Michael Taggart claims to be BitShares Co-founder?

[Murderistic]

these are the facts:

* CNX = Cryptonomex = they worked for BitShares for some time, but are in no way "owners" or something. It's a blockchain company to my knowledge

CNX owns a lot of stuff in use, you might want to check into that Fav.

[Stan]

someone comes here asking a question and what he gets are 2 pages of attacks. for fucks sake, I've never felt so embarrassed for this community, and I'm here for a long time.

these are the facts:

* Anyone who invested in BTS is free to call themselves whatever they like. (remember CEO's of Bitcoin?) - I leave it up to you to give that value or not.
* CNX = Cryptonomex = they worked for BitShares for some time, but are in no way "owners" or something. It's a blockchain company to my knowledge
* BMI 18.5 to 24.9 is Normal weight

I strongly recommend this clown fiesta to end right now and start to communicate without personal attacks or this thread will be closed.

I do find Michael claiming to be a "founder" of BitShares a bit of a stretch to say the very least, however. Obviously Stan, Michael, and I have some differences of opinion on exactly what that term means. I was one of the earliest employees at Invictus, yet I don't consider myself a founder. Here's the definition I generally agree with: "The person who creates an organization or a company is known as the founder." To my knowledge, there are exactly two founders for BitShares: Dan Larimer and Charles Hoskinson.

Actually, I filed the paperwork that founded Invictus Innovations at the request of Dan and Charles.
Charles secured the funding and Dan invented the technology.  Notestein and Li were also there in the beginning.

Invictus worked very hard to emphasize that BitShares was an independent company that came into existence when those who downloaded free Invictus software started the blockchain running for the first time.
 
When it started running, there were initial genesis holders of 100% of the BitShares based on contributions they made or mining they did.  Lots of us were among them.

But since Invictus refuses to claim foundership of BitShares, you'll have to look to those who did the work and claimed the shares as its founders.

Since then Cryptonomex was founded by about 30 people who contributed cash and sweat equity.  They are listed as co-founders on the official stock documents.

Michael is listed among those cofounders.

Cryptonomex provided the software BitShares is now using.

So Michael has two perfectly valid claims to using "cofounder" on his resume if he wants to.

[Murderistic]

someone comes here asking a question and what he gets are 2 pages of attacks. for fucks sake, I've never felt so embarrassed for this community, and I'm here for a long time.

these are the facts:

* Anyone who invested in BTS is free to call themselves whatever they like. (remember CEO's of Bitcoin?) - I leave it up to you to give that value or not.
* CNX = Cryptonomex = they worked for BitShares for some time, but are in no way "owners" or something. It's a blockchain company to my knowledge
* BMI 18.5 to 24.9 is Normal weight

I strongly recommend this clown fiesta to end right now and start to communicate without personal attacks or this thread will be closed.

I do find Michael claiming to be a "founder" of BitShares a bit of a stretch to say the very least, however. Obviously Stan, Michael, and I have some differences of opinion on exactly what that term means. I was one of the earliest employees at Invictus, yet I don't consider myself a founder. Here's the definition I generally agree with: "The person who creates an organization or a company is known as the founder." To my knowledge, there are exactly two founders for BitShares: Dan Larimer and Charles Hoskinson.

Actually, I filed the paperwork that founded Invictus Innovations at the request of Dan and Charles.
Charles secured the funding and Dan invented the technology.  Notestein and Li were also there in the beginning.

Invictus worked very hard to emphasize that BitShares was an independent company that came into existence when those who downloaded free Invictus software started the blockchain running for the first time.
 
When it started running, there were initial genesis holders of 100% of the BitShares based on contributions they made or mining they did.  Lots of us were among them.

But since Invictus refuses to claim foundership of BitShares, you'll have to look to those who did the work and claimed the shares as its founders.

Since then Cryptonomex was founded by about 30 people who contributed cash and sweat equity.  They are listed as co-founders on the official stock documents.

Michael is listed among those cofounders.

Cryptonomex provided the software BitShares is now using.

So Michael has two perfectly valid claims to using "cofounder" on his resume if he wants to.

 

Well now that THAT is solved, I am going to go for a walk, and NOT play the CIA created Pokemon Go.

[nomoreheroes7]

Wow, that was...intense. I generally agree with Fav here though that this entire discourse was pretty damn embarrassing. Murderistic, people are going to cry scam and hurl insults at you. This is crypto -- it's fairly standard stuff around here. But attacking back with childish insults of your own is a terrible "business development" strategy and I would say demonstrates a very poor sense of business acumen. I've seen Mark react the exact same way as you have when he was called out and I was glad not to be a part of Banx when I saw that.

...Guess I'm just a bit disappointed that these things aren't more obvious, especially when we're talking about millions (potentially billions) of people's dollars here...

[DMo09]

This post is embarrassing for the Bts community.
Murduristic - your behavior is unbelievably childish.
Someone should delete this post and we should all try to learn from it.

[Murderistic]

Wow, that was...intense. I generally agree with Fav here though that this entire discourse was pretty damn embarrassing. Murderistic, people are going to cry scam and hurl insults at you. This is crypto -- it's fairly standard stuff around here. But attacking back with childish insults of your own is a terrible "business development" strategy and I would say demonstrates a very poor sense of business acumen. I've seen Mark react the exact same way as you have when he was called out and I was glad not to be a part of Banx when I saw that.

...Guess I'm just a bit disappointed that these things aren't more obvious, especially when we're talking about millions (potentially billions) of people's dollars here...

I can appreciate your position, however...

I have already attempted to communicate with Ian in a professional manner in the recent past.

