Quote from: BlokBro on August 22, 2022, 04:51:51 AM

simply because I had commissioned the work of the web page to a third person paying for it. pity that the page published it immediately and I noticed some errors after a few months, just like the members of the team and other things that I went to correct. I think it is useless to continue explaining the situation, because you will continue to impute that it is a shady project and to continue to talk badly about it0. Everyone is free to think what they want.

I think I have to agree that at this point it became a bit... useless to continue explaining the situation, but not because we will continue to point out how shady this project is --because, well, it is--, it's because you kept turning around, spinning words after words that I think you tripped yourself all around your own statements.

Let's put this straight --and hopefully bury it all--, correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, the narrative provided by you goes like this:

You built the BlokBro project back in 27 January 2022 according to the oldest record archived by wayackmachine. To build this project, according to this statement and further clarified with this one and this one, which I shall translate with google so everybody can comprehend the situation without much confusion, said as below:

Quote

I'm here to apologize for my excessive and persistent behavior yesterday... I only focused on the way you accused me and not on many details, sorry. Yesterday's accusation is correct... today I looked at my unintentional mistake, and it was that when I was working on the first drafts of the Blokbro project, I supplanted some Leyaut ideas of other crypto projects by copying parts to get an idea. As we proceeded to release the code, some of the draft HTML was overlaid on top of the final code, resulting in this disaster...in fact, the whitepaper is not fully cloned, it is only 1 page and the roadmap is only partially written . I have already arranged for a repair. Thank you and sorry again

Quote

As I said, the plagiarism that occurred on a whitepaper page and roadmap is due to my error in creating the HTML page. If I wanted to plagiarize I would have copied everything and built Blokbro with the same functionality as... instead, useful or not, the Blokbro project is unique. Loknes does not perform identity checks on certified addresses... in fact, their white paper and summary do not work in Blokbro. Even if I wanted to fool someone, I wouldn't put my contacts in the website header. Go to the http://HTTPS://blokbro.com/idaddress section and type “Francesco Reboldi” in the search box. You will see my FULL confirmation details (only first and last name can be shown). Do your research and you will see that I am real. I have nothing to hide and I'm not here to fool anyone. Blokbro is also copyrighted, I sent you the credentials for it, if I wanted to fool someone I wouldn't have registered the copyright... I fully focused on the whole identity verification, fragmentation and encryption of the verification data for the maximum security guarantee and I no longer replaced the HTML drafts with the original files. This error is due to the fact that I am working alone on the programming phase. Tell me the evidence I need to show you to clear up all these fallacies. Many Thanks

Quote

[...]
I'll add: I'm investigating their copyright... If the above documents are missing, I doubt they filed copyright... I'll keep you updated

Which, even further clarified that you work on them by yourself by the screenshot provided by you, contacting Lockness demanding them to provide a copyright deposit for their HTML and whitepaper and whatever documents they published that's used against you in the plagiarism accusation because according to your in-site lawyer when you consulted to them about this situation, they suggest to file a defamatory case against the accusation

Quote from: BlokBro on August 07, 2022, 05:23:50 PM

[...]
So if I support my thinking about "plagiarism" and you support yours, who is right? it's not a question of compensation or anything, but what's the right point ?!. Having a lawyer in the company I asked him and quickly explained all this and his answer and as mentioned above and I rely on what he told me. you define plagiarism when the work is associated with someone else and not the author (the author is defined as the one who has copyright) I believe that informing the public in the correct way, and not because you are a legendary or master user, appreciated by the Bitcointalk audience. So how do we solve all of this? what I asked was to simply remove this page.

Which is quite strange for a well certified lawyer working for a company to suggest as such, to file a defamatory case against a copyright violation because according to him, it is not violation because the original author never registered their work, quite strange that they didn't know how an author's right works, or what a prima facie of defamation requires to lock a case. Only after a huge effort to explain the situation to you that any author and any work of art --that includes web coding and publishing a paper-- automatically protected by law, worldwide, the "I rely on what he told me" became this,

Quote from: BlokBro on August 09, 2022, 06:46:12 PM

[...]Given that my lawyer did not tell me to continue but to clarify how I am, it is I who want to understand the right ... and rightly so if I find myself with a person who tells me one thing and you what about another I believe that it is interesting to understand what the right point of view is.

[...]

Suddenly, all of those "as mentioned above and I rely on what he told me" --namely, the point of arguments made at least up to the statement was written: to file for defamation and get the authorities involved-- became "my lawyer did not tell me to continue" and you got down to the case, the whole regulatory article, three months period, authorities invoked, and such, by yourself.

check point number 1: the lawyer is now became Francesco Reboldi himself looking for a way to understand how to exercise his work, poorly if I may add, because I and Stalker22 could point out and educate ourselves about the automatic copyright protection with ease.

Rolling back a little bit, there is this fact of very supportive feedback that said you did a good work, one Italian, one Japanese-slash-Italian, and one your alt itself, which later found out to be... "people who work with you" and sympathize with your situation. It might be a fake feedback, or not, the jury is still... undecided about that --hint: sarcasm.

Now, moving further to the case. With the defamatory threat defused and the copyright-slash-plagiarism-slash-not-plagiarizing situation cleared, it is found that your site exercised fake team member. A further investigation I did told me that it's changed several times according to the 19 archives by waybackmachine, from seven to two, back to four, before ultimately goes into one and only Francesco Reboldi, not to mention the fake reviewers. When this facts unearthed, a statement followed:

Quote from: BlokBro on August 17, 2022, 05:56:37 AM

[...]However, the programming behind the platform's functionality I managed and built, while the pagian web you found was handled by a third person who made that mess (and this is where the file modification occurred causing the plagiarism ) when I understood what he was up to, I proceeded to modify the site and dissociate myself from that person. When you take control of another person's casino this happens.

Check point number 2: so does all the incident of accidentally copy pasted codes, things sitting atop of another, etc. happens because you're too busy working alone, not to mention having to contact LockNess by yourself to demand for the depository, or did you hire a third person who made a mess?

The lengthy narrative aside, one immense question appeared following the fact provided above: how could you failed to realize that "the third person" you hired were using fake profiles and reviews for your site? Seven months, I repeat, seven months, January to August since the site went live with the said fake details up to this day, at least seven months went with either (1) you didn't check your own website for at least 7 months --and we're not talking about small details like typo here, it's glaring, it's literally sitting in the middle of the pages, and changed quite often-- or (2) you know, you just let it happen because well... I'd like to say the word, but it'll trigger us back to the square one and I'll have to write another narrative that took me hours to write. And whichever your answer is --unless you can procure a third, unexpected and very surprising, reason for those seven months-- another question should be asked: why should anyone trust a project who had a motivation as stated on the answer for the previous question?