5 ms·

Another lie from a troll, but I'll respond for onlookers who may not know how to check: https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x0d8775f648430679a709e98d2

Another lie from a troll, but I'll respond for onlookers who may not know how to check: https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x0d8775f648430679a709e98d2b0cb6250d2887ef https://etherscan.io/token/tokenholderchart/0x0d8775f6484306... shows the token holders pie chart. We have the UGP+reserves largest account, 23% of all tokens. Not a majority. Bittrex liquidity pool is second. Other accounts, which we do not own, total over 70,000. Stupid lie, easily disproven, onlookers educated. But I recall USENET trolling, and miss it compared to the low HN version.

lern_too_spel 8y ago
Thanks for the correction. It's not a majority (unless some of the other wallets are also you) but a plurality by a wide margin. The point still stands. What makes me a troll?
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  Oh come on! "Hoarding a majority" and "scam". You were corrected and ack'ed the point grudgingly (as if 23% is enough to do more than dump the price if we sold fast, which we will not - this pool is for the users & creators, to drive growth). Have the decency to retract the false claim cleanly.
  - lern_too_spel 8y ago
    > Have the decency to retract the false claim cleanly. I retracted the false claim cleanly. The scam point remains unrefuted.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered. As for "scam", a slur without arguments or evidence is not refutable. It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered. By a wide margin. Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it? Selling all of it would drop the price but not enough to keep the plurality owners from getting rich. Claiming that just because it's half as much hording as I incorrectly claimed (and quickly and happily corrected) makes it OK just shows another example of your poor ethics. It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains. > It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do. This sentence, even in isolation, shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. If this is your limit on arguing to justify slurs, find a new hobby. It's boring and it makes you look silly or envious. The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly. To work the order book in the face of falling liquidity would require some buyers who do not see the project risk. And I'd be out of job, and I am not independently wealthy and wouldn't be on good odds after trying such a stunt. Enough for onlookers. Now go do something better! Note how I did not call you a fool yet. There's still hope, if you stop the foolish, self-defeating and easily falsified comments.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal. > We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies. That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service. > The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.
    - detaro 8y ago
      Then please explain who is scammed how, if you throw this and other comparisons to criminal behavior around.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        Thanks, and for the "please". Always good to keep your cool. This troll pops off with "scam" and then throws "lack of self awareness", which may be typical on HN, but in my youth and in person, it would quickly lead to a fight. People need to get out from behind computers and interact f2f more.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > This troll pops off with "scam" I call a spade a spade. You still haven't refuted the point. If you would like to, please rejoin me in the sibling thread. > in my youth and in person, it would quickly lead to a fight. I don't know how showing other ways you are ethically lacking helps your case.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        You haven't answered his question. Who got scammed, how?
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        As I stated in the GP post, I answered that in the sibling thread with you. I have a hard time believing you have forgotten already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18157748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18157748
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        "It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains." But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh! How tokens "leverage" anything (no debt, no forward market, no speculation) is beyond me, but save it.

lern_too_spel 8y ago

Thanks for the correction. It's not a majority (unless some of the other wallets are also you) but a plurality by a wide margin. The point still stands. What makes me a troll?

BrendanEich 8y ago
Oh come on! "Hoarding a majority" and "scam". You were corrected and ack'ed the point grudgingly (as if 23% is enough to do more than dump the price if we sold fast, which we will not - this pool is for the users & creators, to drive growth). Have the decency to retract the false claim cleanly.
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  > Have the decency to retract the false claim cleanly. I retracted the false claim cleanly. The scam point remains unrefuted.
  - BrendanEich 8y ago
    No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered. As for "scam", a slur without arguments or evidence is not refutable. It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do.
    - lern_too_spel 8y ago
      > No, you weaseled to "plurality" as if that mattered. By a wide margin. Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it? Selling all of it would drop the price but not enough to keep the plurality owners from getting rich. Claiming that just because it's half as much hording as I incorrectly claimed (and quickly and happily corrected) makes it OK just shows another example of your poor ethics. It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains. > It's just self-debasing name-calling, which any fool can do. This sentence, even in isolation, shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
      - BrendanEich 8y ago
        And here we loop back to a stupid, trollish claim that at least can be refuted: "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. If this is your limit on arguing to justify slurs, find a new hobby. It's boring and it makes you look silly or envious. The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly. To work the order book in the face of falling liquidity would require some buyers who do not see the project risk. And I'd be out of job, and I am not independently wealthy and wouldn't be on good odds after trying such a stunt. Enough for onlookers. Now go do something better! Note how I did not call you a fool yet. There's still hope, if you stop the foolish, self-defeating and easily falsified comments.
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > "steal from publishers" is false, users have rights to ad-block, by law and by design of the Web. I never claimed otherwise. Ad blocking is completely legal. > We pay publishers far more than the sub-40% they get on a good day from programmatic advertising. Sub-40% of what? People care about the actual money they're being paid, not revenue shares of different-sized pies. That's all beside the point though. You hold the publishers over the barrel, so they have no choice but to accept your terms, whatever they may be. You're exactly like a piracy service that offers content to users for free and then offers to pay the content owners in a token owned by the piracy service. > The idea I'd dump BAT we reserved for users is also silly or vicious: I'd be destroying the project and my company. And the price would drop very quickly You're obviously going to sell what you have, slowly at first for income, and faster when your scam fails.
  - detaro 8y ago
    Then please explain who is scammed how, if you throw this and other comparisons to criminal behavior around.
    - BrendanEich 8y ago
      Thanks, and for the "please". Always good to keep your cool. This troll pops off with "scam" and then throws "lack of self awareness", which may be typical on HN, but in my youth and in person, it would quickly lead to a fight. People need to get out from behind computers and interact f2f more.
      - lern_too_spel 8y ago
        > This troll pops off with "scam" I call a spade a spade. You still haven't refuted the point. If you would like to, please rejoin me in the sibling thread. > in my youth and in person, it would quickly lead to a fight. I don't know how showing other ways you are ethically lacking helps your case.
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        You haven't answered his question. Who got scammed, how?
        lern_too_spel 8y ago
        As I stated in the GP post, I answered that in the sibling thread with you. I have a hard time believing you have forgotten already. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18157748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18157748
        BrendanEich 8y ago
        "It's a scam because you're stealing from publishers and then using tokens to leverage your ill-gotten gains." But we are not stealing from publishers, per your own agreement that users have the right to block ads. You are contradicting yourself. Anyway, this does not justify "scam", which is not the same word as "theft" if noun or "steal" if verb. Duh! How tokens "leverage" anything (no debt, no forward market, no speculation) is beyond me, but save it.