Quote from: JayJuanGee on December 14, 2019, 05:33:32 AM

But seems to me that Twitchy has presented evidence and logic to undermine those presumptions of innocence that could allow members to conclude that OGNasty might be guilty of the alleged conduct.

You are largely asserting to stop the investigation because it is a witch hunt. There could be some burden of production and persuasion upon you in that regard, also, but whatever, the evidence is still being presented here and members can decide for themselves whether the evidence is persuasive.

Undermining presumptions of innocence is not proving guilt. Do you see how you are consistently inverting the burden of proof from the accuser back to me? I have no burden of anything. I don't care if anyone believes me. I do however care if people believe accusations of scamming based on speculation. What I am doing is not stopping anyone from presenting evidence. What I am doing is however making rhetorical and sophist persuasion ineffective.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 14, 2019, 06:09:19 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 14, 2019, 05:21:30 AM

Kind of seems like you are admitting that your conclusions rely on speculation. I would love to hear you explain how the fact that your accusation relies on speculation is not addressing the central issue of burden of proof, which by definition relying on speculation you have not met.

Speculation happens when no compelling facts are considered, which is not the case here.

You've been given the resources to educate yourself on the evidence of what happened but are unwilling, unable, or you did educate yourself but can't refute anything I have claimed, so you just call everything 'speculation'.

This is what it actually looks like when someone makes false assumptions just to attack someone:

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 11, 2019, 10:00:02 PM

I haven't bothered to actually look in to any of this but I am willing to form an opinion and share it publicly anyway.
~snip~
All of your claims rely heavily on speculation, assumptions, and perfect hindsight.

If you're capable, just put a little effort into looking into the facts. Maybe you'll find something I missed and then the next time you insult me it will feel even better than normal.

If you're not capable, then please stop making statements as you did consider the evidence.

Wrong. Facts can be presented in addition to speculation. They are not exclusive. My point is your facts alone do not follow to prove the conclusion that theft occurred or people were victimized. This is completely an assumption on your part. You can argue about how likely it is or is not all day, the fact is this you can not prove.

The fact that I do not support your conclusions doesn't mean I haven't reviewed the information you have presented, and your patronizing tone is noted. I am refuting everything you have claimed because you can not prove your accusation as I have already explained.

1. You do not know the owner of the output address of the "missing" funds.
2. There are no victims seeking redress or making accusations of theft.
3. EVEN IF you are right the amounts are so small as to not really make any sense for a very trusted member to trash his reputation over. Such an account could easily sell for well over the amount allegedly stolen, therefore it makes no sense for some one to do this for monetary gains when they simply could have just sold the account and associated signatures for a much higher return.

Are any of these three points incorrect? Please explain in detail if you think so.

Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 14, 2019, 06:57:36 AM

Quote from: eddie13 on December 14, 2019, 06:36:29 AM

Quote from: TwitchySeal on December 14, 2019, 06:29:21 AM

only worth $1,800 at the time

So you want me to find him a scammer, because you cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end, but he just returned 500BTC @ $7,500 = $3,750,000 +BCH forks and +++ and he is a scammer?

Come on man. These loaded questions are part of the reason this thread is going to shit.

If you care, just look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion - then try to prove yourself wrong before you try to prove anyone else wrong. If all you've gathered from this thread is that I "cannot trace the blockchain evidence of $1,800 at the time worth of BTC past a dead end" then I don't know what to tell you.

If you don't care that he stole it because of the value, or that he didn't steal a lot more from theymos, then don't bother.

(btw, I was wrong, it was only worth $1700 - bad math)

This isn't a "loaded question", he is addressing the heart of the issue. You don't know what the fuck that transaction was or who it was to. That is a crucial piece of information you are SPECULATING about. You can prove a transaction occurred, but not what it was for, who it went to, or why.

Notice again the attempt at inversion of the burden of proof back on the people criticizing your lack of evidence. The facts you have are ambiguous at best. No one needs to prove themselves wrong, you need to prove yourself right, and you haven't done that. Theymos can speak for himself if he feels he was harmed. This is just another example of this being about attacking the character of OGNasty by shifting focus to another accusation rather than addressing this accusation at hand. The volume of unsubstantiated accusations does not magically make them more valid.