OK, you initially accepted to pay me 0.1 Bitcoin if I post a website that can make free analytics and you need to honor that deal or I will consider you a scamming liar and give you negative tag.
I don't think this is warranted. It reminds me of the DT-member who tagged anyone who posted in his sales topic because his local rule said to PM him.
Be honest: you never expected to be paid 0.1 Bitcoin for this, right? So the "Deal. Let's see" was posted out of impulse, and changed within 20 minutes. Besides, saxydev couldn't gain anything from it, you didn't offer him 0.1 Bitcoin if you couldn't keep up your end of the deal.
Since Flags are largely about semantics: I've checked back "
the bet", to
the post you quoted, which quotes
your post which shows this quote:
There is 0 service that asks for in debt analyse for free. If you can point me to a service which is up to date, that offers it for free, I will offer you as well for free a lifetime of BTC/ETH analyse which costs arround 200$ each.
Now the semantics part: saxydev is talking about a debt analyse, and as I said before:
There are no debts in Bitcoin inputs.
I don't think there's any website that offers a free debt analysis on Bitcoin inputs. So, saved by his lack of English skills, saxydev is correct:
Nope. Doesn't count.
I strongly dislike saxydev's "taint" BS service, but I don't think Bitcointalk will be a better place if we start Flagging users on what I call a temporary lack of judgement.