Quote from: RHavar on May 12, 2019, 11:02:03 PM

Quote from: kxu1005 on May 12, 2019, 09:55:19 PM

And to such strong words (e.g. "nothing-but-red-flags", "nothing", "software-piracy", "not caring about their reputation"), at this point it's clear that one is exaggerating + making assumptions + speaking untruthful words to "tarnish our reputation" (although claimed otherwise in a separate post) by abusing one's authority here. Does our Seeding Event actually prove absolutely nothing?! Really?! Is that true to say at all?! Apologies if I was assuming the post doesn't necessarily have to be self-contained at this point in time for such a post, but the meat's there.

Yes, I could be more diplomatic. Yes, I could tone down the hyperbole. But each time you just ignore my (legitimate!) point, to emphasis how thin your skin is. I'm not sure it's a good look.

Your seeding event was done by literally copying bustabit's, but then removed important guarantees. So was this a mistake, incompetence or was this intentional? Are you planning on fixing it, or remedying it?

The whole point of the seeding event is to prove your have committed to a set of rolls, from a fair-distribution and proof you didn't grind it. If you commit to a hash-chain, but not an interpretation of it, we have no way of knowing if you grinded an interpretation or not. So at that point, there was basically no extra guarantees by even doing a seeding event.

Oh I don't believe I ignored you... have I? And yes really appreciate your admission

Well you can say "Your seeding event was done by literally copying bustabit's" for all other sites out there, as BaB's was the first no (if you want to push for a point)? But at the same time, did we "literally" copy, or have we benchmarked? Imprecise language no?

On the note of language, I'm actually not certain what you mean by "interpretation"? Look Dear Respectable @RHavar, definitely willing to remedy if necessary but unfair for us if you don't specify what you mean + make assumptions + strong/enticing language + troll -- while the reader would obviously side with you bc you're trusted here and I'm not (in fact flagged, trying to defend my points all the time) right? I assume you mean interpretation to check if we know what we're talking about, is that it?