Not sure why you’re opening this up again, as if Maidsafe not taking a percentage from Maidsafe Asia, as we’ve just established (haven’t we?) then whatever CCP do is none of their concern… but OK… 
No, like I said, the fact that the actual document used the words “We have a strategic alliance with Maidsafe” - not my words.[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
This is what is stated in that document. No one knows who created/altered/uploaded it to Bitcointalk.
[/quote]
Eh? How do you know this? Who have you asked, given that CCP has nothing to do with Maidsafe?[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
The link on Bitcointalk doesn’t seem to be from CCP itself.
[/quote]
What gives you this impression?[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
And again, this document isn’t coming from CCP:
[/quote]
Again, what makes you so certain in your assertion? Are you in contact with them or something? Are you asserting that Centcoin, CCP100.com, the video, the document and the guy on bitcointalk are all nothing to do with CCP? If so, can I ask how you know all this?[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
more someone who is abusing their name
[/quote]
OK, what is their good name that is being abused? What is CCP’s actual business model if not this scammy ponzi sounding thing? Who are the real named people running the company and where do we find all this information?[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
like I said, who’s telling you that document is coming from them?
[/quote]
Who’s telling me it isn’t?[quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
Here’s the official CCP website
[/quote]
This is the same website the guy on bitcointalk asked people to visit:
“Please note that the phone number need to be valid because you will need to confirm it on ccp100.com and on that number you will receive sms everytime you sell or buy centcoins centseeds etc.”
The same crappy video is on this “official website” too. [quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
Feel free to link me to the official “literature” if I missed something.
[/quote]
Looks like you missed quite a lot Sherlock… [quote=“anon40790172, post:20, topic:13313”]
There’s also a misquote in your reply here. It looks like David linked to that google document which he didn’t.
[/quote]
Lol…that was a problem with the forum software that often happens and I can’t seem to correct. I think it would be pretty obvious to most people that this was the case as it also has me saying “Looks like the advice wasn’t heeded” in it too.
But yes…well done for spotting that. 10/10
Looks like they just polished the turd to me…
I remember now, the 15% malarkey stems from the @fergish podcast with Nick. I listened again and he only mentions it as a possible way for Maidsafe Solutions to make money when investing in developers and only guesses at 15% nothing concrete.
Definitely not Maidsafe taking 15% of Maidsafe Solutions.
That’s great and thanks for pointing out my mistake earlier.
No, it’s the other way around. You base all your assumptions on 1 person on Bitcointalk posting 1 document so you should prove that this is officially from CCP. I wouldn’t touch that person’s offer with a 10 foot pole, but that’s not the issue here. The thing is that you use a lot of big words without knowing any details about the poster. The poster itself clearly shows not to be part of the company but to be just an investor:
“I can show some print screen from my account” and “It’s gambling also” doesn’t really sound like an offer from a company to me. Again, prove to me that this is a legitimate document from CCP and show me the link to the same information on their website/twitter or whatever to backup your assumptions like this:
if you use big words you should come up with at least a little proof that your assumptions about that Bitcointalk person are right. Until that moment your claims sound quite fishy as they’re just based on 1 person posting 1 document in a topic on Bitcointalk.
just sayin
No, it isn’t actually…I’ll explain why…
Here’s why that is not the case :(I’ll try to keep it simple and not use too many big words. )
As you are the person making the assertion/claim, you are the person with the burden of proof…got it?
I (wisely 
) made no assertion/claim. What I did do was question your claim by pointing to the circumstantial evidence of the same website, same video etc. I had no need to do any of this though, so I’ll stop and back over to you, as you’re the one with the burden of proof.
You claim that “CCP do state”. This is not an IF. This is YOU stating that CCP stated something.
and here you do it again:
“that on reading the literature CCP has…” So you read something and automatically think that it’s coming from CCP. I dare to doubt that.
So it’s back you. Don’t try to turn this around 
.
None of this surprises me.
So it sounds like CCP is a small little independent idea that one of them had and is trying out. The few times they did mention it (see it written on the board in my trip pics), it sounded like ideas they were throwing around.
IDK who posted that on BTCtalk (nobody can / does) but I agree it’s worded very badly, but it’s also a very short thread and looks like they gave up on it, judging only from that thread.
And I don’t see anything else on the whole internet that shows anyone trying to pursue it in a malicious way.
Whenever there’s a new technology etc then we always get lots of ideas, and this sounds like one of those. But not affiliated with MaidSafe and probably won’t be pursued
@whiteoutmashups is the guy on your left not Alexander the marketing director for CCP?
If it is, I doubt he would be meeting with developers unless they have good intention?
He kept talking about a hedge fund, I thought he meant it was something with the other Alex, (Alexander “A”) of Coinpayments
Lol…I don’t understand what you don’t get.
Let’s break it down a bit, yes, I assume (given the lack of any evidence provided by you to the contrary) that those purporting to be CCP are in fact CCP. I also pointed to the fact and presented evidence that the bitcointalk guy was directing people to the site you claim is run by completely different people, that contains the same video.
Now what do you have to substantiate your claim?
How do you know the guy tweeting as Donald Trump is actually Donald Trump, or that anybody saying anything online anywhere is actually who they say they are?
Do you go running around telling everybody who quotes someone else to prove how they know its actually that person, when there’s nothing obvious to suggest it isn’t?
When people quote say Tim Berners Lee or literally any other person or link to an article, do you normally jump all over them and ask them to “prove” its actually that person?
