld information about Epigraph's role in the Honduras project in order to mislead investors. Were they not given credit in the very first announcement?

    4) We used Koinify to run the token sale, and third parties to assess the development milestones that we must reach to unlock the funds raised by the token sale. Why do you neglect details about the Factom token sale that were designed to avoid the risk of people buying tokens for a protocol that was not delivered?

    5) Factom has delivered the protocol, which is now running. There are 10,000+ anchors in the Bitcoin blockchain. Isn't an operational protocol some indication of performance for those supporting Factom?

    6) The funds raised by Factom have been fairly modest. But we do have a team of developers, and we do our work in Github. Do you have any reason to believe that the funds raised by Factom are not being used to develop the project as it has been defined by our White Paper, the Consensus Paper, and the Factom Data Structure Details document?

    @brighton36 - Please respond to all of Pauls points.

    You can choose not to respond and demonstrate that you've got nothing but big talk and an inferiority complex.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    @brighton36 @paul - That's your six questions? Weird - but ok.

    @adam - Give me my Liar tag please, and I'll be happy to respond to Paul's six questions.

    If you're going to respond you'll respond, i'm not playing games.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    @paulsnow @Adam, @brighton36, @junseth

    Here are 6 simple questions:

    1) You cite Factom's talking about developing solutions for Land Titles for countries, and assert we were discussing the Honduras project, even though we do not mention Honduras. What exactly is the ethical problem with discussing use cases that a startup is working to address?

    2) Provide one statement about land titles and/or the Honduras project made by Factom that was a lie. An actual quote please.

    3) You claim we withheld information about Epigraph's role in the Honduras project in order to mislead investors. Were they not given credit in the very first announcement?

    4) We used Koinify to run the token sale, and third parties to assess the development milestones that we must reach to unlock the funds raised by the token sale. Why do you neglect details about the Factom token sale that were designed to avoid the risk of people buying tokens for a protocol that was not delivered?

    5) Factom has delivered the protocol, which is now running. There are 10,000+ anchors in the Bitcoin blockchain. Isn't an operational protocol some indication of performance for those supporting Factom?

    6) The funds raised by Factom have been fairly modest. But we do have a team of developers, and we do our work in Github. Do you have any reason to believe that the funds raised by Factom are not being used to develop the project as it has been defined by our White Paper, the Consensus Paper, and the Factom Data Structure Details document?

    @brighton36 - Please respond to all of Pauls points.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    Glad we agree @junseth, (although I don't really know anything about Factom, not being invested in it or informed about it) if Chris proves he's a liar as you did he'll get the tag as well. It's not really something to be proud of but you seem like a guy who prefers his own path so what do I know.

  • Re: Missing the Junseth and Chris DeRose Chit Chat recap on the XCP Community Update show?

    lol, because you've come to our community platform and started throwing accusations lol. I only got involved in this conversation because you said something inflammatory and inaccurate and still refuse to correct it.

    So as far as I'm concerned, we're done here. You've been proven a liar and are now properly identified.

    Have a nice day.

    @adam Holy smokes Joshua, it looks like you're out of accusations and are just down to calling me names.

    To be clear, you're not going to be contacting any podcasters, contributors or other people who could support your "opinions" in order to meet my challenge?

    @adam At this point I think we can say that the bolded part is provably a lie. Do you disagree and have any evidence or hearsay to support it?

    @junseth We probably won't. We got kicked off the LTB network because Adam didn't like that we didn't like him censoring us. So his response was to throw a fit and censor us. Our thoughts: Whoooo cares? Haha.

    If you want to see our content on the LTB Network, I suggest you Email Adam. Let him know. But I don't think there is any world where that stubborn, bad-thinking butter will change his mind about anything.

    @pooktwo

    1. Me and chris fought for a couple days on slack, but on October 23rd which is a friday, i said this to chris on slack: "I think we should really talk about this over the phone, and actually I think it would be a good idea to bring me on your show this week. Or you come on my show would be better lol, you guys would eat me up :D"

    2. Chris did not respond to me at all, and he ALWAYS responds to me. So i assumed he either wanted to let it die, or he wanted you guys to be able to talk about what had happened without me first.

    3. So the ladder above ended up being correct. I dont mind as much you guys hating on me on the BU that upcoming sunday, what was really disappointing is that Chris indeed allowed you to make accusations that LTB manipulated the whole thing even though @brighton36 damn well knew that wasnt the case.

    4. I made the descision right then and there that it is best for our two shows to go there seperate ways. I still mean what i said when i think you guys are valuable. You are skeptics and that is important, you are smart, chris is a board member, and you bring comedy to the space. If people want to be public figures in this space, they have to be ok with getting criticized by people like you and chris and i do think its important. Its hard to verify if everything you guys talk about is truth, because you guys talk in a way that actually is opinion only, which is really clever that you guys do it that way because it gives you something to fall back on. But you flat out lied about LTB manipulating me. You hate scammers and you actually scammed me.

