Provably Not Fair?

[J-Dawg]

Quote 1 “Bet Discrimination Under the assumption that an investigator will not place high stakes to investigate cheating, the house can safely offer a fair game to those using play money or very low stakes. As the bet size increases, so does the probability of an exploit. A house can also analyze betting patterns (progressives) for ways to minimize its short term risk of ruin.”

Quote 2 “Third, it can employ these cheats to minimize risk during progressive betting. Any player using Martingale or other betting system will always lose in the long-run, but short-run gains can occur. As such, producing guaranteed losses for the player over big bets will factor into the house's profit-maximizing strategy.

Fourth, a house can offer more smaller wins to players by cheating large bets, increasing word-of-mouth advertising. For example, suppose a draw poker game accepts bets from a micro-bitcoin to 50 BTC. If the house forces a player loss at 40 BTC…”

Quote 3.“The house could effectively cheat a portion of its players by segregating them through bet or browser discrimination. By implication this means a majority of the cheats are performed on a minority of players.”

So the people you see complaining about sites cheating are these ‘minority’. And the people you see defending, are those ‘majority’.

If you are in the ‘majority’, sorry you don’t have enough cash to bet more than a dime a go.

If you are in the ‘minority’, then chances are some sites are cheating you.

Got to love when sites are smart enough to give countless free micro coins out and then let players play fairly with them. ONLY TO CHEAT PLAYERS WHEN THEY DEPOSIT OWN FUNDS AND BET LARGER.

Yes, any outcome is statistically possible. No one is forcing anyone to bet. But claiming to be a provably fair, which is just a gimmick  that is employed because there is no regulation, no auditing. That's straight up confidence trickery. 

[ktinho]

@j-dawg you missed this one

Re: [EDU] Provably fair and how it can be exploited by casino owners against you.

September 06, 2013, 09:05:14 AM

 #14

Your last paragraph is true insofar as there is no way to cheat SHA-256 or SHA-512. I mean, there really is no way to cheat a cryptographically secure hash function that spits out 256 to 512 bits with several rounds of processing save for brute force collision attacks.

As reference, 128 bit symmetric encryption algorithms such as AES will remain "uncheatable" for the foreseeable future. You know what they say about it right? These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.

For both web-based and downloaded clients, I think the issue would be a proper accounting of every step of the way. And the player himself can actually verify that his client seed is what he actually chose. It's as simple as adding an extra character or replacing one from his client generated random seed.

If the client and/or the website provides complete logs for everyone to download and see, it gets us closer to being more provably fair than other implementations.

It also depends on the implementation of the system for the game. If the casino makes it very easy to verify the results, and makes it very easy to see that there are no so called "html partials" or modified javascript, or whatever techniques you talked about in the original article, that should count for something.

The difference between the web-based and the blockchain based games are the public records. Even if you operate a web-based game, or even a downloaded client game, if you, as the casino operator, take steps to record and account every possible angle or move, that should count towards securing your provable fairness.

edit: Author of this post 'Dabs'

[jungl3]

2 hours ago, ktinho said:

This post helps no one but thanks for not even attempting to make a reasonable contribution.

It was not worth the notification.

Dupeddonk asks a reasonable question with regards to a forum members intentions:-

 

1) Are they just trolling? trying to convince others that what they say is true so they can sit back and  watch other people use this misinformation to make fools of themselves?

2) Unable to take what they believe they know and fact check that against what other people are informing them about - so they can see what they are right about and what they have misunderstood. Are they so unwilling to do this and would rather look stupid?

Every other recent post of his that I've read accuses somebody of 'gaslighting'. He's either obsessed with the word or is pushing a narrative.

The narrative that you're selling, along with the other provably-fair-system crusaders is to quickly dismiss anybody who questions if stake scams their customers and show them in a bad light. Here are a few of the words you guys use to describe these people -

Rigtard

Idiot

Stupid

As a group, if you pile on people, belittling them and shouting "but it's provably fair lol", the aim is to shut them down and gain the casual observer's faith in your argument and the integrity of stake, and to put them off questioning things lest they're also ridiculed.

