Quote from: gunner833 on March 08, 2018, 12:47:02 PM

Quote from: trainasauruswrecks on March 08, 2018, 12:06:20 PM

Quote from: gunner833 on March 08, 2018, 10:42:19 AM

I understand your comment and you are right, I have changed my tone. But for a reason.

If more than a month ago I was doubtful, after a month of looking of what's going on in XSPEC, my doubts are becoming more and more certainty. I have written why endless times. Also the change of tone was intended to make jbg reply.

Think about it from my perspective:
you lose a lot of time to share your research to the community for 0 return and you mostly get quick shill answers which you have to spend more time answering to. Then the guy doesn't even answer to you. After a month, the market says I am right, and then he of course answers. Not because he wants to, because the market says so.

Also I then ask him for very simple things to clear everything up, and after more than a month they are still not done!

How do you want me to approach a, what now I believe is, potential scammer? Do you want me to go gentle with him?

Like: hey, so sorry you missed your own set up deadline to release 1.4, and you still don't know when you are going to release it. You also haven't made 1.4 code public after a month, how many more months do you want? 2 or 3? Let's do 4!

Do you think this would work better?

I don't approve much preshprince tone, he's way harsher than me and has spent less time researching XSPEC in general than me, but hey, his choice.

You asked for screenshots, I gave them to you. I am not lying as you can see. You can think I am not genuine, but to be honest I don't care anymore. I only care about jbg responses and his ability of release 9 months worth of development work with 1.4. This hasn't happened yet, and it's the only thing everyone should care about. Plus maybe his donation address transactions, which is worrying too.

I see what you are saying, but again it is my perception that you are attempting to dictate the terms and conditions of what is "acceptable" as far as a response goes and though I may misremembering your earlier post it feels as if the goals posts are being moved with each response. On top of that I don't understand why you feel as if it's the responsibility of jbg to respond to you. You feel under appreciated for the work that you did to investigate this issue so you begin implementing snark to "get a response." I understand that you may not find the intrinsic motivation of having done something positive for the crypto community enough to sate you for the work that you did, but posts like the previous one question whether this was for the good of the crypto community or not. If you are not invested and have a genuine interest in fleshing out the concerns with jbg... then why the violent communication technique?

When I go back and look at your earlier post where you suggested times by which a project should be completed and see that the authority with which you presented your information may be flawed, incomplete, or both I find myself questioning what you used as a benchmark and whether or not any of the code based arguments were of any merit. Because the things you are claiming should take a very short time (If I'm understanding correctly) can be quite a hefty task.

Also that "Should I post jbg's real name and location" statement makes me think you wish to use that as some sort of leverage. As if you're hanging this over the community's head or something. I don't understand the intention there either.

I thank you for posting the pics instead of using them in a threatening fashion. If we are here to call people out then there's no reason for the "I got a gun in my pocket" talk... just shoot. It showed me that you weren't being ENTIRELY genuine about the information you were claiming to present. But I still think you're generally being genuine. Sometimes people stretch the validity of things to prove a point and you came clean, so I'm cool with that. But I am still not sure why you are choosing to hide the screen name of the individual that claimed jbg said he had 25 years of experience coding. That's a pretty damning claim. I'd like to see evidence of this and if someone is willing to say that shouldn't they weigh in here with some evidence. Turn something that is just hearsay into something a bit more tangible?

My ultimate point is that the only person that you need to blame for this should be jbg, because how he is handling and how he had handled this. Maybe a response from the start of my thread would have stopped everything at the start. Now he's just trying to stop the boat from sinking.

And again, sorry if I repeat myself, I asked one simple thing, make 1.4 public, he promised to do so more than a month ago and hasn't done it yet. And a new excuse came out recently. Again, if you are trying to debunk a scammer, would you go easy with him after a more than a month? Maybe to you this looks normal, sorry but I have a total different perception. More than a month to publish some code, action which takes 2 seconds, and after more than a month come up with a new excuse? I simply can't go easy with this, it would be an insult to my intelligence.

Again the only thing I am asking is simple facts, simple facts which jbg has been failing to provide in over a month. jbg has no responsibility to answer me. I am doing very simple and straight questions and he is free to avoid to answer them.

On the hidden information on the screenshot, I asked. One hasn't answered yet, one answered but does not want the information to be made public, so I will not. I can post you privately the screen of his response if you'd like to, with nickname hidden again. Sorry to have mentioned it, but we need to think like it never existed. I respect people privacy, as I am doing with jbg. I will never release his information, but you have asked me to release some other person nickname, which might be linked to his real name, so I have done an example to make you understand why I wouldn't do it, otherwise I would have revealed jbg details already.

Remember that debunking a potential scammer is not an easy task, as you can see, and it requires a lot of time. All of this for 0 reward. I am still asking myself why I am doing this, and I think I have an exaggerated sense of justice, which I should start think about how to settle down

Again, how jbg handles this and the blame you're placing on jbg presumes the fact that you somehow feel that you are entitled to have jbg answer you. I think that you think an awful lot of your "research" to think that this is somehow sinking a boat, but it's your research and you can place that amount of value on it if you like. I'm not so sure it's that valuable at this point, where initially I was convinced there was some merit.

You also asked jbg to make 1.4 public and he has not been present due to the loss of an individual that was "close" to him according to a recent announcement in discord. He only just came back to a few days ago and he's responded to your concern today.

I do not know of any promises that he made to you. I have not see them. Can you please show me screen shots of those as well? But if he did not promise this then this presumes that he "owes" this to you as a response as well. I'm not sure who you are, but as this conversation goes on I'm seeing more and more entitlement. You're "asking for simple facts" but jbg doesn't owe you anything. IF he was aware of your existence and DID promise this to you, which I will need to see then you are completely justified and do deserve a response to that.

Okay, I understand your source not wanting to use a name that may make them vulnerable and I respect you for not doing that. Unless that person can provide evidence then that's not really something that should be pursued as it's an unjust smear. Initially I commended your work in trying to expose a potential scammer. It's an honorable and reward-less task, but like I said it's moving past that at this point and is getting a bit facetious and personal. There's really no reason to NOT continue being objective and succinct without the unnecessary jabs. They aren't lending any credit to you.