    Does that mean you're withdrawing the accusations (like this one) and admitting you were wrong or are you not even going to pretend to try and just slink away acting like i'm the bully? If you're not acknowledging that you were wrong (as Robert has laid out in detail above at your request) or going to provide proof to support your claims then we can skip the rest of the wait and add you to the Liar group now.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    And by the way, insulting yourself to defuse what i'm saying doesn't work.

  • Re: Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

    Chris, the group is specifically for people who lie to get attention. Paul is going to put together a list of issues and questions that he has answered at your request, and that you have refused to acknowledge, refute or in most cases even respond to.

    If you are unable to provide responses that explain why his answers to your questions and corrects to you are not correct, and you're still unwilling to acknowledge that despite this lack of proof you're continuing to make loud, public claims then you will be added to the Liar group because you'll have demonstrated publicly that you're a liar. So far this thread goes a long way, but it'll only be truly obvious once you respond (or don't) to the answers from Paul Snow that your thread has garnered and which you have largely ignored.

    You can dress it up all you want, NO DONT THROW ME IN THE BRIAR PATCH! but there's no getting out from this mess you've made. If you get the liar tag, it'll be because you've proven publicly that you are simply lying to get attention and make yourself out to be a hero when really you're just a bully looking for easy targets and apparently desperate to make people like you on the internet.

    Paul said he'd get you the questions in a few days so lets reconvene then.

  • Re: Missing the Junseth and Chris DeRose Chit Chat recap on the XCP Community Update show?

    @junseth Adam, now that I have the liar tag, I am a bit out of sorts that Chris hasn't been bestowed with the honorable mention. I'm very certain that he will feel quite left out if you are not so kind as to knight him with such a wonderful moniker. After all people should know that we are both lying sons of bitches.

    The liar tag is only applied after the person is given the opportunity to prove themselves correct or retract their statements and chooses to do neither. Chris has his opportunity when Paul has put together the issues he'd like responses on that Chris has so far avoided.

    He, like you, likes to make really big and damning statements that fall apart as soon as they're examined. He'll have the same opportunity you did to prove or acknowledge that he can't support his statements and with luck he'll either demonstrate that Factom is an actual scam as he's stated many times or he'll acknowledge that he's got nothing but a botched press release to support a very serious accusation.

    You can see his thread here - https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/lets-talk-about-factoms-repeated-lies-and-mistakes-per-cryptonaughts-request?page=8#post-139808

    And then hopefully we can get on with our lives.

  • Re: Missing the Junseth and Chris DeRose Chit Chat recap on the XCP Community Update show?

    @junseth I was editing this post when Adam decided to append my new label :) And it wouldn't let me add some more content.

    @pooktwo, I wanted to point out specifically, that while you are correct, I revealed your plans to moderate the new channel before you decided it was time to reveal that, consider very strongly what would have happened had people invested some time in your new walled garden and then had the revelation suddenly sprung on them. You can go ahead and look at the transcript, and I think you will see for yourself, it was not me who killed that room. It was everyone who was furious that you lulled them into a new room and changed the rules. So maybe we scammed you... maybe. But I think it is a small sin in relation to the giant confidence scheme you were about to perpetrate. That, I believe is enough dirty laundry airing, however.

    This is the point of his timeine you're chosing to argue with? lol.

    Here's the full thing to anyone just tuning in.

    @pooktwo So I really thought this was just going to be laid to rest, but apparently i was wrong. This all started with me trying to moderate the chit chat and obviously that one little mistake will not just go away. Mostly because i wont share private conversations i have with individuals is why you @junseth come to these conclusions, but i guess you are just gonna get it out of me. Here is exactly what happened and then i need to really be done with this and so do you and chris so that way all of us can expand counterparty in our own way how we see fit:

    1. I tried to change the chit chat to get a sharable link. I stated that this was the only intent

    2. After everyone started arguing and contacting me (and by everyone i mean EVERYONE, not just people in the chit chat or at LTB, but from all corners of counterparty. I talk to a lot of people in this space because i have always made myself available). Even ask @brighton36 he was mad at me once because i was talking to an important project that wanted to do counterparty integration and i didnt share that with him (not because i was hiding it, but because i literally talk to many many projects and thought it was a simple meet and greet).

    3. After hearing from the community about the new chit chat I called on the telephone @brighton36 to tell him what has been going on after i recreated the chit chat. I asked HIM, not adam, not LTB, not @junseth, not anyone but my fellow board member on the fact that I THINK we should moderate the new chat room instead to help the entire community

    4. Chris told me that what happened would indeed happen if i tried to moderate it, but he told me that he would support my decision if i wanted to try and that he would not give any resistance to me.

    5. I told Chris that i would like to do it and we both decided that the best way to go about it would be to talk to the board and then talk to @junseth about it before doing it. Then at this point I thought everything would be fine. I did however ask @brighton36 to wait on telling you @junseth before so that way we as the board can do this in the most appropriate manner.

    6. Lets stop for one second. So far at this point, I have tried my best to listen to the community that is not on the board, then discuss how we should do this moderation thing with another voted in board member. I dont have much experience with this kind of stuff and i know that chris does, so i discussed this with him (yes i did talk to other folks, but my future decisions would only be based on that of which me and chris discussed and no one else because me and chris are board members. As a community director i need to take into consideration all concerns that ANYONE has, not just those in the chit chat).