The issue is that the provably-fair algorithm is only one piece of the puzzle. It doesn't explain whatever else goes on in the background; information that isn't open to the public. It might help to explain if there is any manipulation - whether that be by omitting nonces, lagging players out or disconnecting them when a green streak is about to hit, stopping an autobet during an automated strategy that is showing promise, lagging strategies so that they're on a higher base bet, etc. It could be that the fresh server seeds we're presented are selected for our accounts based on our betting patterns. There's also the problem of some bets not verifying (ergo, they're not provably fair).

SHA-256, HMAC, inputting our client seeds against a provided hashed server seed - that is the provably-fair-system that you and boys cheerlead. That's it.

Unless you have access to and can show and tell what else goes on behind stake's closed system, you cannot prove that stake is fair to players, that we're not being scammed, because you do not know, even if the individual results can be summed up with the verifier.

The provably-fair-system does not answer every question or concern. It's not a magic wand that absolves stake of any potential malfeasance, and it's entirely possible it's there as much for distraction as it is to make people trust the site.

It would be in everybody's interest to have a thread agreeing on the semantics for any discussions going forward, because that's the sticking point in most of these threads. Articulatation can be difficult because of dual meanings, non-native English and in some cases confusion over specific terminology.

2 hours ago, ktinho said:

It was not worth the notification.

I contend that it was and you loved it, because you could hop on your soapbox to put me down while praising duped.

[quntti]

3 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

SHA-256, HMAC, inputting our client seeds against a provided hashed server seed - that is the provably-fair-system that you and boys cheerlead. That's it.

 

That's what this thread was about though. The claim was that Stake can show incorrect results for future nonces after the client reveals the server seed. To make people understand how that is not possible I think the replies have been on point.

Seems the argument is changing now.

[ktinho]

35 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

Every other recent post of his that I've read accuses somebody of 'gaslighting'. He's either obsessed with the word or is pushing a narrative.

The narrative that you're selling, along with the other provably-fair-system crusaders is to quickly dismiss anybody who questions if stake scams their customers and show them in a bad light. Here are a few of the words you guys use to describe these people -

Rigtard

Idiot

Stupid

As a group, if you pile on people, belittling them and shouting "but it's provably fair lol", the aim is to shut them down and gain the casual observer's faith in your argument and the integrity of stake, and to put them off questioning things lest they're also ridiculed.

The issue is that the provably-fair algorithm is only one piece of the puzzle. It doesn't explain whatever else goes on in the background; information that isn't open to the public. It might help to explain if there is any manipulation - whether that be by omitting nonces, lagging players out or disconnecting them when a green streak is about to hit, stopping an autobet during an automated strategy that is showing promise, lagging strategies so that they're on a higher base bet, etc. It could be that the fresh server seeds we're presented are selected for our accounts based on our betting patterns. There's also the problem of some bets not verifying (ergo, they're not provably fair).

SHA-256, HMAC, inputting our client seeds against a provided hashed server seed - that is the provably-fair-system that you and boys cheerlead. That's it.

Unless you have access to and can show and tell what else goes on behind stake's closed system, you cannot prove that stake is fair to players, that we're not being scammed, because you do not know, even if the individual results can be summed up with the verifier.

The provably-fair-system does not answer every question or concern. It's not a magic wand that absolves stake of any potential malfeasance, and it's entirely possible it's there as much for distraction as it is to make people trust the site.

It would be in everybody's interest to have a thread agreeing on the semantics for any discussions going forward, because that's the sticking point in most of these threads. Articulatation can be difficult because of dual meanings, non-native English and in some cases confusion over specific terminology.

I contend that it was and you loved it, because you could hop on your soapbox to put me down while praising duped.

I just explained, in my opinion, the reasoning behind him asking the question. 

My issues with provably fair naysayers is that they are often using  outdated and edited information. All I ask for is relevant detailed information.

 

IF  someone posts something I research that information and its context to get a fairer view rather than just jump on a bandwagon.

29 minutes ago, quntti said:

That's what this thread was about though. The claim was that Stake can show incorrect results for future nonces after the client reveals the server seed. To make people understand how that is not possible I think the replies have been on point.

Seems the argument is changing now.

This unfortunately happens with all threads of this type. @jungl3 maybe a level headed decent person open for a proper discussion - if indeed they are that - unfortunately they find themselves stuck defending other members who post edited quotes and such that they find around the web from almost 10 years ago.

 

It would be interesting to know how many of the people that suffer with errors, lag etc are using VPNs and how many are not. Perhaps jungle3 could start a thread with regards to that.

