eddie13 is back online.
Subscribed..

User legiteum has some odd views but I think they're able to formulate a train of thought in a way that is much more logical and coherent than the vast majority of members here.

The thread linked in the OP that was made by them and ended up getting some merits made a decent point. It doesn't add any credence to their own project but it doesn't make them a scammer either.

There have been thousands of itterations of financial technology projects that get promoted among bitcoin and cryptocurrency fans over the years. If legiteum is to be called a scammer, then there should be some tangible signs of that. Misleading people into making financial decisions on false pretenses for instance. Having created an altcoin is not an act of scamming on its own. Having a personal opinion and even speculating about who Satoshi might be is also not an act of scamming. Albeit the extraordinary claim that Satoshi might have been a US federal agent needs better proof to be believed, holding such an opinion is still far from being a scammer.

All your alts are fumunda cheese dick toesucking jam cunts.  Except for TMAN, that's a good one.

Good chance of nully buddy generating interesting content, and that top reply slot was too tempting..

4 days back you say and straight to war? Good spot to pull up with my popcorn no?

Where was this attitude back in the day when a thousand eth scam icos on this board nearly ruined crypto as a whole?
Precident not to red tag suspected scam investments without hard proof, or were the favorite campaign managers and escrows in power at the time just making too much to let anything be done about them?

Lauda was pretty dope too.

Possibly marlboroza as well

Help me out here, eddie.  Why is it that I’m the only person who noticed that legiteum misattributed the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas, 1996] paper to Tatsuaki Okamoto?  It was the core of legiteum’s bizarro-logic argument.  legiteum linked to the paper prominently in their own OP.  The very top of the paper identifies its authors as “Laurie Law, Susan Sabett, Jerry Solinas”.  Why did only I notice?

Is the con-artist shtick of making bold, authoritative-sounding statements so very effective, people fail to see what’s right before their eyes?


Oh, hell, no.  Well, I hope not.  When I returned here, I said to myself that I should ignore trolls—such as certain DT members.  At the time of all that Reputation drama years ago, I forgot the old adage about wrestling with a pig.  My lifetime is precious—scarce in supply; I’ve wasted far too much of it arguing with such idiots who don’t matter. ☽︎

What does matter?  Look to the future, by learning from the past.  When you see persistent misinformation that just won’t go away no matter how often it’s debunked, and when you observe the harm that it can cause, do you pause to wonder how it started?

I think there’s a chance, a not-insignificant chance, that a year or five years from now, we’ll be futilely struggling to stop a popular urban legend that NSA spook Tatsuaki Okamoto wrote a paper presaging Bitcoin in 1996, and then invented Bitcoin in 2008 as “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  It won’t matter that (a) Okamoto didn’t write the paper in question, (b) Okamoto didn’t work for NSA, and (c) there is no apparent connection whatsoever between “Tatsuaki Okamoto” and “Satoshi Nakamoto”.  Look at legiteum’s thread.  In empirical reality, you can see that the facts don’t matter.

I seek hereby to stop that chance.  Kill it with fire.  Terminate it with extreme prejudice.  Crush the seed of a rumour, the poisonous acorn that looks so small, before it can take root and grow into an urban legend.

A more mundane risk, which I think has a bigger chance:  legiteum is transparently leveling up their account, in what appears to be probably a long con to promote Haypenny.  If you look at Haypenny’s substance-free whitepaper, and at what legiteum has said about it on this forum, you’ll see on its face that it practically screams SCAM.  At best, it has zero credibility.  And this is purportedly a financial network.

legiteum’s early attempts to promote it here fell flat, so they turned to building rank and reputation with prolific posting of fake-expert bullshit.  They’ve been doing this for almost three years.  What will happen if they get up to Sr. or Hero rank, they have name recognition and a forum following, and then, they create a new ANN for Haypenny?

Don’t wait for me to say, “I told you so.”

When epidemiologists successfully stop a potential epidemic in its early stages, few people notice, and fewer thank them.  After all, bad things didn’t happen.  Here, that is the outcome for which I hope.

Quote from: eddie13 on October 27, 2026, 01:43:26 AM

Where was this attitude back in the day when a thousand eth scam icos on this board nearly ruined crypto as a whole?
Precident not to red tag suspected scam investments without hard proof, or were the favorite campaign managers and escrows in power at the time just making too much to let anything be done about them?

I think that a part of the problem was that DT politicking was 80% corrupt bullshit—at the time of which you speak, which antedated new DT; now, it’s 90% corrupt bullshit.  The other part is an irreconcilable difference of opinions about what deserves a red tag.

As you know, some people interpret tags so narrowly, they’ll let dishonest, untrustworthy people run amok unless or until they get caught red-handed with their hands in the cookie jar.  theymos created the flag system for that purpose.  They didn’t get the memo.

