The LTB Network Forum

Let's Talk about Factom's Repeated Lies and "mistakes" - per cryptonaught's request

Back to General

Comments

• Phoenix

  

  Offline
  Posts: 32

  Although if I do believe, that this Thread was (or is) in some way good to clear some things up, there are two points that should be changed how I believe.

  @brighton36: You still pretend: "I stand by all our claims." and @Junseth supports you: "Chris is right 100%." - but without any arguments and both of you did not reply on the many questions and corrections.

  @PaulSnow 's conclusion:

  • "Hilarious how you and Chris can't give straight, correct, and honest answers to unambiguous and fair questions, given the topic."

  ---

  With that being said...

  At least you could give more transparency and show some fairness with two little edits:

  • The title implicates lies of Factom - but you wasn’t able to prove just one single lie. So you should delete that part.

  • Into your first post you should add something like „Reply of @PaulSnow (CEO & Lead Developer of Factom)“ and the link to his reply: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/forum/post/lets-talk-about-factoms-repeated-lies-and-mistakes-per-cryptonaughts-request?page=2#post-139600

  And in my eyes it should be far above.

  Reasons:

  • Your post is full of manipulative implications and even lies, and not just about Factom but also about people(!)

  • Somebody without any/enough knowledge about Factom could read the first post (maybe just the title in Google) and come to wrong conclusions about the project - and the people you speak about.

  • Paul Snows corrections are on page two. Both posts should be equal.

  ---

  The thread is very instructive for everybody who reads all of it, but too many people are fast with judgements, based on prejudices like you claim them in your post and it's title.

  It's your choice and it's also your right to believe whatever you want to believe about Factom and/or the people involved. But I don't think it's your right to spread Scam-accusations without any proof, but wrong informations and even lies. That's not what Crypto should stand for. And it's nothing a Community Director of another legit project should want to be associated with.

  Therefore you should give every potential reader of this thread the opportunity to recognize on first sight, that your claims about, and accusations on Factom and Paul Snow and other people involved, were answered from Paul Snow himself.

  You could also update your post with your replies on him - if you reply.

  Following this suggestion(s) would show that you have some sense of fairness, honesty and transparency.

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 12:58 AM
  Last Edited: November 15, 2015 at 1:03 AM
  Permalink
  2 likes
• brighton36

  

  Offline
  Posts: 66
  Location: Miami, FL

  @phoenix - you have no post history prior to this thread. We have caught Factom astroturfing in the past, and I would assume at this point that you have a very close tie to them.

  Paul Snow is lying in this very thread: The Hondurus deal was announced on the morning of their last day of funding (the 15th). I suspect it was timed that way so as to give the project a bit of boost on its way out. BUT even if it is a "mistake", it's not like that would matter - there were two more fundraises thereafter during which Factom still advertised that contract as having been secured on its own website.

  You should go through the transcript from the Chit Chat. At one point, Paul Snow is asserting that There isn't a Honduras deal even announced by them on their website, despite junseth showing him multiple times the url. It's an obvious lie. This is why I have no reason to communicate with Paul Snow at this point - he's an obvious scammer. (Read the transcript)

  No one is this stupid phoenix, you are an astroturfer.

  As for my opinions - they are my own, and I put them here because I'd like to be attached to them. As for the official counterparty viewpoint - it's an open source project. If you believe that Counterparty is a company with an official stance -then I'd just as soon have you rather believe that bitcoin is a company with an official stance. (So that I can tell you my views are the 'official' views of Bitcoin.)

  Jeez, there's some newbies in this thread...

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 6:03 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @brighton36 @phoenix - you have no post history prior to this thread. We have caught Factom astroturfing in the past, and I would assume at this point that you have a very close tie to them.

  I have no idea who @phoenix is, but best I can tell, Zero people reading this thread have been impressed with your representation of our project. Are they all secretly Factom people? You think @Adam and @Cryptonaut are Factom people? @mdw? @BikerGSX? Others have messaged me privately in support.

  I don't think Factom is behind everyone that sees that you have done a very sloppy job of summarizing Factom's history, you haven't made any corrections (even though I have provided sources for all of them). Your biggest "issue" was a pump of a story prior to the token sale (per your timeline) when the token sale quite clearly came first. At best a few hours overlapped.

  Paul Snow is lying in this very thread: The Hondurus deal was announced on the morning of their last day of funding (the 15th).