[jungl3]

2 minutes ago, quntti said:

That's what this thread was about though. The claim was that Stake can show incorrect results for future nonces after the client reveals the server seed. To make people understand how that is not possible I think the replies have been on point.

Seems the argument is changing now.

Good point - you're right about that being OP's claim.

I stand by what I said, in general, and I think it's unreasonable that people are insulted with names like idiot, rigtard and stupid. It's a more general point and why I reacted to @dupeddonk's post on page 3. Having a fair and open discussion, without insults or being economical with the truth - that's all I want.

11 minutes ago, ktinho said:

IFF  someone posts something I research that information and its context to get a fairer view rather than just jump on a bandwagon.

I'd hope so. Your arguments usually seem in better faith than others in this thread.

[ktinho]

5 minutes ago, jungl3 said:

Good point - you're right about that being OP's claim.

I stand by what I said, in general, and I think it's unreasonable that people are insulted with names like idiot, rigtard and stupid. It's a more general point and why I reacted to @dupeddonk's post on page 3. Having a fair and open discussion, without insults or being economical with the truth - that's all I want.

I'd hope so. Your arguments usually seem in better faith than others in this thread.

It is in my interests as well as everyone else that plays on any casino to know if it is fair or not. 

I don't like the ' i once dated/ I saw someone date someone who looks like that person over there and that person was cheating - so that person must also be a cheat' kind of thought process. 

Ask around if it bothers a person that much but a person shouldn't state it as fact without evidence.

Not the best analogy but seemed a little less deep and easier to understand for other readers. ❤️

I am also of the opinion that longer term members of this forum have been dealing with conspiracy theorists for so long now thy are probably sick of answering the same questions from the same people - who then a few days later open another thread and start the whole thing over again🤣

[ott27]

its just a matter of luck you can not rely on stats or probability to play at casino games

[mofotron]

unlucky my dude its honestly depends on luck just try crash low cashout maybe you make something

[dupeddonk]

5 hours ago, jungl3 said:

Every other recent post of his that I've read accuses somebody of 'gaslighting'. He's either obsessed with the word or is pushing a narrative.

https://stakecommunity.com/search/?&q=gaslighting&quick=1&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

I've used it 3 times.  Once yesterday, once July 16, and once May 10th.

You've used it twice.  Both times in attempt to insult me for using it so much.

Pathetic really.

5 hours ago, jungl3 said:

I stand by what I said, in general, and I think it's unreasonable that people are insulted with names like idiot, rigtard and stupid. It's a more general point and why I reacted to @dupeddonk's post on page 3. Having a fair and open discussion, without insults or being economical with the truth - that's all I want.

If you were really interested in keeping people honest, you would be calling out the people being blatantly dishonest (j-dawg, kayttobr, ghostnipple, etc)  instead of constant petty attacks against me.

[Swizzle]

good question

[jungl3]

3 hours ago, dupeddonk said:

https://stakecommunity.com/search/?&q=gaslighting&quick=1&search_and_or=and&sortby=relevancy

I've used it 3 times.  Once yesterday, once July 16, and once May 10th.

You've used it twice.  Both times in attempt to insult me for using it so much.

Pathetic really.

If you were really interested in keeping people honest, you would be calling out the people being blatantly dishonest (j-dawg, kayttobr, ghostnipple, etc)  instead of constant petty attacks against me.

I'm pathetic and petty? You can't help yourself, can you?

Why are you so committed to interacting with people that make you angry? There's a block button or the thing that you regularly advocate for: self-control. If you chose not to read threads like these, let alone reply to them, your blood pressure might come down.

I don't understand what it is you'd lose by not getting involved. It's not as if it would cost you any money or your reputation, is it? And if most of these type of posts are as stupid as you say they are, then the average reader would realise that, wouldn't they? Do you think the average person on these forums is at your level or below?

What other companies do you spend your time defending? Amazonian mining operations, petrochemical companies, Google, Apple.. or do you prefer more obviously predatory industries, like American healthcare, payday loans, gambling?

[dollartree1]

1 hour ago, jungl3 said:

I'm pathetic and petty? You can't help yourself, can you?

Why are you so committed to interacting with people that make you angry? There's a block button or the thing that you regularly advocate for: self-control. If you chose not to read threads like these, let alone reply to them, your blood pressure might come down.

