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 explanationYou 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
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. Do you understand now or do I really need to explain this step by step? I've repeated myself like 4 times already.
I makes no mention of Dan having done even one line of coding.
It mentions a "project". Most likely the Blocknet.