Let’s put it this way:  I tagged Gavin Andresen.  Gavin is untrustworthy.  Anyone who doesn’t know why is new to Bitcoin, and should ask me for an explanation in an appropriate thread (which this is not).  Well, the folks who push a ridiculously narrow interpretation of tags won’t like my tag on Gavin.  I suggest that they should ~ me and fuck off.  Complaints >/dev/null.

I don’t tag every low-ranking Satoshi conspiracist; if I did, I would run out of red ink.

Furthermore, I must make this clear:  I don’t red-tag for mere disagreements of opinion.  alani123 is trying to spin it that way, which is absurd to anyone who actually reads OP.

If I red-tagged for mere disagreements of opinion, I’d need to red-tag every single account on this forum, starting with theymos.  I’d need to cat-scratch Lauda, which would be sad.  You, eddie, would get a nice collection of red tags.  I’d need to use alts to red-tag myself, too; I have changed some of my opinions over the years, so nullius (u=976210) definitely needs a “WRONG OPINION” tag.

I tag people who are untrustworthy.  Here, I tagged someone (a) whom I caught in a whopper of a lie, and (b) who peddles a financial project which (c) has zero credibility on its face.  I would not trust them with money.  I would not trust them with information.  I would not trust even one word they say.  I would not trust them to take out my garbage.  They’re untrustworthy.  What else is the trust system for?

Thereupon, indeed, I can meet the strict requirements for a newbie/guest flag:  “Due to various concrete red flags, I believe that anyone dealing with this user has a high risk of losing money.”  Concrete red flags:  (a), (b), (c) above.  legiteum is lucky that I haven’t thought my time is worth lobbying for flag support, when half of DT has petty personal grudges against me.

Sorry to tell you what I think you very well know, eddie13.  It’s nicer to explain it to you, than to ELI5 it to alani123.

---

Quote from: alani123 on October 26, 2026, 08:53:18 PM

You still “did not read OP”.  I’m curious about why you’re so intent on repeatedly dodging all what I said in OP—just like legiteum repeatedly has dodged being caught in a lie.  To dodge is the only way to argue against it, but why do you care?

You already ~ed me over six and a half years ago.  (It must have been an eventful week in Reputation drama-land; it was the same week when suchmoon and DireWolfM14 ~ed me.  Off the top of my head, I don’t recall why.)  It matters only to you and your friends, because you’re not in DT.  I suggest that you ~nullius again, if it makes you feel any better, or open a Meta thread petitioning theymos for a new feature that lets you do this:

Code:

~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius
[...repeated 2^256 times...]
~nullius
~nullius
~nullius

Would that feel good to you?

Quote from: alani123 on October 26, 2026, 08:53:18 PM

However freedom of speech dictates legiteum and you enjoy the same rights to talk smack.

• I do not “talk smack”—except when emulating TMAN, from obsequious gratitude for how when I was a Newbie, and I said please Sir give me merits so I can get good bounties, TMAN showered me with golden merits until Thermos told him to piss off and baned him from the forum .
• I did not accuse legiteum of “talking smack”.  I am not so silly.
• Help!  Help!  alani123 is repressing my freedom of speech by dictating what red tags I may or may not express.

Code:

$ alani123 <dev/null >dev/null 2>&1 &

---

All of the above was substantially written late on 26 October.

That's a lot of words, too bad I'm.. Reading them all...

I don't know why you said I didn't read the OP. I read every part of it.

I feel like I provided some very thorough responses of why I support my reasoning in response to your thread.

Posting something in a public forum you're bound to get some opinions I guess.


Anyway, I think I should try to focus on the fact that the essence of my argument here is that whatever is mentioned about legiteum in the OP isn't something that would call for a red trust rating. I already said in response to your OP that your comparison to Alex Jones doesn't hit. If that guy had an account here I'd tag him too though. Promoting health supplements under false pretenses is certainly a scam in my book. Somebody could literally die. Merely having a FinTech project and mentioning its existence publicly isn't even comparable. Is there evident of harm caused? Has money exchanged hands? As far as I'm concerned by reading your OP, I don't see any of that.

Did I really do that? I mean, sorry if I did, but that's not my intention. I didn't mean to say you're making accusations out of spite but I do get a sense you're getting some things personally. Which is also not my intention.

Had you not mentioned that I would have never noticed. Are you sure you don't recall why all these peeps ~ your own account? I don't recall why I did it myself but I would guess it was because I didn't agree with some trust ratings of yours. Isn't this how the trust system is supposed to work? Also, big euphemism to call anyone in this forum my friend. Had any of the people behind these accounts actually been my friends I would have had many more merits I guess. I think it's pretty obvious I haven't received any favors by any sort of "gang" here. Of course you can rate anyone in any way you want but that's just my criticism.  