  What did I say? Oh yeah:

  Now we have some likely intentional misrepresentation. This article came out on May 15 (and was supposed to go out later than that). This came AFTER the token sale (April 2nd - May 15), not before as you imply here. The project is still under negotiation, and it is not dead. But government projects often involve negotiations that drag out for months and even years.

  Another case of you lying about me lying. Quite clearly and exactly I told the truth.

  I suspect it was timed that way so as to give the project a bit of boost on its way out. BUT even if it is a "mistake", it's not like that would matter - there were two more fundraises thereafter during which Factom still advertised that contract as having been secured on its own website.

  There is no language anywhere that says we have secured a contract. And you know this.

  And the token sale ended the morning of the 15th at 10:00 am CST. The overlap was inconsequential, both in effect, and viewing the situation logically. If we were scammers seeking to pump up the token sale, we obviously would have done so with enough time for the market to react.

  And you continue to neglect the fact that nobody from Honduras has denied the existence of the negotiations.

  You should go through the transcript from the Chit Chat. At one point, Paul Snow is asserting that There isn't a Honduras deal even announced by them on their website, despite junseth showing him multiple times the url. It's an obvious lie. This is why I have no reason to communicate with Paul Snow at this point - he's an obvious scammer. (Read the transcript)

  This is the URL to the Reuters story on our site, and the most detailed quote about the project in said story:

  "Kirby said Factom started negotiations in January. The pilot project should be completed by the end of the year, with the goal of eventually putting all of the government's land titles on the blockchain, he added.

  No word about a contract. Uses the words "should", "goal", "eventually" about a "pilot project". Does not use the words "contract" or "secured".

  Pretty obvious now as it was pretty obvious in the log that I represented the facts pretty consistently. As I told you straight away, we do not have a contract yet. The story was primed for later release, but went out early.

  I gave you a point for point discussion, listing all the errors in your "timeline" and the milestones we have reached. You can't even admit that Epigraph was mentioned in the FIRST article that was published. Most readers would assume if you cannot respond, this must be nothing more than unjustified Libel. And of course they would be right.

  As for my opinions - they are my own, and I put them here because I'd like to be attached to them. As for the official counterparty viewpoint - it's an open source project. If you believe that Counterparty is a company with an official stance -then I'd just as soon have you rather believe that bitcoin is a company with an official stance. (So that I can tell you my views are the 'official' views of Bitcoin.)

  I'll take your word for that. I am pretty sure many people using Counterparty are happy to know that your own lack of integrity does not reflect on their project.

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 8:12 PM
  Permalink
  1 like
• brighton36

  

  Offline
  Posts: 66
  Location: Miami, FL

  @paul RE: There is no language anywhere that says we have secured a contract.

  And you know this. Here you go paul, it's unequivocal: http://blog.factom.org/post/119366700609/honduras-to-build-land-title-registry-using . You are a liar.

  As for the people sidechanneling you - I have people side-channeling me as well. Of the 400 or so people to read this thread - only four or so have bothered to weigh in.

  You want to make an issue of the ordering of events in the timeline, rather than talk about the economics of your project? The Timeline was approximate, and if the order is off slightly, the content doesn't change in the slightest.

  You peddle shitcoins Paul - my integrity is not what's compromised here.

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 8:18 PM
  Last Edited: November 15, 2015 at 8:29 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• brighton36

  

  Offline
  Posts: 66
  Location: Miami, FL

  RE: This came AFTER the token sale (April 2nd - May 15), not before as you imply here.

  Also Paul , a lie. It came in quite nicely on the last day of the crowdsale. And you did two more rounds of investment after this.

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 8:29 PM
  Last Edited: November 15, 2015 at 8:29 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @brighton36 @paul RE: There is no language anywhere that says we have secured a contract.

  And you know this. Here you go paul, it's unequivocal: http://blog.factom.org/post/119366700609/honduras-to-build-land-title-registry-using . You are a liar.

  The word "contract" DOES NOT APPEAR on that page. Who is lying? Here is the text at that URL:

  Honduras to Build Land Title Registry Using Bitcoin Technology

  Honduras, one of the poorest countries in the Americas, has agreed to use a Texas-based company to build a permanent and secure land title record system using the underlying technology behind bitcoin, a company official said late Thursday.

  Factom, a U.S. blockchain technology company based in Austin, Texas, will provide the service to the government of Honduras, the firm’s president, Peter Kirby, said. The company is doing the project with Epigraph, a title software company that uses blockchain technology, also based in Austin.

  Factom would not reveal the cost of the project. Honduras would become only the second government to use blockchain, which increases transparency in a transaction, to manage government data, after reports that the Isle of Man would test a government-run blockchain project.

  “In the past, Honduras has struggled with land title fraud,” said Kirby. “The country’s database was basically hacked. So bureaucrats could get in there and they could get themselves beachfront properties.”

  Ebal Jair Díaz Lupian, the Honduran government’s chief of staff, did not respond to several attempts from Reuters to contact him via email and telephone.

  By building an immutable title record, backed by blockchain, Honduras can leapfrog systems built in the developed world, Kirby said. He added that this would allow for more secure mortgages, contracts, and mineral rights.

  “This also gives owners of the nearly 60 percent of undocumented land, an incentive to register their property officially.” The blockchain is a ledger of all of a digital currency’s transactions and is viewed as bitcoin’s main technological innovation. The technology is evolving beyond the digital currency, though, to applications like title databases and data verification systems. Kirby said Factom started negotiations in January. The pilot project should be completed by the end of the year, with the goal of eventually putting all of the government’s land titles on the blockchain, he added.

  Honduras, a country of about 8 million people, has the world’s highest murder rate, fuelling a surge in child migration to the United States. The country’s GDP per capita in 2013 was estimated at $1,577, according to the World Bank, making it one of the poorer countries in the Western hemisphere.

  The government’s debt has more than quadrupled since 2008 amid sluggish growth.

  (Reporting by Gertrude Chavez-Dreyfuss; Editing by Alan Crosby)

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 9:23 PM
  Permalink
  1 like
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @brighton36 RE: This came AFTER the token sale (April 2nd - May 15), not before as you imply here.

  Also Paul , a lie. It came in quite nicely on the last day of the crowdsale. And you did two more rounds of investment after this.

  I note that you can't respond with actual facts. You hope nobody will look at your links. You can't respond to the detail I provided on each of your so called "points". You can't talk about the progress our project has made.

  You want to make an issue of the ordering of events in the timeline, rather than talk about the economics of your project? The Timeline was approximate, and if the order is off slightly, the content doesn't change in the slightest.

  How about the claim we mislead investors about Epigraphs role? You know, the company mentioned in the very first announcement? How does that not change something "in the slightest"?

  You claim I lie, but you can't actually produce anything I have said that is a lie. How does that work?

  You peddle shitcoins Paul - my integrity is not what's compromised here.

  No more than your Counterparty tokens, my friend. The only difference between our token and a Counterparty token is where the code is that defines the token, and some hashing. We are both running on top of the Bitcoin Blockchain.

  And all the tokens that will be sold have been sold. No more will be generated until servers are elected. And we raised some money with the token sale, but we have to meet our milestones to collect. We deployed the protocol, and there are applications running on it today. That triggered the release of 1/3 of the token sale. Presently 2/3 of the token sale has not been touched. And we set up independent review to ensure this was the case. All of this has been disclosed to all the investors.

  None of that is in your summary. Why is that?

  Posted on November 15, 2015 at 9:48 PM
  Permalink
  1 like
• Phoenix

  

  Offline
  Posts: 32

  @brighton36 @phoenix - you have no post history prior to this thread. We have caught Factom astroturfing in the past, and I would assume at this point that you have a very close tie to them.

  Oh boy, you're so predictable. Please don't try your low-level-manipulation with me. My ties to Factom are that I'm invested because it's a great project. I see all what I want to see. A great idea with a lot of potential. A professional and skilled team, and: Honesty! I focus on that. And of course, I have some intention that you don't get away with your bullshit. But I'm speaking for myself. @PaulSnow and I never had direct contact, and I'm nothing special.

  Your problem with me is: I have some talent in psychology and I'm making sure you can't ignore me. I know what this is about. It's already in the title: "per-cryptonaughts-request". This thread was a stupid reaction on a provocation. It's the result of your ego-problem. And a new thread wasn’t needed because you have new facts. It’s because you have to hide that you still have zero facts! And your "timeline" is that long and full of bullshit because it’s the attempt to cover up that you have nothing! Right or right?

  This is your ego-show, and I'm playing just the game you've started. Live with that. Good luck.

  Paul Snow is lying in this very thread: The Hondurus deal was announced on the morning of their last day of funding (the 15th). I suspect it was timed that way so as to give the project a bit of boost on its way out. BUT even if it is a "mistake", it's not like that would matter - there were two more fundraises thereafter during which Factom still advertised that contract as having been secured on its own website.

  You should go through the transcript from the Chit Chat. At one point, Paul Snow is asserting that There isn't a Honduras deal even announced by them on their website, despite junseth showing him multiple times the url. It's an obvious lie. This is why I have no reason to communicate with Paul Snow at this point - he's an obvious scammer. (Read the transcript)

  No one is this stupid phoenix, you are an astroturfer.

  See, you call him a Scammer, not because you believe that he is a Scammer. You just pretend that because you need a reason not to discuss the facts with him. Would be too revealing, right? And you would like to give the impression I would have close ties to Factom to try this "strategy" with me as well. It's manipulation-for-dummies and you don't know what you're doing here.

  Psychology is in some ways nearly algorithmic. It's always about intentions. And you show a lot more than you want me or anybody to see.

  The relevant part is "This is why I have no reason to communicate with Paul Snow". Your argumentation makes no sense, but it shows your intention. You just have lies, that's why you fear the facts. You fear honesty, because you just have your low-level-manipulation and your ego-game and a lot of jealousy. You want discredit a legit project (in fact not just Factom) and people involved? I'm helping you discrediting yourself.

  So, back to topic:

  You say:

  „there were two more fundraises thereafter during which Factom still advertised that contract as having been secured on its own website.“

  • Please quote where do they speak of a contract.
  • You say it’s "unequivocal"… you should be able to show what exactly is unequivocal.
  • Please tell me, what’s wrong about fundraising.
  • Please tell me, what’s wrong if a team says what they’re doing?
  • Please tell me, what’s wrong with the article?

  And… let’s try something new:

  • Please be precise
  • please reply on every(!) question
  • please use quotes to underline your claims!

  Would that be okay for you? Do you see anything dishonest in that?

  And, please tell me… why don’t you think it would be fair to update your post with a link to Paul Snow’s reply? Wouldn’t that be transparent, honest and fair?

  As for my opinions - they are my own, and I put them here because I'd like to be attached to them. As for the official counterparty viewpoint - it's an open source project. If you believe that Counterparty is a company with an official stance -then I'd just as soon have you rather believe that bitcoin is a company with an official stance. (So that I can tell you my views are the 'official' views of Bitcoin.)

  Jeez, there's some newbies in this thread...

  I know that this is your ego game. But don't call it "opinions". That aren't opinions. You spread lies about a legit project and people.

  Posted on November 16, 2015 at 6:26 AM
  Last Edited: November 16, 2015 at 6:27 AM
  Permalink
  1 like
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  @PaulSnow - Please put together a concise list of questions you'd like Chris to answer or accusations you'd like him to provide supporting evidence for.

  @brighton36 will have 24 hours after you post to respond substantively either proving himself right or admitting that he is not able to support his claim. He should post his evidence to this thread so everyone on the LTB platform who cares can decide for themselves if his accusations are credible.

  If he declines to do this, he'll join Joshua in the newly created "Liar" usergroup. (I'm assuming Joshua isn't going to suddenly prove his case but I'll be happy to be proven wrong)

  This usergroup doesn't affect posting, the rewards program or permissions at all vs a normal account but it'll have the title "Liar" so that people interacting with them on the forum can see that this is a person who makes big loud accusations, demanding action on the part of others without being willing to support the case to the satisfaction of anyone not already in on the lynching.

  And then hopefully we can end this waste of time. @brighton36, Either prove Factom is a scam or let Paul get back to work and stop using the LTB platform for your witchhunts just because you don't have a community of your own to try and rile up. We're nice and try to provide a neutral, open platform to everyone but this it's stupid to let you abuse productive people this just because we don't want you screaming censorship. You won't be censored, you'll just be labeled what you're inability to support your accusations continues to prove you to be, a liar who just wants people on the internet to like him.

  Posted on November 16, 2015 at 9:48 AM
  Permalink
  1 like
• PaulSnow

  

  Offline
  Posts: 30

  @adam, @brighton36 @Junseth

  Please put together a concise list of questions you'd like Chris to answer or accusations you'd like him to provide supporting evidence for.

  Thanks for this opportunity. I'd be happy to provide a list of questions, and I'd be happy to keep it to a small and easy to manage number. I would like a couple of days to do this, since today is going to be very busy, and I'd like to give a reasonable amount of time and effort to do this right.

  Posted on November 16, 2015 at 10:43 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes

Post Reply