Ian has reneged on his previous agreement.

Ian came here to attack me.

He started the exchange with an insult and name calling.

After the "question" was confirmed, he then made more disparaging remarks about me and was saying untrue things.

THEN I decided to play at his level.

Don't shoot a gun at someone and expect not to be shot at back.

I already tried the higher road with this guy, he likes the mud as is evident by his post.

He wants to try and pull what he did to Mark on me, sorry - not sorry.

[Murderistic]

This post is embarrassing for the Bts community.
Murduristic - your behavior is unbelievably childish.
Someone should delete this post and we should all try to learn from it.

I would say the defense of this guy attacking members here is what is embarrassing. 

You tell me I am embarrassing you by my behavior?  I responded to him clearly in the first post, and yet he decides to continue with his slander, his remarks about "running", and anything else he is 100% ignorant about.

The second I decide to throw it back I am a bad person?

But you are entitled to your opinion. 

I would defend you against this hack as well, even if you don't agree with me.

[lil_jay890]

Wow, that was...intense. I generally agree with Fav here though that this entire discourse was pretty damn embarrassing. Murderistic, people are going to cry scam and hurl insults at you. This is crypto -- it's fairly standard stuff around here. But attacking back with childish insults of your own is a terrible "business development" strategy and I would say demonstrates a very poor sense of business acumen. I've seen Mark react the exact same way as you have when he was called out and I was glad not to be a part of Banx when I saw that.

...Guess I'm just a bit disappointed that these things aren't more obvious, especially when we're talking about millions (potentially billions) of people's dollars here...

I can appreciate your position, however...

I have already attempted to communicate with Ian in a professional manner in the recent past.

Ian has reneged on his previous agreement.

Ian came here to attack me.

He started the exchange with an insult and name calling.

After the "question" was confirmed, he then made more disparaging remarks about me and was saying untrue things.

THEN I decided to play at his level.

Don't shoot a gun at someone and expect not to be shot at back.

I already tried the higher road with this guy, he likes the mud as is evident by his post.

He wants to try and pull what he did to Mark on me, sorry - not sorry.

The only thing childish was calling him fat and that he only runs when he sees the ice cream truck... 

Granted future president Trump talks like this, so I guess being a leader != acting like an adult.

[nomoreheroes7]

This post is embarrassing for the Bts community.
Murduristic - your behavior is unbelievably childish.
Someone should delete this post and we should all try to learn from it.

I would say the defense of this guy attacking members here is what is embarrassing. 

You tell me I am embarrassing you by my behavior?  I responded to him clearly in the first post, and yet he decides to continue with his slander, his remarks about "running", and anything else he is 100% ignorant about.

The second I decide to throw it back I am a bad person?

But you are entitled to your opinion. 

I would defend you against this hack as well, even if you don't agree with me.

I believe you, and believe you have the best intentions. I also don't think you're out to scam and as Stan says you could be providing some excellent business development opportunities.

It's just the way the argument played out over a public forum...just kind of reflects poorly on BTS' professionalism is all. It may have been best in this case to have just ignored him and let the thread die on its own.

[DMo09]

My point is, try to be more professional when publicly representing Bts in the future. Especially when resolving disputes.
This BS can be distracting.

[TaleRecursion]

[member=19185]Murderistic[/member]: in this thread you say

1. I was never a part of BANX.  EVER

But on the screenshot of your Angel.co profile posted by [member=40057]IanDeMartino[/member], we can read in the "experience" section at the bottom of the screenshot

Banx
Founder

In my book that's a contradiction.
Do you have an explanation (other than blaming that on your employee)?

[Murderistic]

I already answered that question, and I am sure she would be happy to get on the forum to respond that she created the account. 

You see, I have employees that do those things because I am busy.  I never checked, and today was the first I heard of it.  It happens.

I addressed it with her, and with Ian, and now with you.

Now that is clear.

[Murderistic]

I believe you, and believe you have the best intentions. I also don't think you're out to scam and as Stan says you could be providing some excellent business development opportunities.

It's just the way the argument played out over a public forum...just kind of reflects poorly on BTS' professionalism is all. It may have been best in this case to have just ignored him and let the thread die on its own.

I agree about letting it die, I considered it.  But then I also know his MO and have seen his past wrecking ball attempts.

My point is, try to be more professional when publicly representing Bts in the future. Especially when resolving disputes.
This BS can be distracting.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.  I am just letting you know this isn't the first time, this isn't the second or third time, and won't be the last of his harassment.  He was already making threats, and has made threats on this thread.

I will represent myself as I see fit, though I do appreciate the software tone and your constructive feedback.

Perhaps I should not have tossed some mud, but when it is pearls before swine, the pearls will get muddy no matter what.

[IanDeMartino]

I already answered that question, and I am sure she would be happy to get on the forum to respond that she created the account. 

You see, I have employees that do those things because I am busy.  I never checked, and today was the first I heard of it.  It happens.

I addressed it with her, and with Ian, and now with you.

Now that is clear.

So your employee, working on her own accord, decided to name you as the Founder of Banx, a company you never had anything to do with? That is what you are saying?

Was her name Anna Chennault as well? Did she do it as the behest of her boss in Texas?

[TaleRecursion]

I already answered that question, and I am sure she would be happy to get on the forum to respond that she created the account. 

You see, I have employees that do those things because I am busy.  I never checked, and today was the first I heard of it.  It happens.

I addressed it with her, and with Ian, and now with you.

Now that is clear.

You are evading the question. Your answer earlier was about your claim of being a Bitshares founder. I'm talking about the claim of being a Banx founder, which paints a very clear picture of your level of involvement in Banx.