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

    @brighton36 I think I see what's wrong here. You don't know the definition of the word scam. Here: a dishonest scheme; a fraud.. I made that case very, very clearly.

    As for backed into a corner - what? I came here to say Factom is a scam. I made my case, and while I'm certain you don't buy it - I'm also certain that this will be revisited when this project heads South. There's no corner here, and there's no high stakes involved for me.

    You made a bunch of accusations and linked to things that don't appear to actually support your claim. If you're using the definition of "scam" to include any project that you don't personally think will work, I think that's not what people percieve when you say scam.

    Please, link to some actual evidence of something actually being done that is wrong - or are we just playing semantics because of the honduras press release?

    And I say you're backed into a corner because you've made big claims here that you can't support. Literally every person in this thread, including the only guy who seems to be a fan of your segments could clearly see you're got nothing and are screaming bloody murder, demanding confessions and public shaming.

    You should read this thread again without the triumphant music on in your head.

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

    @brighton36 @Adam - you're nuts. Nearly all claims were citated with public links. If you can't see the hyperlinks next to my claims, then your brain cavity is filled with expired milk.

    You're a class act Chris but i'm sorry, insulting me doesn't make me go away and it doesn't make you right.

    Hyperlinks to non-issues are not evidence. It's not just the fact that you have links that proves your case, it's the things that the links are supposed to prove they did that is wrong. What have they done that was wrong enough to suggest they are a scam? Your links, from what I can tell, don't suggest anything more untoward than a botched press release.

    I've asked you multiple times to explain what is more serious than that and outside of handwavy accusations about the project viability as a whole you've got nothing to say but attack me and others who question your accusations. I'd actually even enjoy understanding why you think the model isn't going to work if you know enough about it to explain yourself.

    It looks to me like you've painted yourself into a corner and the only thing you can do now is attack the people questioning you in hopes that we go away and you get to win by default. You might get lucky and Factom might fail because (gasp) it's an experimental metaprotocol project, and then you can at least pretend like had this insight way back here, but it's a dumb bet to make because they could succeed too.

    Succeed or fail, neither would mean that the project is a scam. Projects can fail without being scams.

    So again, I don't expect you to back down since obviously this is high stakes for you and I'm sure you'll have something else complimentary to say about my ability to reason in response to this. Just know that i'm not going away no matter how much you insult me and the only way you can make me stop is to run away from the conversation or to provide some actual evidence that backs up your claim that the project is a scam.

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

    lol, i'm not claiming to represent anybody other than my own disinterested self.

    You'd have made an actual argument about Factom by now if you had one to make. @brighton36 I'm around if you get some evidence to back up your claims, until then please try to restrict your badmouthing of people and projects to the ones you can actually back up. We don't need extra drama, there's enough real work to do without you waving your arms at passersby looking for a cookie.

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

    And just to repeat myself one more time, you keep accusing me of being irrationally supportive of the project because I don't buy your unsupported accusations. Will you acknowledge that unless i'm flat out lying to you, I've stated that I have zero relationship with Paul, conflict or relationship with Factom?

    Do you think i'm asking you for proof just to be mean to you Chris? I'm really unclear how you can continue to act like my questions don't matter because I'm as you say

    @brighton36 I know you're a belieber, and you know I'm a skeptic

    It looks to me like you're just a guy who thought Paul was an easy target to make yourself look like a hero beating down and turns out nobody thought it was funny but you and now you're stuck defending a pretty undefendable position. Like I said before, it makes you look desperate.

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

    It's pretty obvious you have a lot to lose here by being wrong, much more than I have to gain by being right. You've staked your reputation on this so you can't admit you're wrong.

    You'd need to have some actual evidence or analysis to go point by point.

    Cryptonaut asked for it because you promised it and still haven't delivered. He, like I, is probably only even interested because you've stuck your foot so far in your mouth that it's funny to watch you keep on going. The more you explain yourself the more obvious it becomes to anyone reading that you're just crying wolf and hoping people on the internet will respect you.

    Cut your losses Chris and disappear or if you want to keep going please do follow up on your promise and go point by point so we can discuss whether they individually or as a group suggest that Factom is a scam as you've repeatedly claimed.

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

    Or you could do something really outlandish and acknowledge that maybe you guys went a little overboard, then apologize to Paul for jumping the gun.

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

    @brighton36 @Adam - if you need any more evidence that this project is turd, you're clearly a baghodlr.

    This is feeling a little desperate, I suspect you're about to get very busy all of a sudden and not be able to continue this conversation. To your point, I don't and have never owned a single factom. I've never worked with Paul, Pauls never paid me and I don't think I've even ever interviewed paul. There is no reason I would go out on a limb to defend him or his project. I am making my judgement as an outside observer based on the "evidence" you've presented

    You have no evidence besides a chat transcript that makes it clear you're way out on a limb and making much bolder claims than you can actually support.

    So... You want to try again? Or did your pager go off and your lawyer says you can't comment because of an ongoing RICO investigation?

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

    @mdw @PaulSnow The Counterparty Chit Chat was started originally by Joel Dietz who basically allowed anything and then disappeared with the only moderation authority. In that type of vacuum, the loudest and most argumentative voices become self reinforcing and everybody who actually has something useful to do with their time backs away slowly, ceasing to engage and eventually even to read.

    Luckily, there is a new chit-chat and probably more importantly a new slack channel, both of which I understand are moderated by reasonable people with simple codes of conduct that keep it about the technology and solutions rather than feeding the egos of a few at the expense of the many.

    Chris/Joshua - Did you guys have anything else that you think is damning of Factom? As I said months ago when the original scam accusations were made

    @adam

    @brighton36 @adam - RE: even if you're right and they should have issued a correction, this is not a capital offense. I don't disgree that this isn't a capital offense. But they do deserve a public shaming at the least. Isn't that what we did when Paycoin lied about their Amazon deal? Why is this different? BTW - this would in fact be a criminal offense were this a security regulated by the SEC. (Which, for all I know, it is.)

    BTW - I assume a number of Factom investors are reading this. Do you have any duty to them, or just Paul Snow?

    I have a duty not to make letstalkbitcoin.com a platform for witchhunts, we've gone down that path before (see jason king) and it does not help.

    Regarding paycoin, You're looking at a mishandled press release and saying that' all the evidence you need to throw a project under the bus even if that project is actively being developed and supposedly about to launch by a guy who I would say has been a net positive in the community.

    I've never done business with paul, I don't know much about factom and did not participate in the crowdfund and from all his contributions (texas bitcoin conference, bitcoins around the world and other efforts) it seems like he should get the benefit of the doubt until you actually provide some evidence that this was more than a fuckup

    Why is it important to "publicly shame" the project instead of waiting for launch and trying it out, if it doesn't work that'll be pretty darn obvious and then you can start second-guessing all the decisions made along the way or even the initial thought. Have you written or talked about this anywhere I can see?

    I'm all for holding people to account but I don't understand this rush to the gallows, Paul Snow is his real name, he's a real person, he lives in texas and is a known quantity.

    Can you please take the time to lay out your full case against Factom instead of expecting us to get behind a lynching because of a missing correction

    I'm still waiting to see anything more than a mishandled press release and a whole lot of drama. At this point I don't expect anything but more drama from chris and his sidekicks, it seems to be their niche. If some evidence of wrongdoing actually emerges please post it.

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