Quote from: CryptoGretzky on June 12, 2014, 12:37:42 PM

Quote from: adhitthana on June 12, 2014, 12:35:10 PM

Quote from: sukottosan_d on June 12, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

You guys should look at this seriously. I think it can be fixed relatively easily - but if it's ignored it could be a problem for you later.
Chaeplin spent a bunch of time working through every detail to get you a step by step description of the issue.
And no one is responding seriously, no one has given a counter analysis - that is not a good sign for investors.
Can someone show where chaeplin's analysis is flawed? No one has directly responded at any point. Quote a post - draw lines...whatever you need to do.

I came to the same conclusion as him after reviewing a series of transactions yesterday - but it was annoying and took me a long time. If this isn't an issue - can someone just point out where? Or create a counter-example? If you want to be taken seriously - I'm pretty sure it's important and shouldn't be brushed off like it's nothing.

I don't know how you can call it FUD and ignore it......he walked you through the problem.
If you don't understand it...fine - let someone who does argue a counter-analysis. Don't just call it FUD because you don't understand what is going on.

I agree. This a problem when the bounty is only 100XC.
It's maybe not enough to get serious analysis from multiple people

Does anyone have ANY link where DRK offered a bounty to prove their anon work?? Anyone? Bueller?

+1 why is it always here we are expected to do these things, its totally ridiculous... DRK fudders posing as serious interested investors, that is why...