Quote from: cypherdoc on July 04, 2015, 03:23:47 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on July 04, 2015, 03:00:04 PM

Quote from: wallcandy on July 04, 2015, 02:57:28 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on July 02, 2015, 11:10:32 PM

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

You owe a core developer 10BTC? Impressive!

what i find interesting is that for someone who claims to always be community minded, he's willing to take down his negative rating of me if i pay him back, and him only. if i actually did something wrong in his mind, he shouldn't be willing to take it down ever. there's a name for that.

oh, and i do have a screenshot of it.

Paymium sat on more BTC than this of mine for quite a while. They published a plan to return funds and lived up to it in my case. Although I'm pretty sure the 'accident' was for the purpose of privatizing the unclaimed value contained in the Instawallet system, they didn't permanently injure me personally. I called them out for their likely malfeasance as a service to the public, but did not give them a neg rating.

If cypherdoc collected, say, 10% of the money that people sent to Hashfast in compensation for his role as a feeder in the scam, it seems rational that the funds would be gladly refunded if he were unaware of the scammy nature of Hashfast, and forcible refunded if he was. If he voluntarily disgorged the ill-gotten gains, one would not wish to give him a negative rating. Indeed, just the opposite would be appropriate so withdrawing a temporary negative rating would be appropriate.

I don't watch very many mainstream movies, but in Silicon Valley we were hearded down to the theater to take a break regularly and I caught 'the Minority Report' that way. I remember the ex-con eye doctor who made a living covertly replacing people's eyes. Somehow the Hashfast goings-on reminded me of this work of fiction.