Quote from: solid12345 on May 29, 2014, 05:33:22 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on May 29, 2014, 05:27:59 PM

I told them, since there is doubt, the situation won't be proven with links. What's so difficult finding the number of dan and calling to see if he is the actual one? Oh god, why did I ever ask this - they were like "oh you are invading the privacy" and shit... W T F... like if there is a yellow pages entry one can find, what privacy? It's all public. You call, you ask hi, are you dan? is that your coin? if he says yes, he is the real man. If not, then the guy posting is an ID scammer on top of the rest. The real one would like to know that for sure. There's no reason debating this for so long on whether he is who he is or not. Links upon links prove nothing. A phone call (to a phone he himself has publicly listed in some catalog or directory) would do the job - or as a member said in there, if he controls his linkedin profile than just a change of letters in some details of the resume or personal info would convince anyone and that's the end of it.

Look at the end of the day the fact remains this whole crash and drama is due to Dark's official twitter spreading FUD because XC was continuing to rise before that tweet.

Whether XC is a scam coin or not shouldn't even MATTER to the Dark community if their coin and code is stronger, why should the XC dev have to answer for your starting shit? He doesn't owe the Dark community anything, especially one that guards its code and secrets all the same if not more. The XC dev has to answer to the XC believers, not the Dark pumpers.

Whoa, friend. Nice revisionist history there. We can debate the merits of such a post (I dislike it personally), but the price of XC dropped before the Twitter post.