Quote from: RichardT on November 08, 2014, 08:40:51 PM

Quote from: adhitthana on November 08, 2014, 09:42:20 AM

Quote from: RichardT on November 07, 2014, 10:11:34 PM

Some very good points here. It's funny that some of us are trying to analyze all this and considering multiple possibilities,

It's called "Ochams Razor". The simplest explanation is the best explanation
You will consider any explanation no matter how imbecilic, and ignore the obvious explanation
Dan was asked to review many coins, and so he reviewed HAL.

Some how you want Dan to be merely a reviewer of all the other coins but suddenly, when it suits you, he stops being a reviewer and becomes the developer of HAL. Grin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Wow, you are either totally trolling or totally do not understand what I've been saying. WE ALL KNOW THAT DAN CODE REVIEWED FOR HAL. This has been established.

There is another option Grin

Quote

What I've been trying to tell you is that he has ALSO always secretly been the dev for HAL

And I'm saying that does not fit when we lok at all the evidence.

Quote

(as stated in the skype screenshot).

Except the screen shot did not say he was the dev. It doesn't say he even did 1 line of coding for anyone. Let alone HAL.

Quote

What this means is that his code review was unethical because he did it while giving people the impression that he had nothing to do with Hal's development.

No he was open about the fact he reviewed the coin. There is no evidence he did anything more and a lot of evidence against that.

Quote

Here's the screenshot again: http://imgur.com/a/1xbWq#2

Do you understand now or do I really need to explain this step by step? I've repeated myself like 4 times already.

That screenshot does not mention HAL and it does not mention Dan being the dev of HAL. Huh

I makes no mention of Dan having done even one line of coding.

It mentions a "project". Most likely the Blocknet.