Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on November 03, 2014, 01:24:38 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 03, 2014, 01:06:12 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on November 03, 2014, 12:46:11 PM

Quote from: synechist on November 03, 2014, 12:03:49 PM

Quote from: Marlo Stanfield on November 03, 2014, 11:46:56 AM

So they exposed the truth about Dan.

Nope. The truth about Dan's code reviews and collaborations was made public at every point on the XC thread. There was nothing to expose.

What they did is make it look like it was a dirty secret, when it wasn't.

Quote

How does the fact that this information leak was premeditated take away from the fact that it's all now confirmed to be genuine?

What's happened is that Prometheus has been subject to smear campaigns in the past that make him out to be a P&D scammer.
Linking Dan to Prometheus therefore appears to wreck Dan's reputation.
But the truth is that Prometheus is no paragon of virtue, but he is not a pump-and-dump scammer either.
And Dan's link to coins Prometheus funds has not been a secret at any point.

So what's all the fuss about? Hearsay about Prom; true records of conversations that have nonetheless been cut to put Prom in as negative a light as they can; another coin doing its best to destroy the competition.

We have nothing to hide. Bring it all out. There is nothing to fear from the truth.

How was Dan being involved in Halcyon public information? Why would someone involved with the coin do a supposedly unbiased code review?

It was made public in the XC thread. There was even a press release about it.

Quote

Why did everyone(especially you) vehemently deny that the chat logs were genuine?

1) I denied the validity of the entire smear campaign.
2) More specifically, I denied the validity of numerous pastebins and whatnot due to their being modified.
3) I denied the truthfulness of 00Smurf's screenshots because of
(a) their having been cut in such a way as to present Prometheus in a negative light
(b) their having been presented in the context of a smear campaign that guaranteed they would be misinterpreted.

3b is the subtlest point yet. Texts have two layers: the physical marks on a screen and the meaning they convey. In 00Smurf's case, the physical marks were probably only altered by cutting out sections. However the interpretive layer - the meaning - of the text was heavily and deceitfully modified by the smear campaign that it is a part of.

Quote

Aero, Key and Halcyon are three of the most infamous pump and dumps. Prometheus' MO is already well known.

- Is it? How so? Though a smear campaign?
- There are many, many pumpers in crypto. I'm personally aware that several groups were pumping Hal, and that they were not in communication.
- Just because something that Prometheus funds is dumped, it does not imply that Prometheus dumped it.

Quote

None of this being related to him is an issue really. But the fact that Dan is involved with this scene goes directly against the image of unbiased and "one of crypto's best" that XC has been trying to portray him as.

Well, this is the whole point that I'm contesting. Dan does work with Prometheus. But that does not imply that he's involved in a pump and dump operation. The truth is that he is not involved in a pump and dump operation.

Quote

In the XC thread before it was closed not one person was saying "yeah, we all knew Dan was involved in Halcyon!". It was quite the opposite actually. If fact you deleted posts saying that.

- I don't moderate the XC thread.
- See the above press release about Dan being involved in Hal.
- See the above posts about the two interpretive layers. Claims about Dan's involvement in Hal turn into FUD if uttered in an interpretive context that implies that such an association is illicit.

Doing a code review under the pretense of being an unbiased third party was made public.

Dan being having a major level of involvement in the development of Halcyon was never made public. From him developing their anon tech, to it being "Dan's coin", it's not clear exactly what level of involvement Dan had in it other than the fact that it was clearly a major part.

Whether it was you or Teka who deleted the post(s?) about Dan's involvement in HAL doesn't really matter. I think at that time you were in control of Teka's account at the time as Teka was busy and couldn't moderate that thread. But whether it was you or him who deleted the post is irrelevant really. You tried to cover up the HAL connection from the start.

Obviously unbiased code review is not equal to Dan being involved in HAL. Not at all. In fact it specifically implies that he as NO involvement in the project.

This is an untrue statement I was not a developer for hal, did I make recommendations based on what I found on the review YES, but outside of that, there was no involvement in the project..