I'm doing it because I know what was tweeted and given what they encouraged it is no surprise that posts before Jun/Jul '14 are now gone. You can try and profess your innocence by saying it never happened, but that doesn't change what I or anyone else who was around in the community at the time saw. The information is on record in the thread and people can make up their own mind.

All these thinly veiled gems like 'men do, kids talk' is nothing but a distraction from the issue. The only childish behaviour in this back and forth is coming from your account. To deny the attempt at diverting the focus, I will re-address it because nothing you said explained why;


Promoting the coin would be saying "coin xx has an established dev team and a roadmap for future development". You were saying "coin xxx looks good for the long term, i've bought some more today". Pleading because you didn't say the word "buy" and generally hiding behind semantics is not going to make up for an argument that has any legitimacy to it.

I don't need to say that at all. What speaks volumes is your lack of being able to refute my comments re @thisweekscoin.

The problem is, your 'promoting' service, as you know, had the effect of encouraging hapless newcomers to the scene into buying coins based on your tweets. That encouragement was based on your financial incentive to do so and not due to anything the coin offers people as an investment or otherwise. I remember clear as day reading some of your tweets in disgust and despite the fact they are now ominously deleted (I just checked how far they now go back, is that why you dared me to find one - because they no longer exist?), they were not promoting, which would have been factual statements about the coins, but comments like 'i'm buying xxx' 'xxx is looking great for this week and long term'. Alluding to a roi, that is the problem.

I doubt you laughed like to claim, that is merely a trite attempt to discredit the legitimacy of what I am saying to those reading that know no better. I don't want people to buy coins which have devs with a dubious, certainly unethical past.

Based on the what I have seen from your tweeting history there is not any room for debate on who is right. You are again simply trying to label me as something to justify to others why I am criticising you. This is because you cannot refute your past.

Let's make this crystal clear for everyone and see if you are going to try and wriggle out of any ethical issues here; You ran a twitter account called thisweekscoin and praised/hyped up coins that you were paid to. Okay? You made people believe such and such coin was fantastic because you were PAID to tweet positive things about them. Do not have the audacity to say because you did not explicitly write 'BUY xxx' (and I cannot even be sure of that) that you are free from any wrong doing.

I'm glad you can keep going and going because henceforth this entire thread will consist of people being made aware of what you are really like.

See how defensive you are already. You are not the kind of individual that should be starting their own coin because 1) You encouraged people to buy coins based on what coin devs were paying you, not those coins merits 2) Your behaviour to people that i know to be reasonable, like myself, is such that makes me question your quality of character. As in, i do not trust you whatsoever.

I can keep going all day too so feel free to continue.

As soon as I saw who op is I was out. This weeks coin was basically 'this weeks pump/coin i've been paid to promote'. And your tone on bct has always been caustic and quite contradictory to how you are presenting yourself now.

The two posts above are lies and they both know it. Bryce plainly stated he was apologising for the way in which he would address people when communicating with them. He affirmed his ethics were not in question and that he would still invite an audit from the SEC.

You both worded your replies in an attempt to hide this and deceive the uninformed readers.

still need an answer to that Q re whether ceo (32k) is required to exchanged ARCH for shares in a year.

Someone's set a 23 satoshi sell underneath a 41 i mean!? I swear you will never find a dumber market.

^ what he said?

thanks for the kind offer but for now i haven't got time to fiddle with it so i'll have to leave it

I read that but it was not addressed by either reply so i am asking for confirmation.

I wish i could but neoscrypt seems to hate the setup of my miner

I know this coin is super niche but its way better than that. We have a good site, ufologists contributing to content, i hear a partnership trying to be made with a syndicated radio show (i bet i can guess who that is). 1 or 2 satoshi is retarded.

now you see, nicely 'built' buys for people to sit ON TOP of and if anyone wants to sell, they dont undercut unduly.. now we just need some real buyers

Seriously whoever is undercutting other sell orders by 10 satoshi (%16) on betashareX is an absolute idiot.

actually one last thing, is it true then to be able to convert your arch to shares on clearinghouse next year you need to be ceo?

Thanks tigerwood, Architect, all clear now. Yep already on slack, very impressed with everything so far!

Excuse my ignorance but can you clarify the difference between holding Arch coins vs shares on clearinghouse in the sense of getting benefit directly from ARCH's commercial success? Essentially do you need to have 32k (ceo) coins to receive a share of future sales? I am confused..