The answer is clearly “No” because it would be ridiculous to do so. So the question is why do it to me now?
I think this demonstrates something very clearly. I assume as anybody else would, in all the above mentioned instances that people are who they purport to be.
Your position is completely untenable, you have claimed tn this one instance that the person I quoted is not that person and have not provided any evidence to substantiate this claim. Not only is the burden of proof on you, but you have gone above and beyond and your motivation for starting this issue is now highly questionable.
Its the very first time on this forum that I have heard a mod do such a thing
Lol this guy likes to fight^
But thx there is value to you bringing up these possibly harmful things
Yeah, I like to start my day with a nice bowl of ModFlakes…
I just realized your name means “Unbeliever.” perfect
Lol…did you just notice, yes the Infidel or unbeliever as you say…lol
Yeah, mods bla bla bla. The thing is: I just read this topic and saw it was filled with terms like “Ponzi scheme” and “Pump and Dump” all related to the name of some project. You could argue that you never claimed they were a Ponzi, but using the same terms over and over again clearly pressures people’s thoughts in one direction. It’s quite the same as news media pumping out Donald Trump items with titels like “Was Donald Trump lying about his trip to Russia?”. They’re not saying he is with a title like this but are questioning his honesty. These tricks were used by both sides during elections.
Now we have freedom of speech and you are clearly free to keep smashing terms around, even like you are free to not make a response to the clear examples I posted in my last reply of you making claims while you state you didn’t:
Here’s my reply showing the opposite.
but as you are free to make claims/statements here or just post your opinion, I’m free to post mine. You could play the “you as a mod” argument but it’s not really strong actually. You like to have conversations here, express your opinion but me -as a mod- am not allowed to do so? First of all I’m not in yellow so just posting as the good old Polpolrene and second of all that would be you trying to suppress my freedom of speech (you’re a mod!!) on this forum due to the fact that you don’t agree with me. Even while I’m 100% on-topic replying to comments you and others made.
So you can say that you think CCP and the poster are 1. I’m free to say that I think they’re not. Looks more like an overall trader to me:
And if you (or someone else) can show me with some sources that 1 and the other are the same, feel free to do so. Then we could agree 100% on the fact that they are. Until that moment I think they aren’t and that we shouldn’t throw terms like Ponzi and whatever around based on some Bitcointalk post.
@Al_Kafir Is a mod now? 
yay! Lol that would be pretty hilarious
I 'm done with you now, you’ve shown yourself up and I have no interest in reading anymore of your opinions.
What has just been demonstrated here, is I think, a clear case of discrimination……I’ll explain why:
It is a daily occurrence for people to post links and quote from people/documents within these links – it is actually an integral part of any functioning forum. What usually happens is the person posting provides the link, which gives the source of the information for others to decide on its veracity. This is common practise and in no way shape or form implies that any claim to veracity/authenticity has been made by the poster. The fact that the source has been given is enough. There is absolutely no burden of proof on the poster to “prove” that anybody quoted is actually who they say they are.
Let’s just imagine IF this were the case though, what impact would it have on this forum for example. If you post any link of any kind and quote anybody, you would have the onerous task of verifying every source, maybe having to contact the person to check “it was them” etc – it would be totally unworkable and nobody would bother posting anything. This is why in any form of reporting as long as the source is given, this is generally considered enough.
Given that nobody has ever been asked to do this before on this forum (as plainly ridiculous) then it raises the question of why single 1 person out and demand that they “prove” someone is who they say they are. This is despite the fact reasons have already been given as to why it was thought reasonable to assume it was the said person. No reason or evidence has been presented by the person making the claim that people are not who they purport to be and clearly the burden of proof is on them.
What can be clearly demonstrated is that this onerous demand and the plainly ridiculous reasoning behind is not consistently applied to everyone.
My belief is that anyone with any kind of integrity would concede this argument and explain their clearly inconsistent application of requests made. It would suggest to me that either there has to be a special interest in CCP or a special interest in me in order to treat this instance as the “special case” and exception to the general and observed rules that it appears to be. :
I don’t think it is necessarily discrimination, though I can see why being in the receiving end might feel like that.
The reason I think this is because the response could also be due to the contentious nature of your posts. As @anon40790172 highlighted, you posted a link and then repeatedly raised concerns about it in contentious language - possible Ponzi scheme for example, you recalling that MaidSafe might be taking a percentage from this outfit etc.
I tend to agree with him that you’ve over emphasised these things given the amount of information you had, though I take your points too because it’s fair enough to raise concerns and ask what others know.
To me it’s the way you did this which has provoked a necessary response - to balance the picture by highlighting what will read to some like allegations, are based on. And to challenge you to be more precise about what you think and why when the subject is so serious. A more nuanced presentation of your concerns and more details about how strong or otherwise your evidence was, could have helped for example.
On certain issues, which you are seeing again here (by which I mean “discrimination” would be a form of excessive or inappropriate moderation) you tend to get responses from moderators which you don’t like.
But this wasn’t a moderator doing moderation. I know it’s hard to separate the two roles (for moderator or non moderator), but it is generally not a problem until things feel personal as they appear to do for you here.
My feeling is that it’s ok for you to raise issues the way you have here, although I prefer a less contentious style because then I think it requires someone to check it out and respond - in this case to challenge you to justify them.
IMO it’s not good enough when posting contentious stuff to expect casual readers or the community in general will go to the trouble of researching it themselves, but when someone does it’s fair enough for them to respond and give you their assessment of it.