Did I really do that? I mean, sorry if I did, but that's not my intention. I didn't mean to say you're making accusations out of spite but I do get a sense you're getting some things personally after me trying to explain why I don't really agree with your conclusion in the OP. I agree with a lot of the thought process, but not the conclusion to leave a negative rating.

To keep saying I didn't read and calling other people my friends for example!?

I tend to agree with you on many things actually, I hate racists, I despise Alex Jones, I don't appreciate "gangs" here and I very much so dislike people giving ratings over opinions other that objective facts. You giving this ratings isn't a big problem in my book, I just wouldn't do it myself maybe and explained why. Otherwise, I think I'm the person who provided the most coherent responses to your whole thread so to say I can't read is a bit unfair maybe.

In any case, as an offhand suggestion, I'd say maybe this energy should be directed towards going after something causing actual harm. For instance, hight now, in the meta board, there's a thread very clearly dozens of accounts with valid red trust (and/or with a proven connection to account farms) get paid in signature campaigns: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5597163.0

Has any action been taken about it? Doesn't seem like it. If you're that good digging into things people have said and done here over the span of years maybe this is a better thing to go after.

Anyway, keep up the fighting spirit I guess.   Just realise I'm not against you or anything haha

Update:  legiteum is now stacking a lie atop another lie:  They lie about what they said in their OP, and misquote themselves to accuse me of lying.

Verbatim full-quote of the post, for the record:


A brief excerpt of my reply:

---

Quote from: ABCbits on October 31, 2026, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: nullius on October 30, 2026, 09:46:01 PM

Is the con-artist shtick of making bold, authoritative-sounding statements so very effective, people fail to see what’s right before their eyes?

Have you consider possibility some people decide to add him to their ignore list? That's what i did after reading his "information" about LN.

I usually ignore such things.  There is too much nonsense in the world to pursue all of it.  I pursued this one, because:

• The seed of a new, totally false conspiracist rumour should be killed early, before it can grow.  Otherwise, it could become dangerous.  How many people ignored CSW early, before he became dangerous?  I know I did—and I later regretted ignoring him.
• I thought this one would be fast and easy to debunk.  On the face of their OP, legiteum flat-out lied about the authorship of a paper—and linked to the paper.  All that people need to do is to click through, and look at the authors’ names at the top.  It takes ten seconds or less.  Add ten minutes to look up Tatsuaki Okamoto, if one doesn’t yet know who that is, and verify that Okamoto was a Japanese employee of NTT, not an employee of American NSA.  What could be easier?
• Reasonable suspicion of a long con, addressed below.

Quite frankly, I’m now shocked at how obtuse people are.

Quote from: ABCbits on October 31, 2026, 09:17:07 AM

Quote from: nullius on October 30, 2026, 09:46:01 PM

legiteum’s early attempts to promote it here fell flat, so they turned to building rank and reputation with prolific posting of fake-expert bullshit.  They’ve been doing this for almost three years.  What will happen if they get up to Sr. or Hero rank, they have name recognition and a forum following, and then, they create a new ANN for Haypenny?

If your speculation turned out to be true and there's many or obvious red flags on the ANN, this is when you or someone else create a flag and hope enough member support it.

There is a common complaint, sadly oft too true, that the “little people” never get a chance to succeed.  If someone seeks to found a new, honest project without any big-name backers, they will likely face an uphill battle to establish themselves.  They struggle just to get attention.  Unless they have a stroke of spectacular luck, they may labour in obscurity for years—perhaps never to reach a breakout to success.  It seems the system is rigged, the deck is stacked against them.

Yet a glib talker can build reputation and gain attention, with nothing but superior bullshitting skills.  It happens again and again.  Such people know how to work the system.  Case in point:  Observe how smoothly legiteum now misquotes themselves to accuse me of falsehood, then says that all people need to do to see my falsehood is to read the post which shows their falsehood; to lie so boldly with a straight face shows extraordinary skill at deception.

I think it’s wise to recognize the latter case early, and stack the deck against them before they have name recognition and a significant following.  We’ve all seen what happens when a shady financial project with a popular following has defenders come out of the woodwork, to attack anyone who tries to warn people.

---

Quote from: alani123 on October 30, 2026, 11:57:17 PM

Quote from: nullius on October 30, 2026, 09:46:01 PM

You still “did not read OP”.

I don't know why you said I didn't read the OP. I read every part of it.

What do you make of how legiteum claimed that Tatsuaki Okamoto was amongst “employees at the NSA” who “created” the [Law, Sabett, and Solinas 1996] paper?  It’s entirely false—and it is the central point of an OP in a Bitcoin Discussion thread now on its sixth page, with no end in sight.

I scoffed at you before, largely because you seemed not to see that.  Your latest post here was much more reasonable, but still misses it.  I’d like to come back to some of what you said—I’m not ignoring it!  But perhaps, if I keep this reply shorter, that one key point can be snapped into focus.

