Quote from: fluffypony on April 22, 2015, 05:28:31 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on April 22, 2015, 04:32:48 PM

Hi Fluffy

Sorry there seems to be some confusion.

You are making 2 claims here:

1. That Evan Duffield "mined 15% of the total currency with his buddies within a few hours of launch"

2. That Evan Duffield is "a scammer" (because that implies fraud)

It is public knowledge that the DRK launch was open to anyone with Linux and on a BCT thread. This means anyone checking the ANN list (as a lot of people were at the time including me) could have mined them.

You are suggesting that you have evidence that Even and some associates mined 15% of the currency.

Incidentally, the 15% figure is what I took from here: http://en.wiki.dashninja.pl/wiki/FAQ#Was_Darkcoin_Instamined.3F - in actuality it's just over 9%.

Quote from: BlockaFett on April 22, 2015, 04:32:48 PM

In court you have to prove this, supposition doesn't matter, especially as it was an open launch on the most popular forum.

On the contrary, lawyers mostly argue precisely over supposition. For instance: "we know Mary hated Sue, but did she hate Sue enough to kill her? We think so, because Mary wrote in her diary that she 'could ring Sue's neck' the day before Sue died from strangulation" from which the judge, or jury if you're in the USA, can convict Mary despite there being little to no "evidence" by your strict (and incorrect from a legal perspective) definition of "proof".

Think about this: what evidence in the legal system *isn't* circumstantial evidence? If Mary's DNA was found at the scene is that not circumstantial evidence? Of course it is, she could've been there that day to resolve her issues with sue. Since all evidence is circumstantial, what really is "proof" from a legal point of view?

Well, in the criminal justice system prima facie evidence (even if it is what you call "supposition") is often considered on the basis of a ruling being beyond reasonable doubt. For civil cases (fraud being special in most countries, as it can be tried under criminal and/or civil law) it's a bit different, as the evidence is considered on a balance of probabilities.

Thus in this open discussion the burden of proof need not be even as exact as a balance of probabilities, but for the purpose of your argument I have provided prima facie evidence that demonstrates, on a balance of probabilities, the following:

1. Evan chose not to relaunch Darkcoin a second time after (by his own admission) he messed it up. He had reason to relaunch, and he had already established that it was not difficult to do. Thus the evidence speaks to him willingly choosing not to.

2. Evan lied about not knowing how many coins had been mined by the time he fixed the emission problem at block 4500.

3. Evan stalled the release of a Windows client to purposely cripple those who would have mined the currency at launch.

Now that I've presented my circumstantial evidence for a second time, why don't you present some counter-evidence of your own?

If you were in court and you made this claim, the defense attorney would simply ask "anyone could have mined DRK from that forum, but you are claiming that 15% of it was mined by Mr Duffield. How did you come to this % number, and how do you know this wasn't mined by other people instead?"

I.e. in legal terms you would be trying to prove a negative; there is no way that you can prove that Evan mined 15% of the coins or any % for that matter without evidence showing who mined what.

Which is why I assumed as a lead dev of a top 20 coin, you would have some actual evidence for the % that Evan mined that no one else has seen, before you put your neck out like that in making such a serious accusation. But as everyone can see, you don't...

EDIT: you have still not addressed anything to justify your additional claim of fraud on the part of Evan. Care to do that here?