Honestly man, I've been following dupeddonk for a while now and can say he is by far the most patient and calm person I've ever seen in forum when responding to such idiocracy on a daily basis.   I can barely get out one post without labeling the "provably fair tin hatters" complete morons..   read through some of his older posts with ghostnipple..  both educational and remarkably well mannered while dealing with that guy.  I'm afraid your bashing the man and not the argument.  This happens in most threads, and usually at that point I imagine trollface appearing mid screen saying "u mad bro?" 

The problem lies within these people will not take the time to learn how provably fair works, but will take the time to find anything to discredit it, even if it's been proven to be false.  If they put half the time into learning it as they do trying to poke holes in it, this forum would be a much better informed place.   I keep asking if they could tell me the sha256 hash of the string "casino" and crickets.   So if they can't understand a simple hash, they have no buisness making new posts every other day saying how unfair the system is.  

[Sumeshsingh]

Provably fair is an algorithm that checks and verifies an online casino's fairness towards its players and in stake originals good seeds bad seeds matters a lot in your gameplay test seeds with small amounts they start placing main bets

[dupeddonk]

5 hours ago, jungl3 said:

I'm pathetic and petty? You can't help yourself, can you?

Why are you so committed to interacting with people that make you angry? There's a block button or the thing that you regularly advocate for: self-control. If you chose not to read threads like these, let alone reply to them, your blood pressure might come down.

I don't understand what it is you'd lose by not getting involved. It's not as if it would cost you any money or your reputation, is it? And if most of these type of posts are as stupid as you say they are, then the average reader would realise that, wouldn't they? Do you think the average person on these forums is at your level or below?

What other companies do you spend your time defending? Amazonian mining operations, petrochemical companies, Google, Apple.. or do you prefer more obviously predatory industries, like American healthcare, payday loans, gambling?

You are pathetic and petty.

What have I ever done to you?  

Why do you go around to threads about provably fair and focus primarily on trying to discredit me and defend the rigtards, without ever addressing the actual topic.

I mean seriously, if this isn't pathetic and petty than what is it?:

Quote

Every other recent post of his that I've read accuses somebody of 'gaslighting'. He's either obsessed with the word or is pushing a narrative.

You're literally trying to get people not to believe me because I used the term 'gaslighting'.  Never mind the fact I only used it 3 times the past year, lets say I use it all the time.  So what?  What is going through your head when you make a post like that?

 

 

[J-Dawg]

5 hours ago, jungl3 said:

I'm pathetic and petty? You can't help yourself, can you?

Why are you so committed to interacting with people that make you angry? There's a block button or the thing that you regularly advocate for: self-control. If you chose not to read threads like these, let alone reply to them, your blood pressure might come down.

I don't understand what it is you'd lose by not getting involved. It's not as if it would cost you any money or your reputation, is it? And if most of these type of posts are as stupid as you say they are, then the average reader would realise that, wouldn't they? Do you think the average person on these forums is at your level or below?

What other companies do you spend your time defending? Amazonian mining operations, petrochemical companies, Google, Apple.. or do you prefer more obviously predatory industries, like American healthcare, payday loans, gambling?

You hit the nail on the head here. The fact is, dupeddonk must be paid and it is in his interest to spend countless hours pushing a half truth in order to sell a lie. 

Otherwise, why is he doing it, especially as it irritates him so much? 

No one would do this with their time that doesn't have financial interests involved. No one.

So that then goes to further highlight that there is something going on. It's not a good look in the slightest. We already know @ktinho is actually Tristan, chief technical guy for Stake. Yet he doesn't use that account to make his points about Provably Fair. Why is that? It's because, to the casual (which is the majority of Stake forum readers), he just looks like a normal person talking about it. While if he used his real account, the casual reader would think he has an agenda, as he works for Stake and is in their technical department. 

What we have here is an aggressive campaign to make sure that anyone who glances at any thread to do with Provably Fair, will just think "ahhhh, yeah, that sounds like it makes sense, those guys talking about how fair it is seem to know how it works unlike me or those other guys who must just be sore losers"

Campaigns like these do not happen organically, money is the root. It defies logic why anyone cares what anyone else thinks unless it's their job.  And as mentioned, these are not casual commentators. As soon as anyone says anything within a few hours, dupeddonk and co. show up and do their thing, as that is what they are paid to do.

