I knew deep down you were capable of providing references, I've seen it before, I'm proud of you. It goes to show what you can achieve when you put your mind to it   Now you've got 24 hours to put references to your wild accusations [archived] before I give you negative trust for unfounded accusations as a slanderous troll (with a reference).

That's a generous 72 hours in total to retract your accusations or provide references for your sources. In future, I'd recommend you don't make accusations before having the references, to avoid obvious slander (even if it is a big "hunch" you've got about a project).

This stuff is really simple for most people you know: Make an accusation, provide evidence. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Here's a reminder of the basic requirement for scam accusations, in case you forgot:


You've made some serious accusations, now you have to provide evidence, or be labeled a slanderous troll.

Given it seems you still need some help identifying accurate sources, I'll entertain your deflection tactics, but only in order to try and help you with referencing.
Did you read the referencing beginners guide I linked you before? I think you should, I can see the basic issues you are having at the moment.
In order to not just patronise your incompetence, I thought I'd try and be helpful so I've included "Top Tips" regarding referencing & accusations.

---

Example 1


*Slander removed

The reference clearly shows my contributions from March-May 2018 (specifically for successful Tails integration on Linux if you're interested, but I guess not), so not from the beginning, around 8 months since it's beginning in July 2017. My account wasn't registered here til September 2017, so that also seems somewhat unlikely. The reason I missed out on contributing to this project from the start is cos of ridiculous threads such as this one that made wild speculation about exit scams that as I've already proved, never happened

Top Tip: When using references, always check that the reference in detail to what evidence it is providing. Don't exaggerate the claim in the reference. If you're not sure what the reference specifies, then avoid using it, it can otherwise be used against you to disprove your claim, and therefore make you look less credible. In this case, the reference has been used against you to disprove your claim. Oops.

---

Example 2


Hang on, why didn't you just quote what I said instead of link what I said, that's a bit odd isn't it? Oh wait, you were trying to exaggerate your claims again, makes sense now.
Let's read what I actually said:


Looks like I questioned Lauda to what the screenshot meant and claimed it was in alpha testing, ironically with a reference to back up such claims. See what I did there again, with the referencing?? And when did I say deepsend was coming? I said it was in alpha testing, not coming. I'd only say it's coming when it's in beta testing and I can see it working with my own eyes, not before. I deal in facts, not theories.

Top Tip: Don't assume that if someone is disproving a claim, they are promoting something, or claiming the public release of something. While hiding a quote behind a link can be sneaky at first, it'll only bite you in the ass when someone brings back the linked quote you are referencing to prove you wrong again. Same tip really, avoid exaggerating the truth.

---

Example 3



So Github are part of the conspiracy too as this project is dead and the development activity is a lie? You are hilarious!
Don't worry, I'm keeping a tally of the conspiring parties that so far includes; blockstats, blockexperts and now github. Anyone others you want to add to your claim?
For example, I believe that Bitcoin SV is still an active project, as do many others for that matter, so you think this is also promotion

Top Tip: Seek medical attention for the possible psychosis you appear to be suffering from. I now believe you are delusional, not much else.

---

So you think a tag from some who (you are implying) engages in crystal-clear abuse of the flag system is enough? Wow, great standards you've got there!
For the record I'd appreciate you tagging me, given Lauda's lack of trust as well as relevance these days. Do you know where Lauda went anyway? I miss them and their one liners  

---

Maybe you should consider spending more time here due to lack of evidence then? Just a suggestion