Quote from: suchmoon on December 05, 2015, 12:54:46 AM

Quote from: bensam12345 on December 05, 2015, 12:46:34 AM

OK Paul, I will keep this simple.
Suchmoon stated that the entity has 50% of the coins and could fork the coin. (That is wrong, the wallet he showed had about 45-46%) therefore could not fork the coin.

you responded "whocares about the forking?"

Your response is diverting the attention away from the fact that Suchmoon PURPOSEFULLY lied about the percentage to show it could be forked - or rounded it up to have more shock value.

Therefore you are involved in misleading, misrepresenting and lying by diverting the attention away from a now PROVEN liar

Bullshit. Learn to read. Exact quote:

Quote from: suchmoon on December 04, 2015, 04:30:49 AM

Ok, let me rephrase: a single entity. Doesn't really make any difference. Actually if it's a "group" that makes it probably more dangerous, less predictable, etc. But that's not the point.

Someone acquiring this amount of coins reeks of inside knowledge. Therefore negating the "no-premine" argument being repeated by BitStoneDev.

Even if it's not an inside job it's still a huge risk to bagholders. Even 10% of that amount would pretty much destroy Bittrex order books.

Even if it's not an inside job and doesn't get dumped in large quantities it's still a risk to the network - that "entity" could likely fork the coin at will.

That's just a few red flags from one address. How many flags would you say is the minimum to consider that something might not be entirely above board?

COULD LIKELY FORK - for example if they had another 5% in another address perhaps?

But good job ignoring the rest of that post.

Another stellar theory