Honestly, the people who could perfectly explain why Provably Fair is a gimmick, have better things to do. dupeddonk knows exactly how Provably Fair can be exploited, so there's no point them trying to tell him the different ways, he knows! He knows better than any of us, as it's his job to know. But he doesn't know better than any skilled professional programmer. And that guy, isn't going to be spending any time on a crypto casino let alone its forum.

A truly objective programmer, like if dupeddonk didn't have an agenda, would say things like "sure you could do X, Y and Z, and under said F, G, H, one could etc etc etc etc"

But you don't hear both sides from him, just "It is infallible"

There's really nothing anyone can say to these shills. Really the conversation should be left to the players and not have any paid people involved. Why can't the players just talk among themselves about what they think, their experiences, their theories etc? There is absolutely no reason why Tristan should be involved. And dupeddonk, you can pretend you're not paid, but everyone has heard what you've had to say, countless times, so just leave it be, enjoy your spare time, why waste it repeating yourself? That's what a normal rational person would do. Unless of course, it  was their job to be the Provably Fair Thought Police.  

[dupeddonk]

Just now, J-Dawg said:

A truly objective programmer, like if dupeddonk didn't have an agenda, would say things like "sure you could do X, Y and Z, and under said F, G, H, one could etc etc etc etc"

Makes perfect sense @J-Dawg Great detective work.

[J-Dawg]

@dupeddonkWell thank you. To be fair, it's very obvious. But I will accept the compliment anyway. And let me return one to you.

You are very dedicated to your job and that is commendable. 

[dollartree1]

18 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

In a nutshell, manually changing client seeds and recording server hashes does not necessarily make a gambling site fair. While an individual can take additional steps to decrease the likelihood of being a victim – such as manually changing the client seed – doing so does not increase the provable fairness for other players. Since cheating need not be uniform, an malicious casino may continue to operate in an unfair manner for a subset of all players). This essentially "breaks" the concept of "provably fair," which – to my understanding – is advertised as a system to prevent a house from cheating.

 

Bro, what's the sha256 hash of "casino"?   

I'm just gonna keep on asking because well thought out, reasonable, and factual posts don't teach you anything.  Maybe pointing out the your inability to answer simple questions can nudge u in the direction to learn something. 

[J-Dawg]

3 hours ago, dollartree1 said:

Bro, what's the sha256 hash of "casino"?   

I'm just gonna keep on asking because well thought out, reasonable, and factual posts don't teach you anything.  Maybe pointing out the your inability to answer simple questions can nudge u in the direction to learn something. 

Sure, let me ask you do you know how to use Python? Are you proficient in bash command language? Do you run only open source software? I bet you can't even build a basic gaming PC let alone a mining rig. How long have you been in crypto? have you ever run a full Bitcoin node let alone mined any crypto?

What does septic tank rhyme with?

You see, you get ignore because you sound like someone who hasn't got a clue about anything, why is anyone going to humor you? What you want me to run hashlib command for you? Do you even know what hashlib is?

honestly brah, I know your massas are watching and you're trying to fake that you know something about computers, but it's evident to anyone who knows computers that you are know nothing.

Jog on 

[ktinho]

4 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

Sure, let me ask you do you know how to use Python? Are you proficient in bash command language? Do you run only open source software? I bet you can't even build a basic gaming PC let alone a mining rig. How long have you been in crypto? have you ever run a full Bitcoin node let alone mined any crypto?

What does septic tank rhyme with?

You see, you get ignore because you sound like someone who hasn't got a clue about anything, why is anyone going to humor you? What you want me to run hashlib command for you? Do you even know what hashlib is?

honestly brah, I know your massas are watching and you're trying to fake that you know something about computers, but it's evident to anyone who knows computers that you are know nothing.

Jog on 

Questioning someone else's credibility, knowledge, experience or ability, when one has tried to back up their opinion using outdated information from up to 10 years ago, is quite audacious.

 

 

[dupeddonk]

On 7/21/2022 at 8:15 AM, J-Dawg said:

In a nutshell, manually changing client seeds and recording server hashes does not necessarily make a gambling site fair. While an individual can take additional steps to decrease the likelihood of being a victim – such as manually changing the client seed – doing so does not increase the provable fairness for other players. Since cheating need not be uniform, an malicious casino may continue to operate in an unfair manner for a subset of all players). This essentially "breaks" the concept of "provably fair," which – to my understanding – is advertised as a system to prevent a house from cheating.

