Michael Taggart claims to be BitShares Co-founder?

[Murderistic]

I suppose that was my mistake in having an open conversation with you.

My apologies for setting of your radar.

[gamey]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

I ran into this guy at the BItcoin thing in Vegas that several of us went to. I cant remember what we were chatting about to bring this up, but he was quick to talk about how he sold what I recall to be ~ $1 million worth of BTC at the peak.  It is a strange thing for someone with money to go around talking about amounts to random people like that so I wrote him off as a likely fraud. I always wondered if Murderistic was this same person.  Murderistic came around asking for $$ for some press release pass thing, but then refused to give out his identity. It was strange..

These are all from my memories and I may very well be wrong.

memories are indeed wrong.

I came around with a delegate proposal for a paid traffic campaign with banners and PPC traffic.  People didn't like it.  No press pass thing @gamey

As for calling me a scammer because I talked about the fact I bought bitcoin at $30 and sold at 997 = well I guess that is your opinion.

Not everyone there was random, I knew Brian and Stan and Dan and Gregory and several others for quite some time.  Maybe your recollection is fuzzier than you think.

No, the discussion was when we were walking away from the lunch get together  There was no Brian/Stan/Dan/Gregory in this discussion. I've known people with millions, some from family some self-made and I've never seen them openly talk about amounts to people they barely know. Mentioning your entry/exit point is one thing, but conveying how much you had is a different thing entirely. One is small talk and one is to demonstrate something. (for whatever reason)

[Murderistic]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

I ran into this guy at the BItcoin thing in Vegas that several of us went to. I cant remember what we were chatting about to bring this up, but he was quick to talk about how he sold what I recall to be ~ $1 million worth of BTC at the peak.  It is a strange thing for someone with money to go around talking about amounts to random people like that so I wrote him off as a likely fraud. I always wondered if Murderistic was this same person.  Murderistic came around asking for $$ for some press release pass thing, but then refused to give out his identity. It was strange..

These are all from my memories and I may very well be wrong.

memories are indeed wrong.

I came around with a delegate proposal for a paid traffic campaign with banners and PPC traffic.  People didn't like it.  No press pass thing @gamey

As for calling me a scammer because I talked about the fact I bought bitcoin at $30 and sold at 997 = well I guess that is your opinion.

Not everyone there was random, I knew Brian and Stan and Dan and Gregory and several others for quite some time.  Maybe your recollection is fuzzier than you think.

[Murderistic]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

Point out where I have scammed a single person.  Otherwise retract your statement.

I'll wait.

[gamey]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

I ran into this guy at the BItcoin thing in Vegas that several of us went to. I cant remember what we were chatting about to bring this up, but he was quick to talk about how he sold what I recall to be ~ $1 million worth of BTC at the peak.  It is a strange thing for someone with money to go around talking about amounts to random people like that so I wrote him off as a likely fraud. I always wondered if Murderistic was this same person.  Murderistic came around asking for $$ for some press release pass thing, but then refused to give out his identity. It was strange..

These are all from my memories and I may very well be wrong.

[Samupaha]

Wait and see. 

I really can't understand how you can think this will end well. I predict bad PR problems for Bitshares (wouldn't be the first time...).

[Stan]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

Wait and see. 

[Samupaha]

MichaelX on steemit has been a prolific contributor since he discovered it recently.  A quick scan of his posts show his awesome levels of competence.

He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares.

I've been always wondering why Bitshares hasn't managed to attract more great blockchain devs. If Murderistic/MichaelX has been running the show behind the scenes, that might explain something. As everybody can see from his posts in this topic, he is not very nice person. I'd run away and fast if I had to work with him. He is clearly very angry, bitter and can't tolerate any criticism. It sucks quite much to work with people like him.

It was horrifying to read Stan's approval for this person. I'm pretty sure Bitshares will have quite a lot difficulties attracting competent devs or investors as long as Michael and Mark Lyford are associated to it in any way.

Seriously Stan... Nobody cares your personal views about Michael or Mark. What's most important for Bitshares (and Steem) is that any kind of associations with well known scammers are avoided at any cost. Mark has already ruined his reputation in the eyes of public and now Michael is trying very hard to ruin his own reputation too. When you are applauding these guys, you are causing serious harm for the reputation of Bitshares (and Steem).

[Murderistic]

Don't worry Ian, you have made it clear what your agenda is here and what you plan on doing for the future by way of your veiled threats

Seriously, paranoid much? What veiled threats have I made?

and conversations you are having with people in private (they aren't as private as you think).

And what is this, but a veiled threat?


Ultimately, it seems highly suspicious to me, and I'd suspect everyone, that an employee of yours would make you the founder of a company you had no association with.

Why would she do that? Even after you worked her to the bone? Why would she confuse "no affiliation" with "founder?" That is a big jump, not like mixing up COO and CEO or something like that. But literally Zero to One Hundred.

Seems like quite a stretch to me.

Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. 

I will repeat this.  Read it a few times if you con't comprehend the first.

We were working day and night to get ready.  She was tasked with setting up both profiles - one for Mark, one for me.

She had only been working for me for 2 months at the time.

She was getting used to the 16+ projects I am working on at any given time.

Because I am pretty much founder or co-founder of every other project.

She setup both accounts and somehow got this setup mixed up.

Have you ever made a mistake in the past Ian?  Ever, when you were tired, or maybe distracted? 

Let's be reasonable, shall we?

Thank you for pointing out the error, it is now fixed and publicly addressed.

I would really appreciate you retracting your false statements about me, or at least updating the fact that your original question has been confirmed 8 ways from Sunday at this point.

Not likely you would extend such a courtesy, but hey - might as well ask.

PS - I thought a lot about it and I forgive you for the snake oil comment.  I also apologize for throwing mud back.

PPS - My wife made me type that.  Just kidding, but she did put things in perspective for me.

[MarkLyford]

I would like to confirm that Michael had never been a part of Banx and has only ever assisted me with marketing consultancy.

To also clarify I have no intention of engaging in this witch hunt B.S. I only want to confirm Michaels non involvement in Banx

Thank you

Mark

[ebit]

"He is the single most important business developer in the world to the near term future of BitShares."

If this is true, I would run from Bitshares as fast as possible.

I see Lyford in that picture, but I guess its not detailed enough for my to recognize Taggart or that Kevin Harrington guy. I'll take your word for it though, unless you want to point them out.

Taggard and Lyford stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Banx investors. If this man really is critically important for Bitshares, I feel bad for the bag holders.

Good luck.

Dont't worry ,bitcoin and ethereum is  about the same 。

[bitsharesbrazil]

if you want to spot a bitshares pump just pay attention for a heat debate at bitsharestalk, it always start this way 

[ebit]

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.

 

[东子]

Banned

- fav

[IanDeMartino]

Don't worry Ian, you have made it clear what your agenda is here and what you plan on doing for the future by way of your veiled threats

Seriously, paranoid much? What veiled threats have I made?

and conversations you are having with people in private (they aren't as private as you think).

And what is this, but a veiled threat?


Ultimately, it seems highly suspicious to me, and I'd suspect everyone, that an employee of yours would make you the founder of a company you had no association with.

Why would she do that? Even after you worked her to the bone? Why would she confuse "no affiliation" with "founder?" That is a big jump, not like mixing up COO and CEO or something like that. But literally Zero to One Hundred.

Seems like quite a stretch to me.