No, we certainly DO NOT confirm it. We believe that you've tried (and apparently you think you succeeded) in extracting our kernels using reverse engineering techniques. That wasn't very nice of you to say the least but we have expected something like this, just not that fast. In some sense it is flattering but also a little annoying.

   The first version of our kernels was obtained from someone on this very forum for quite a bit of coins. They were a little bit slower than the best miner on the market at this time - yours - but we decided to use them to jump start our project anyway. After a lot of tinkering with Polaris GPUs we found out how to increase the speed a bit and improved the kernels a lot, achieving higher speed and/or lower consumption than your miner (in most cases). The original versions were left as a honeypot for particularly persistent reverses which apparently did its job quite well

   Now, are these old kernels the same as old versions of yours? We don't know for sure but we doubt it, and we can't just take your word for it (especially after throwing accusations like this after basically admitting that YOU are trying to reverse OUR miner), and because they were slower than your miner, and they do not support dual mining at all (and dual mining is still the killer feature). But even if they were, frankly this isn't our problem - we've paid handsomly for them, and we haven't used them in any of the publicly released versions, so we won't lose any sleep over this. If you beleive so, search for a digruntlet employee, or perhaps your unnamed source(s) at AMD?