 

You could say that about literally any casino ever anywhere.  If a player doesn't put any effort into making sure they aren't cheated, they could be cheated.

 

[dollartree1]

4 hours ago, J-Dawg said:

Sure, let me ask you do you know how to use Python? Are you proficient in bash command language? Do you run only open source software? I bet you can't even build a basic gaming PC let alone a mining rig. How long have you been in crypto? have you ever run a full Bitcoin node let alone mined any crypto?

What does septic tank rhyme with?

You see, you get ignore because you sound like someone who hasn't got a clue about anything, why is anyone going to humor you? What you want me to run hashlib command for you? Do you even know what hashlib is?

honestly brah, I know your massas are watching and you're trying to fake that you know something about computers, but it's evident to anyone who knows computers that you are know nothing.

Let me answer your question.. Yes, I know a bit of Python.  I'd only say to a beginner level as I'm not a programmer. I actually only learned it so that I could build a bot for the recently deceased telegram challenges. I like to learn new things, especially when I don't understand them... (cough cough).  Bash I would say I'm a novice. I have built my own gaming PCs since 2003.   My most recent build is probably about 3 or 4 years old by now and has an i7 9700x (overclocked to 4.8 too!! How about that!?) An RTX 2080 (ill let u poke fun at that because its not a Ti or even a super.  But i got it before the supers were announced), I could keep listing but i think u get the point.   And also, Yes, I know how to mine and build a mining rig.  

Wow!  See how simple that was to just.. ya know... answer some questions.   Now your turn.    

What's the SHA256 hash of the string "casino"?  I'm just trying to understand at what point you think these results are being tampered with and if you'd answer my question we can delve further.   But you just keep thinking you're above showing that you have even the most basic knowledge of something you're trying to portray yourself as an expert in.  I don't see why you won't answer...

  I didn't understand the provably fair system either and used to come to these threads agreeing with the tin foil morons too!  Because I would go on unbelievable losing streaks to the point it seemed like stake was trolling me.     But then I did a shit ton of research into it after reading your favoritie punching bags posts, and I'm actually happy to say, I've done a complete 180 now that I have a pretty solid understanding of it. Along with the psychology of a gambler. Things like gamblers fallacy and the like.  Maybe time to grow up, stop thinking you're 100x % correct.  And just try to look at it with an open mind.  

[J-Dawg]

 

50 minutes ago, ktinho said:

Questioning someone else's credibility, knowledge, experience or ability, when one has tried to back up their opinion using outdated information from up to 10 years ago, is quite audacious.

 

 

I'm not getting paid to spend time on this forum unlike yourself. So what are you saying, information has a shelf life? So provably fair from 10 years ago wasn't provably fair but now it is? Honestly, what are you suggesting with this comment? Because it sounds like you're saying the information is outdated. So that means it wasn't provably fair and it's been patched over now? And if that is what you are suggesting, then it just goes further to prove the system is not infallible.

Honestly dude, why are you trying to pass yourself off as a normal Stake player. You literally are the guy that people are sent to on Stake Support when bet data is missing and irregularities have been raised. 

Pay me for my time and I will spend the time putting together a thesis that has all the references and facts and multiple statements and assertions from programming professionals that would hold up no problem in a court of law. I've not got the time or will to spend the time you and dupeddonk do arguing with people on here, as unlike you guys I'm not getting paid for my time.

It should also be pointed out,  that you guys always pick the lowest fruit, you always divert and derail what is being said in the conversation by honing in on completely arbitrary things. So what if I am not the original author of the information I am sharing, I never claimed to be, it doesn't make it invalid. But of course, that completely arbitrary element is what you hone in on. It's laughable really, you know what you're doing. And I get it, it's your job. Better you than me, that's for sure. It would be one thing if you actually believed with all your heart the narrative you are pushing, but we all know that you guys know exactly what you're doing and what information you are attempting to suppress with this aggressive and time consuming tactic you employ. 

[dupeddonk]

7 minutes ago, J-Dawg said:

've not got the time or will to spend the time you and dupeddonk do arguing with people on here, as unlike you guys I'm not getting paid for my time.

But thats what you're doing.