Quote from: gunner833 on March 09, 2018, 10:04:36 AM

Quote from: trainasauruswrecks on March 09, 2018, 09:24:01 AM

You are sadly mistaken if you think I'm attempting to "save" a coin or am emotionally invested in a dataset. This is not an issue of "care." This is an issue that deserves visability so I'm in full promotion of bumping this to the top. My inquieries are not something to "beat." I see that you think that this is some sort of gladiatorial battle that you are "winning" which is why you attempted to turn my words against me in some desperate attempt to discredit me when I am just posing questions and concerns to gunner. Questions are not really something to discredit. You either answer them or don't. I'm not making any claims. As I stated before I found your post particularly biased and non-objective highlighting incomplete "research" to skew information. jbg has said that "lines of code" are not a good benchmark to determine the amount of time dedicated to producing a product.

I can't fault Gunner for badgering or harassing. That's his prerogative an if he can't suffer a potential scammer lightly and thinks this will be an effective method of drawing them out... then that's cool by me. I'd personally prefer that he kept his argument succinct and within the bounds of provable fact. Having said that I do think that he's being or trying to be genuine.

BUT statements like "Brycel is made up by jbg" Yes, I CAN fault gunner for those. He is making an assertion by saying that. This is a belief. Not a fact. Until he can prove this belief it's a fact... This is unreasonable FUD.
It's not a matter of whether or not I believe him. This is a matter of proof and evidence is necessary. Is it a possibility that Brycel is a fabricated entitiy? Sure. But saying that he is without proof is not only speculative, but negligent.
Also continuing to equate lines of code with actual invested time SEEMS to be ignoring the other responsibilities that jbg has that he stated have been time consuming for him.
@ gunner You aren't seeing enough commits for your liking so you think this is a scam. That's a fair statement. And this is clearly of interest to you as you apparently made a new account to address this situation. I'd encourage you to continue with your assessment but refrain from overstepping into statements like the above that you haven't or can't back up.
I wouldn't still be questioning your intentions if you hadn't made your assertions personal and made backless statements presented as truth.

I would probably do what you say for someone who is not a proven liar. jbg has been proved to lie about his experience, my question is now how many other things has he lied on?

So I checked all the claims he made which are in my opinion doubtful.

The claims are:
- he worked as software developer
- not only that, but he's also an experienced software developer
- he's working full time on XSPEC
- he's working with another +20 years experience developer
- the other developer has been working for 6 months
- he does not owns much coins
- he's working on 1.4
- he's releasing 1.4 with all the features he said he's going to include
- he's releasing 1.4 at the time he said
- he's uploading the code publicly on github
- the work he has done is enough to justify 9 months of development
- he's not rewarded by XSPEC

I probably forgot some, anyway some of these are difficult to prove if jbg does not help, and he decided not to help for long, now he comes to answers what he wants and then disappears again. You can read my previous posts to find clues of why I think most of these are false, and some of them are already proven to be false.

That's why an investment in XSPEC is all based on jbg trust, and you are perfectly aware of this. And that's also why I am challenging what he says.

If I only have to base my opinion on facts, which do not comprehend jbg claims, this is a 100% scam because:
- he is a proven liar
- no one is working on the codebase. Out of 9 months, there are only 2 months of activity of 1 developer.

This is a much simpler discussion, but since there are still many people listening to him, it's far more interesting to check what a proven liar is claiming and then people around him believing without a single question.

He did admit that he lied, yes. And I don't know the difference between someone has coded for 15 years and someone who has coded for 20. 20 certainly sounds better but in terms of what a 20 year would be capable of in comparison I'm not sure.
I think all of those statements that you posted would be lovely to know. Even with help from jbg though I don't know that it will prove anything. once a liar in the eyes of people, always a liar right? The only way any of this could possibly come to a head is that he show work on 1.4 and then 2.0 after that. The other stuff would require him to expose himself or would be questionable as he can say it... but not really prove it.
I agree. This does require an enormous amount of trust. And I think it's fine to challenge what he says. Do that. By all means challenge what he says but understand that there really isn't an answer that he can give that can be trusted, by you, or that wouldn't compromise him.
He's slow as shit.
It's frustrating that he is operating as every available position within spectrecoin because he's the only "recognized" individual associated with it. From what I can tell... he just wants to code.
I think it's wise to challenge what he says... but not by generalizing his character on a solitary action. Not with baseless FUD. Like I said before... I Troll. I'm not ONLY a Troll. He's lied... but that doesn't necessarily make him ONLY a liar. At least he fesses up. Habitual liars usually stack lies upon lies and he came clean off the bat.
Also, would making smaller commits over a period of time be better? I'm not sure how that works. Is it just to show work or so code can be reviewed as its completed?