---

I put this at the bottom and sharply trim it, because I’m not the topic of this thread—not from any disrespect to DireWolfM14:

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on October 30, 2026, 11:03:20 PM

Again, I'd rather not dig up old flame wars and would rather welcome you back with the hopes that we can re-start our interactions with our best feet forward.

We’ve been having a nice discussion in the other thread.  FYI, I about 95% wrote a reply to you before...

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on October 30, 2026, 10:24:13 PM

You're going to give the pea-brain that started this thread an aneurysm if you keep that up.

...OP there had an aneurysm, and locked the topic.  What a shame that I spend so much time writing and editing my posts—especially the fun ones; now, I’ll need to start another topic to continue our social intercourse.  (Already planned.)

That being said—not about you, but in vague reference to about three or four unnamed DTs who systematically attacked my reputation before:

Quote from: Meretrix (DRAFT)

This bitch does not forgive, and does not forget.

P.S., thanks so much—being new here, I just didn’t know the difference between ~ and a tag.

Say a Japanese person made a conspiracy theory that a famous, pseudonymous “Bill Wilson” is really a super-secret homage to Bob Robson, because the names are pretty much almost exactly the same.  “While I don’t think Mr. Robson himself was Bill, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the ‘author’ of Willycoin a name that recalled his.”  Say what!?  Is it like, you stinky gaijin are all alike, all fungible with your round eyes, your ghastly paleness, your insufferable body odour, and your names all ending in “-son”?


Satoshi Nakamoto Isoroku Yamamoto

(While I don’t think Admiral Yamamoto himself was Satoshi, I think it would be a fitting tribute name to give the “author” of Bitcoin a name that recalled the author of the Pearl Harbor attack.  This is evidence that Bitcoin was invented by Imperial Japanese revanchists, as a virtual atomic bomb dropped on the United States.)

---

---

Aw, man.  I think it’s cool that for your grand entrance after over four years away, you picked my thread to hijack, even if (cough) I’m trying to make this a serious thread to deal with a serious issue.  Not joking that your profile was on the list I glanced over to see who was still active.

I hope I didn’t accidentally troll you by mentioning the ACLU in the other thread.  I’m cool with your NRA, too, which means that as a non-aligned crypto-anarchist, I have no friends except maybe the three or four libertarians in the whole wide world who still believe what libertarians believed ten or twenty years ago.

Seriously, you’re one of the few forum members who DGAF about DT politics.  After the shit some people put me through here, I’d be a fool not to appreciate your perspective, even if I don’t always agree with you.  Insofar as I’ve seen, you’re the only person here who will stick up for cryptohunter—not to troll, but with thoughtful arguments; that takes guts.  The forum needs less cowardice and groupthink, in my opinion.  (To be clear, I’m not agreeing with your opinion, but noting that your opinion is yours and you dare to express it.  And to be ultra-clear, I’m not disagreeing with your opinion.  I’m just trying to avoid ultra-derailing my own thread with an extended discussion of CH and of my own experience with people whose group modus operandi is to target an individual, provoke him as much as they can by trolling him with gross insult and humiliation that lack any connection to any substantive issue, systematically destroy his reputation with ad hominem personal harassment, and then turn around and paint him as an angry “troll”.  If or when I ever run my own forum, it’s the kind of group misbehaviour for which I’ll ban people; it makes for a hostile and unproductive community environment.  And I have no respect for those who say to “grow a thicker skin” when they’re not the ones standing alone, being poked with hot needles.)

Eh, I know we’re both busy.  You posted Proof of Girlfriend to WO, as I recall.  After my forum girlfriend turned out to be a scammer who’d scammed theymos first, so n00bs shouldn’t mistake me as easy to fool, I created a fictional girlfriend; I’ve gotta keep her going now that she woke up, as she’s probably more talented at making money than I am.  Very fucking talented.  You’ve probably got IRL stuff that draws you away from the forum, and I’ve probably got IRL stuff that pins me to the forum.

But it would be a shame for the forum if you left.  And I hope I didn’t make you feel unwelcome in your grand return thread which is supposed to be a serious thread on another topic, dammit... why didn’t you choose a trivial thread like php2shell to derail!?.


Please don’t tell me that’s a puzzle, with your words hiding not only the private key, but also the public key I can hash to an address to see that you put 21,000 of your OG BTC into it.  Look, even if this is your grand return thread, it’s also a legiteum thread; the shit non-coiner doesn’t deserve a thread that’s guaranteed to run at least till the puzzle is solved.

Uh-oh.  I’m starting to think with legiteum-logic.  I heard myself say it, so it must be true.  I am now dead sure that the quoted paragraph is a Bitcoin puzzle worth 21,000 BTC.

Gunax lbh sbe lbhe xvaq jbeqf.  Znfgre Fha pbhyqa’g unir fnvq vg orggre.  Objf.