Quote from: suchmoon on December 29, 2014, 08:02:58 AM

Quote from: ikeboy on December 29, 2014, 07:35:53 AM

Quote from: suchmoon on December 29, 2014, 07:33:05 AM

Quote from: ikeboy on December 29, 2014, 07:11:02 AM

I'm ready to listen.

Apparently not, since you ignored my "rules" completely Grin

Thank you for proving that your standards apply only to your opponents.

Your "rules" were arbitrary. I gave a good explanation of why I made the first claim without a source, I gave some sources, and retracted pending further sources. I've never required the level you set for me for anyone (in this thread, at least.)

I'm trying to tell you that you either lack critical thinking or are deliberately spamming. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the last time and will assume it's the former. You take tweets and other sewage as gospel. You see a number like 100 PH/s and don't spend a minute thinking about it. More than 1/3 of Bitcoin's hashrate, can that be real? How is it calculated? Just a couple of simple questions would tell you what kind of information source you're dealing with, yet you never ask such questions.

Simple math is quite opposite of arbitrary actually.

I haven't "taken tweets as gospel" as you put it, although I can see how you would think that. When I saw the 100Ph/s number, i thought of the following points:

1. it's a "snapshot" number, not a maintained number, so it doesn't mean that that much actually was behind it for a long time
2. I saw several people here posting about how they switched their rigs to paycoin and are dumping it right away.
3. There didn't seem to be a good way to fake the hashrate (which I now know is mistaken.) I'd never heard of hashrates being in dispute before, I thought it was something easily looked up and estimated.

Again, for this particular claim, as soon as someone argued with it I gave in. I had genuinely thought that it wasn't in dispute. I'd read through many pages here and hadn't seen anyone say that the hashrates weren't accurate. I haven't watched many coins launch.

What I meant by saying arbitrary was that you asked for a specific source, and after I gave in and said that the sources I had wasn't sufficient and retracted my statement, that wasn't enough for you.

The standards I apply to others (at least in this context) is that when you're wrong, you should admit it, and when you don't have sources on something which sources is expected, and it's disputed, then you should back down. That's what I did and what that paul who keeps on repeating the same thing seems to have trouble doing.

Another thing; when someone makes a claim about a company, and the company has already said something about it, the claimant should probably mention the official claim/response in their post. If they don't like the official story, then mention it and say what problems you have with it, but omitting it completely makes me suspicious. A few times someone made a claim and gaw had said something about it which made sorta-sense (like a lot of gaw's claims; they have to make sense to some people), and the person just didn't mention it at all. So I usually reply to those posts just mentioning the official story and asking why it isn't enough for them, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they actually hadn't heard it instead of assuming that they heard it but are excluding it maliciously (or other reasons). This seems to have made several people categorize me as shill, unfortunately. Do you agree with my viewpoint on this?

I would like to mention that I think your posts are one of the more sincere ones here, and mostly concentrated in the signal part of this noisy thread. That's why I'm spending more time composing replies to you than to people who are borderline trolling.