    7. So then i finished my shift and got back to the hotel and saw that chris posted in the original chit chat something along the lines of "I have a feeling that this chat isnt going away", then i seen someone change the new chat room to something along the lines of "The new moderated chit chat". This gave me the clue that @brighton36 did indeed tell you @junseth what i wanted to do.

    8. I panicked hard because i thought that shit was going to get out of control right then and there and someone was gonna start making accusations that i was sectretly trying to manipulate the chit chat. From those two clues i knew that chris told you what i wanted to do josh (even though i was still going to wait to see what the board wanted to do before announcing that i wanted to moderate the new room).

    9. Lets stop another second. Had i not seen that, we could have waited for the board to tell us what to do next instead of me making a impulsive decision. I think the board did an excellent job after this to just make the slack available instead of everyone at the skype. Had chris not told you (and yes chris confirmed later to me that he did indeed tell you even though he told me he wouldnt) then we would have just started the slack like the board said to, the skype would have the sharable link, and we wouldnt still be arguing almost a month later, and everyone would be happy. Remeber, im just a nice guy who is enthusiastic about counterparty and i feel am really helpful in just talking and teaching people, i know for a fact i dont have experience with this stuff which is why i wanted to wait for the board, but with chris telling you first it made me panic.

    10. So then i quickly tried to get ahead of it and just moderate it then and there and that was a really really bad mistake on my part. That ended up hurting both sides really bad and everyone was mad at me, and i deserved it because i executed poorly. But during all the accusations i was really dissapointed that chris did not share with anyone that i indeed called him and discussed with him, and he indeed told you before we could discuss it as a board. But up until this very post, i dont post private conversations between me and others without consent because they are PRIVATE, but you guys arent giving up so i guess im breaking on that front.

    11. Me and chris fought for a couple days on slack, but on October 23rd which is a friday, i said this to chris on slack: "I think we should really talk about this over the phone, and actually I think it would be a good idea to bring me on your show this week. Or you come on my show would be better lol, you guys would eat me up :D"

    12. Chris did not respond to me at all, and he ALWAYS responds to me. So i assumed he either wanted to let it die, or he wanted you guys to be able to talk about what had happened without me first.

    13. So the ladder above ended up being correct. I dont mind as much you guys hating on me on the BU that upcoming sunday, what was really disappointing is that Chris indeed allowed you to make accusations that LTB manipulated the whole thing even though @brighton36 damn well knew that wasnt the case.

    14. I made the descision right then and there that it is best for our two shows to go there seperate ways. I still mean what i said when i think you guys are valuable. You are skeptics and that is important, you are smart, chris is a board member, and you bring comedy to the space. If people want to be public figures in this space, they have to be ok with getting criticized by people like you and chris and i do think its important. Its hard to verify if everything you guys talk about is truth, because you guys talk in a way that actually is opinion only, which is really clever that you guys do it that way because it gives you something to fall back on. But you flat out lied about LTB manipulating me. You hate scammers and you actually scammed me.

    15. After the board meeting, the board made the slack and said that the skype is no longer official. I said i would focus being apart of the slack, that i wasnt going to take part in the chit chat anymore, chris will still be in the chit chat, and we would all just move past this. Then me and chris had a private meeting after the meeting and told him i lost respect for him after he didnt stick up for me, and i said it was really unfair that we didnt do a show together that week to discuss everything. I told him that you guys did that episode without inviting me because you wanted the first word, and you both knew it would piss me off enough to not want to host your show anymore that it also would indeed get you guys the last word. That was wrong and deceitful. I asked well in advance to come on your show or you to come on mine and you guys didnt even respond with a yes or no, just no response at all.

    16. But me and chris agreed that whats done is done, and talking any further about it would make it worse. WE BOTH agreed that just moving past it and having two seperate shows is for the best and to not make any bigger deal about it would be best for the project. To be fair, chris said it will appear that im kicking you off the show for the LTB accusations and i said thats fine, it will blow over after a week unless @junseth makes a big deal about it, and he said he cant control you which is true. I asked him to encourage the both of you to just drop it. I said if you want to do it in the chit chat that makes sense, but dont cause any more problems outside of that so this can just go away

    17. And up until this thread, you guys have been fine about it. Keep doing your BU, but come on, after you finaly get me to fully respond can we let this go? You know damn well LTB and @adam had nothing to do with me kicking you off the show. It was because a) your show isnt about counterparty anymore. Thats not me saying its not valuable, but my show needs to stay about counterparty b) you did indeed lie about what happened, and a lie of omission is still a lie. but for the good of the project i just wanted to take the high road, and let some people hate me, because i got news for you, most people do not care or even know about this damn chit chat fued.

    Please let it go and lets all move on

    Come on now Joshua. Do you think that Robert is an Idiot, a Liar or both? You asked for his side of the story and then immediately said that you don't believe him without responding to anything except this one little detail you've found it important to argue with him on.

    If you want to respond, do so in substance not to a little detail that literally nobody but you cares about.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .