Ethereum Association/Integration with Blocknet Scammers

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114228/blocknet-adding-ethereum-to-suite-of-supported-currencies
From a strictly technical perspective (i.e. code): Blocknet doesn't integrate coins by adding them to its own codebase... Coins integrate Blocknet's code (xbridge) into their own codebase (thus enabling cross-chain communication).
Therefore, Ethereum itself has to add "xbridge" to their own codebase in order to become "Blocknet-enabled."
I don't want to fly off the handle. But there are some extremely shady things going on with the Blocknet / XC situation. They have been caught lying, dumping pre-mine while saying they weren't, changing coin output schedules, moving key features from XC to Blocknet in order to raise more funds, close associations with two highly known scammers (Jasinlee & Bobsurplus) and a variety of other things.

I would like some clarification from the Ethereum team on if you are integrating Blocknet into your code, how deep the collaboration goes between the two teams & if Ethereum is funding blocknet via grants

Comments

  • GeorgeHallamGeorgeHallam Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 229 admin
    edited May 2015
    As mentioned in the article...
    For its part, Ethereum is more or less just allowing the Blocknet team to do what it does best. There is no official partnership between the two, but Blocknet devs have applied for an Ethereum Devgrant and the two teams are talking, but there is little to no work that needs to be done on Ethereum's side of things. Both teams stress that this isn't a business partnership or even a formal agreement, but is instead the two networks becoming interoperable,
    So:
    • There is no official partnership between the two.

    • They have applied for a DEVgrant, not received.

    • Both teams stress that this isn't a business partnership or even a formal agreement.
    Does this clarify the situation? Ethereum isn't going to actively stop someone from using it's tech. It's open source and everyone has the right to use it as they see fit. We're not doing anything on our end to assist with this, but if someone wants to try and make our tech more accessible, then so be it.


  • rdnkjdirdnkjdi Member Posts: 135 ✭✭
    edited May 2015
    I understand making Ethereum available / open source to all but per quote - Ethereum would be having to incorporate code from the Blocknet into Ethereum (per how blocknet works). Is this the case?

    The article really doesn't say much but at the same time makes it clear that there is an association / collaboration between the two teams.

    I'm interested in the nature of the collaboration (the article says little while at the same time insinuating / explaining that the two teams are in collaboration). Tread carefully with this one & dig into the past before getting too deep in ...
  • StephanTualStephanTual London, EnglandMember, Moderator Posts: 1,282 mod
    @rdnkjdi Ethereum is not integrating anyone's code. As George's Hallam indicated, there is no official partnership, and no joint PR. There is also no collaboration between teams.

    As for grants, anyone, including Blocknet, is allowed to engage with EthGrants and apply.
  • Michael_AMichael_A LondonMember Posts: 61
    @GeorgeHallam
    I confirm Blocknet's reputation within the crypto community is awful.
    I cannot said that all dev from Blocknet are all scammer and non honnest ( I am sure it is not the case )
    However some of them are linked with XC especially Jasinlee who has been investigated by the US authority for a 5Millions $ fraud over a very sophisticated ponzyscheme: a fake ASIC mining company in order to attracted people and a pump and dump Scam: Cashcoin.
    https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=21506.0

    I would suggest that Ethereum team take this into consideration and be very suspicious over everyone related with the XC project.
    In the event of reputation systems where the market will auto-rate actors, I would rate Blocknet "highly suspicious"
  • rdnkjdirdnkjdi Member Posts: 135 ✭✭
    @StephanTual - Thank you for the clarification
  • ArielMizrahiArielMizrahi Member Posts: 5
    I was absolutely blown away when I heard about the association. At first I assumed this was another typical pump tactic that they often employ with no substance behind it. But people from XC/Blocknet are going around claiming that Ethereum is going to be integrating their "xbridge" code.

    Now reading this thread here it seems like that's not the case, which sounds a lot more sane. I can only guess that anyone who's been communicating with Arlyn Culwick and Dan Metcalf is completely unaware of who they are in the alt currency community and what has gone on in 2014 with XC and Blocknet. Alt cryptocurrencies have a bad reputation as everyone knows, and it's precisely due to bad actors like Dan and Arlyn acting unethically.

    It's a bit unfortunate that they were able to twist this in to something it's not and cause a minor PR issue for the project here. At the very least the Blocknet people should stop publicly claiming that Ethereum is going to be using their code, and stop misleading people on the nature of the relationship.
  • synechistsynechist OxfordMember Posts: 1
    edited May 2015
    Dear all

    I am Arlyn Culwick, on the Blocknet's Core Team. For purposes of transparency, my LinkedIn profile is here, and you may find various activities of mine on the web and particularly on arlynculwick.com

    I'd like to address the remarks posted above.


    RDNKJDI

    To begin with, the person identifying him/herself as RDNKJDI (whose identity is by no means clear but who has been caught using multiple usernames to smear the Blocknet in a Litecoin thread) appears to be attempting to perpetrate a continuation of the smear campaign (s)he and other groups mounted against the Blocknet. A summary of the campaign (which I wrote) may be found here: http://altcoinspeculation.com/blocknet-will-it-be-built/. Most of RDNKJDI's remarks above are addressed there.


    Indefensible claims

    RDNKJDI and the other people here in agreement (if some aren't just accounts held by the same person) make statements which, fortunately, there are no reasonable grounds to hold.

    - An alleged "typical pump tactic": no, the history of BLOCK's price reveals that it has never been pumped. Look it up for yourself.

    - There is "no substance behind this news"? Again, no:
    - Constantin, a Senior Technical Analyst from Ethereum, reviewed our code once we started talking about enabling Ethereum's dapps to deliver services to nodes on different blockchains. Things proceeded from there.
    - here are our Github repositories: https://github.com/atcsecure?tab=repositories
    - here are on-demand test builds of our decentralized exchange alpha: http://builds.xcurrency.co:8888/
    - the people we've been in touch with at Ethereum are interested in Ether becoming available on our decentralised exchange when it is ready.
    - we are on their exchange workgroup.


    Ethereum and the Blocknet?

    Now, to address the nature of our relationship with Ethereum, I confirm George and Stephan's remarks above:
    - there is no "partnership" between the Blocknet and Ethereum. The Coin Telegraph article is explicit about this.
    - we are applying for a dev grant.
    - we are not collaborating with Ethereum on development. We're creating our tech ourselves.
    - we're making it possible for dapps on Ethereum's chain to deliver their services to nodes on different chains. That's it.


    What are we?

    Finally, I request that readers here rethink their view of the Blocknet in the light of events following October's smear campaign:
    - we've simply put our heads down and got to work. (cf. github repos)
    - we've produced code in the absence of any pumps or other short term rewards.
    - we've recently partnered with Bitnation.
    - we've started a think tank.
    - we've recently welcomed a well-known and reputable member of the crypto community onto our Core Team.
    - and finally, we're making Ethereum capable of delivering its incredible tech to nodes on different blockchains.

    Any rational assessment of these facts would conclude that we cannot possibly be a pump and dump operation. What was said about us last year was, unequivocally, a vicious attack by competitors and opponents, and that these opinions deserve to be completely overturned.

    We're doing something valuable. Time to get the picture?



    P.S. I don't intend on getting embroiled in a discussion here. This is a statement, not an invitation to regurgitate claims against the Blocknet that were repudiated last year.
    P.P.S. My apologies, George and Stephan, for your having to field these queries.
    Post edited by synechist on
  • Michael_AMichael_A LondonMember Posts: 61
    edited May 2015
    @synechist There is no smoke without fire ... and there is no Conspiracy against Blocknet

    I have no relation with RDNKJDI and I am on linkedin as well ;)
    Lots of people from Litecoin and dogecoin community have been hurt by very smart scammers, so don't be surprise if peoples get red when they are reading XC want to interact with ethereum.
    Like I said before I am sure that most people from Blocknet are not like Jasinlee but until the end the US investigation It is normal to expect people to complain...



    Post edited by Michael_A on
  • ArielMizrahiArielMizrahi Member Posts: 5
    @synechist All anyone has to do is follow everything that went on with XC and Blocknet in 2014. Actions speak for themselves. Anyone who cares can look at what happened and follow the pattern of unethical behavior.

    Your main claim now seems to be that you're still working on Blocknet and you didn't take the money and run. Okay, but that doesn't really change the past.

    And just because Blocknet "has never been pumped" it doesn't mean that you don't at least attempt to employ pump tactics. You even claimed the fair market value for Blocknet tokens was 900% over the ITO price right before you started selling them in the original ITO document you posted.

    You should tell people to stop posting that Ethereum is going to be integrating your code in to their project: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=830893.msg11384883#msg11384883

    The only thing that matters is that people involved with Ethereum understand who they're dealing with here. And I have no relation of anyone in this thread, and I'm certainly not involved in any sort of conspiracy. But when I read the post that I just linked to, I felt the need to at least pop in here and give people the heads up in case it was true.
  • TakingNotesTakingNotes Member Posts: 4
    edited May 2015
    @ArielMizrahi

    Accusations =/= unethical behavior. I have not seen one accusation against the Blocknet that was substantiated with hard evidence.

    We all know how poisonous this crypto-space can be. This is an environment where projects and investors are competing for marketcap. Yes, this environment motivates some illegitimate projects to act with ill intentions. However, this environment also motivates competing projects / investors to "smear" and bring false accusations against legitimate rival projects in attempt to discredit their legitimacy.

    I have been active in this space since early 2013. To date, I am hard pressed to think of one alt-project with a "clean slate" that has not been viciously attacked by the competitive environment in which it is forced to co-exist.
    Post edited by TakingNotes on
  • rdnkjdirdnkjdi Member Posts: 135 ✭✭
    edited May 2015
    Indefensible claims
    You made the exact same statement when I posted walls and walls of text regarding the Jasinlee incident. I had no proof, nothing to back up claims etc etc when there was plenty of proof I linked to that you failed to read or ignored.
    - An alleged "typical pump tactic": no, the history of BLOCK's price reveals that it has never been pumped. Look it up for yourself.
    A quote ... from you. About Blocknet in original marketing.
    "a gain in price of 450% can be expected after the ITO"


    I don't have a problem with pumps (as much) as scams. But for you to claim there were no pump attempts on blocknet with the documented history of Bobsurplus and quotes like the above from you - is untrue.

    Google "Devs dump XC premine silently" or "Bobsurplus & blocknet conversation" or "XC coin modification schedule" and come to your own conclusions.

    It might not be a bad idea to try and keep Ethereum's name away from other cryptos for awhile if possible. That article makes it look like there is unofficial collaboration. The Blocknet / XBridge technology "only supports other coins plugging it's code in" - hence the unofficial conclusion is that Ethereum will be using Blocknet code.

    People like to talk about how horrific / toxic the altcoin community has become. But there have been so many scammers (& I think with a little digging you will find that this is one of them.) that there's pretty good reason for it.

    A clear name is worth a lot in this space.

    P.S. I have no alt accounts ... feel free to IP check. & I resent the insinuation.

    Post edited by rdnkjdi on
  • ArielMizrahiArielMizrahi Member Posts: 5

    @ArielMizrahi

    Accusations =/= unethical behavior. I have not seen one accusation against the Blocknet that was substantiated with hard evidence.

    It's not about accusations. It's about having different standards of what qualifies as unethical. Looking back on 2014, you don't even have to get too deep in to things to pick out a handful of events that occurred that paint a pattern of unethical behavior. I'm confident that anyone involved with Ethereum who took an objective look at the history of XC/Blocknet Dan/Arlyn would not want to have any association with their project.

    The only evidence you need is that actions such as these actually occurred. It's how you draw your own conclusions about whether or not they're ethical or not. Here's a few things that actually happened, it's up each individual to determine whether or not they fit within their own ethical standards or not:

    - changing the XC coin emission schedule in the way that they did and moving to PoS
    - defending multimillion dollar ASIC scammer and team member jasinlee
    - Dan's code reviews. Doing paid code reviews for sketchy projects which imply endorsement, I consider unethical. Some might disagree, many people who saw the context of those code reviews and who was involved with those coins considered them unethical. Dan eventually stopped doing these code reviews after seeing the damage that they were doing to his reputation.
    - Dan selling off the XC premine without telling anyone after Arlyn promised transparency on reddit. Arlyn twisting the knife in the wound by trying to argue that by "transparency' he only meant that anyone could watch the blockchain.
    - defending Prometheus' involvement with Dan and Blocknet, Promethus being one of the most infamous pump and dumpers in the altcoin scene.

    http://imgur.com/a/1xbWq#0

    Some Ethereum people might remember those pics from /r/Bitcoin when everyone had a good laugh at how ridiculous the altcoin community is, including Promtheus claiming he's involved with Vitalik. Dan defends his association with Promethus of course. Dan's own words regarding Prometheus: "I consider Prometheus an ethical promoter". Arlyn will argue that Prometheus is ethical because some of the promised tech on some of his many pump and dump coins was eventually finished. Okay, if that's where you set your standard of ethics, that's fine.

    So it's great that Arlyn and Dan are trying to put all of that behind them now. Not being sarcastic. But really I think anyone considering any sort of involvement with them should at least try to take an objective look at the events that occurred in 2014 in relation to XC/Blocknet. I don't want to get in any further to this unless absolutely necessary, but if anyone wants to do their due diligence, it's all there. Some things might have been deleted, but it doesn't take very long for most to form an opinion when looking over the history of XC/Blocknet.
  • TakingNotesTakingNotes Member Posts: 4
    edited May 2015

    @rdnkjdi It's not an insinuation. You must have missed Aryln's text-embedded reference. You've been caught with hard evidence. See proof: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9459761#msg9459761

    rdnkjdi, "I've made it a sidehobby to publicize how corrupt these guys are with some alt accounts on bctalk." By your own admission, your alt accounts include: UnicornFarts and IsDanDone. However, there are likely several more.

    Now, you've also been caught lying in this very thread when you said, "P.S. I have no alt accounts ... feel free to IP check. & I resent the insinuation." How can anything you say be counted as credible?


    @AzrielMizrahi

    -XC was always a PoS coin. They shorted the PoW phase by about 1-2 weeks in order to prevent centralization of mining. Moreover, this was a decision made with the input of the entire community. You can find more info on how and why in the forums.
    -jasinlee was never part of the original dev team. He offered his help on the project several weeks after XC got started. Once XC learned about the issue of Jasinlee's asic venture, he was promptly removed from the team. The only thing XC defended was that they had never perceived any ill intention from jasinlee with regard to XC.
    -Dan only did a handful of code reviews. And there is nothing inherently unethical about vetting code. Seriously? This is the point of open-source.
    -The XC premine addy was always public, so yes, Arlyn is correct in it's transparent nature. He did not twist anything. And the XC community always understood that premine as Dan's own funds in addition to funds for development. Furtheremore, it was not "dumped" but slowly depleted over time.
    -Regarding Prometheus, all Dan defended was the fact that during his interactions with Prometheus, he was unaware that Prometheus was a bad actor. Furthermore, those Prometheus screenshots only "prove" that Prometheus was using Dan's name. They do not prove that Dan was also acting unethically.
    -If Prometheus would claim that he was involved with Vitalik (using his name for hype), that only further suggests that he was doing the same with Dan's name.

    Again, where's the hard evidence? All I see are allegations.

    If Ethereum would dismiss the massive benefit of Blocknet's open-source tech because a few trolls are trying to twist every action that Dan Metcalf makes, then they better be willing to forego "collaboration" with all other alt-projects, because I can find links to similar "smear" allegations for every major alt-project currently operating.
    Post edited by TakingNotes on
  • rdnkjdirdnkjdi Member Posts: 135 ✭✭
    edited May 2015
    Now, you've also been caught lying in this very thread when you said, "P.S. I have no alt accounts ... feel free to IP check. & I resent the insinuation." How can anything you say be counted as credible?
    Perhaps the irony was lost on you at my mock incredulity ... let me try this again.

    Arlyn
    - An alleged "typical pump tactic": no, the history of BLOCK's price reveals that it has never been pumped. Look it up for yourself.
    a gain in price of 450% can be expected after the ITO
    Rdnkjdi
    I resent the insinuation that I would have multiple accounts.
    Perhaps my sarcasm at imitating the way XC deals with allegations was lost.

    For context - Arlyn was insinuating that other accounts on this thread (XC / Blocknet) were mine. They are not.

    I tend to go with forum rules. I was receiving some unwanted nasty messages on bitcointalk. Per their forum rules I was allowed / encouraged to create alternate accounts (wild wild west of forums).

    I have no alt accounts on Ethereum & assume it's discouraged until told otherwise.
  • ArielMizrahiArielMizrahi Member Posts: 5
    edited May 2015



    -XC was always a PoS coin. They shorted the PoW phase by about 1-2 weeks in order to prevent centralization of mining. Moreover, this was a decision made with the input of the entire community. You can find more info on how and why in the forums.
    -jasinlee was never part of the original dev team. He offered his help on the project several weeks after XC got started. Once XC learned about the issue of Jasinlee's asic venture, he was promptly removed from the team. The only thing XC defended was that they had never perceived any ill intention from jasinlee with regard to XC.
    -Dan only did a handful of code reviews. And there is nothing inherently unethical about vetting code. Seriously? This is the point of open-source.
    -The XC premine addy was always public, so yes, Arlyn is correct in it's transparent nature. He did not twist anything. And the XC community always understood that premine as Dan's own funds in addition to funds for development. Furtheremore, it was not "dumped" but slowly depleted over time.
    -Regarding Prometheus, all Dan defended was the fact that during his interactions with Prometheus, he was unaware that Prometheus was a bad actor. Furthermore, those Prometheus screenshots only "prove" that Prometheus was using Dan's name. They do not prove that Dan was also acting unethically.
    -If Prometheus would claim that he was involved with Vitalik (using his name for hype), that only further suggests that he was doing the same with Dan's name.

    Again, where's the hard evidence? All I see are allegations.

    If Ethereum would dismiss the massive benefit of Blocknet's open-source tech because a few trolls are trying to twist every action that Dan Metcalf makes, then they better be willing to forego "collaboration" with all other alt-projects, because I can find links to similar "smear" allegations for every major alt-project currently operating.

    You try to divert the issue by asking for hard evidence and calling these events allegations, despite the fact that no one argues that they didn't take place. The question isn't whether or not these things happened, as the only disagreement yourself and others related to XC/Blocknet have is whether or not these actions are unethical and how they should be interpreted. I think the actions speak for themselves personally, but there are clearly a handful of people who are unphased by this sort of behavior.

    I didn't say that there was anything inherently unethical about vetting code. Doing paid code reviews that are used as implicit endorsements of shady projects run by bad actors something that many people would consider unethical. Dan stopped doing them for a reason, they were harming his reputation. There's a reason that some of the mathematicians and cryptographers who are involved in Bitcoin(and/or people from #bitcoin-wizards) who have done work for alts have decided to use pseudonyms. Try offering a bunch of money to Gavin or Vitalik here and see how excited they would be about attaching their name doing a code review for some random alt. If you don't think that there's ethical considerations to be made in situations like that then that's fine. People have different standards.

    You'll notice I didn't say "dumped" the premine in my post, I said that he sold it off without telling anyone. It actually wasn't Arlyn who originally posted on reddit regarding the premine, so I was mistaken there, see: http://www.reddit.com/r/XCofficialreddit/comments/26qqrq/xc_premine_wallet_made_public/. But he did try to play off that the claim "Any amount spent will be made public knowledge in our continued effort of transparency." as meaning that 'we won't actually say anything and since every transaction is on the blockchain everything is transparent by default'. By that logic every premine sell off in the history of altcoins has been transparent, and the meaning of the claim of being transparent holds no meaning since it's an inherent property of the blockchain. If you don't consider that twisting words, then fine too.

    So you believe that between Dan's code reviews and Dan's association with Prometheus, that Dan was naive of the ethical nature of these actions and associations. This is actually the first time I've heard this specific argument, as the party line in general has been to claim Prometheus' is an "ethical promoter". Again, different standards of ethics. Making the argument that creating multiple pump and dump altcoins one after the other isn't unethical is fine, but I'm sure you'll find that the majority of people in the cryptocurrency community would strongly disagree with that.

    You can dismiss this as a "smear" if you'd like but it doesn't change history. I have no intention other than making sure people who weren't following the dirty underbelly of altcoins in 2014 have a chance to make their own ethical assessment of the events that occurred. I'm sure if Ethereum was really integrating Blocknet code in to their codebase as was being claimed on Bitcointalk, that they would have done their due diligence anyway. Even now you can see that George and Stephen have gone out of their way to make specific statements regarding the nature of their relationship with Blocknet. Surprise, surprise they understand the implications of associating either their own personal names, or Ethereum itself with another project. Something that you claim that Dan was naive of when he was doing his code reviews.
  • TakingNotesTakingNotes Member Posts: 4
    edited May 2015

    @ArielMizrahi - Nice strawman. Not once did I equate the events themselves to allegations. I do not refute the historicity of events, but rather, the "smeared" interpretation of events and motives. Let's be honest: if Dan rushed in to push an old-lady out of the path of a speeding vehicle, saving her life -- you would be prosecuting him in court for first-degree assault the very next day. All of your posts have made "smear-colored interpretations" of events that took place (this, I label as allegations, unsubstantiated). However, you, nor anyone, has provided hard evidence to substantiate your "smear-colored interpretation" of the events themselves.

    In the end, you are left with opinion, not fact. Talk to me when you have some proof to vindicate your "interpretation" of history.

    Post edited by TakingNotes on
  • ArielMizrahiArielMizrahi Member Posts: 5
    Yes, we are left with opinion, as that is exactly what one must to when forming a subjective evaluation of the events that occurred. XC/Blocknet has a horrible reputation in the crypto space due to people forming an opinion about Dan et al after witnessing what has gone on.

    I don't care about Dan and have no vendetta against him beyond providing people information about things that have gone on in 2014. I think it's fine that he's apparently trying to move on as I've mentioned here before. But it doesn't mean that people shouldn't be informed so that they can make their own decisions with all the relevant info.

    We agree on the events that have been raised here and both have different interpretations of the ethicality of them. I can't provide hard evidence or proof of unethical behavior to you personally if you've already evaluated the events and deemed them ethical. People can decide on their own, and if someone wants more context or wants to know more information about things that have gone on I'll try dig out some of the posts to paint a clearer picture.




  • TakingNotesTakingNotes Member Posts: 4
    edited May 2015
    Every alt-project that resides on bitcointalk has a "horrible reputation," because competing projects & investors are motivated to ensure so.

    Moreover, Blocknet is open-source and decentralized. In other words, no trust is required. Similarly, Bitcoin is open-source and decentralized. No one has any idea who Satoshi Nakamoto is. But his identity is irrelevant because the tech speaks for itself.
    Post edited by TakingNotes on
  • Ether-LordEther-Lord Member Posts: 7
    edited May 2015

    if someone wants more context or wants to know more information about things that have gone on I'll try dig out some of the posts to paint a clearer picture.

    Hi @AzrielMizrahi, I am an Ethereum supporter and currently working towards building a DApp for the Ethereum platform (more to come on this later!). Furthermore, I am unfamiliar with Blocknet's past or present history.

    That being said, I ask that you please refrain from "digging up old posts to paint a clearer picture." It appears that everything productive has already been voiced, and it's time to let this thread come to a close (this goes for everyone else too). I believe I speak on behalf of all Ethereum supporters when I say that the last thing any of us want is for this forum to resemble (in any measure) the unproductive bickering and backbiting present within the altcoin sections of Bitcointalk. Also, it appears that @synechist has already linked a chronological ordering of events in his post. That is sufficient for anyone wanting to form their own opinion on Blocknet.

    Sincerely,
    Thomas



Sign In or Register to comment.