Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 05:11:33 PM

I see things differently. Assuming no posts were deleted from that thread, it appeared to me that dkbit98 refuted QS's comments based solely on his reputation. QS's reputation aside, I've always thought of him as somewhat technically astute, and his questions in that thread were valid.

Quicksy asked a question about dk's involvement, got an answer (not involved, which you can believe or not but you can't claim that there was an attack in response to that question) and then proceeded to talk about ponzis etc. Those were not questions at all, insinuations at best. Should dkbit98 have taken the high road here? Yes, probably. But the fact that he didn't doesn't make him a shill or otherwise responsible for bugs/backdoors/exploits that may or may not exist in that wallet.

And Quicksy keeps saying that dkbit98 is a shill with no proof of that, and made some other claims that are provably wrong, so at this point I would very much doubt any of his "technically astute" claims in that thread. That's what shit-stirrers like him do, put a few smart-sounding wikipedia words into a soup of bullshit and pretend that it smells like roses.

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on Today at 05:11:33 PM

I will say that I believe dkbit98 has had a short fuse lately, he attacked me a couple of weeks ago.

There you go, it's completely on-brand then

So is Quicksy's incessant trollfuckery.