4. With a neutral viewpoint, we can't say whether these two exchanges are under your control. But, then again, you two are anonymous devs, who knows what control you have in the first place. Was TradeSatoshi even an exchange that the consensus voted on? Or did the lead devs simply abruptly shove a btc into tradesatoshi to get it listed without any sort of community feedback? Surely the decentralized exchanges you're working on being added are cheaper than TradeSatoshi, if not free. I'm not certain why you would single out tradesatoshi as the exchange of choice. Surely alternative, better known exchanges could've been chosen with that same listing fee.
It is utterly ridiculous that you would expect the devs - or anyone - to waste time proving a negative. Your argument:
1) You're anon
2) You
might have controlled listing on TS/manipulated price/caused the Global Financial Crisis/rigged the US election/killed JFK
3) Therefore the onus is on you to prove you didn't.
Seriously?
It's pretty staggering Bebop gave you the courtesy of answering you at all.
I've been researching new alts to get into. The unprofessionalism that goes on in this thread turned me off.
I'm not sure whether or not the collective negative responses coming from others who merely question some aspects of the coin, its events, and its anonymous creators are true or false.
However the coin's supporters reply calling these critics "flat earthers" and "JFK conspiracy theorists". It just makes the coin look more scammy.
I don't agree with anonymous developers for centralized crypto.
But from what I can tell, turtlecoin is doing the anon thing the correct way. They're trying to make a statement that it's not the devs who matter, but the coin's following. The devs ultimately don't have more power than the coin's active members.
But I'd like to offer a caveat to that as well. It seems as though only the two anonymous devs have the power to kick people from the turtlecoin discord. They took away all administration right from all mods and administrative.
If they can do that for the main community, they could just as easily do so for other aspects of the coin, including development.
Just a caveat. It's only decentralized on its face, it can go centralized with a few clicks
I think you missed my point. It's extremely difficult to prove a negative and frankly, why should they try? It was an odd thing to accuse devs of anyway, since most of the crypto world seems to spend 90% of their time clamouring for new exchanges.
TL;DR someone is always going to be upset about something. Just another day in crypto.