I see a misunderstanding here. @markmcandrew said that we should have contacted him via the official email/phone. @dutch responded that he contacted user 'pomegranate' on our slack. There is no evidence that these two accounts are together, nor that the messages actually arrived to Mark's attention.
I agree that you should have been contacted earlier via official means, but how? They did not know it was you until you responded here.
Also the accusation that Charity Engine uses this Pomegranate pool is not backed. There is only a speculation that Pomegranate pool members use CE software. Also that software might not be approved by CE, the attacker could just have used CE software as a base.
So please stop getting all angry and explain.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hey Brod. Actually, Mark confirmed that Pomegranate is CE. With regard to the Slack account being linked to CE, that Slack account tried to claim the commemorative coin. To do so, they proved ownership of the Pomegranate wallet. Therefore, the Pomegranate account on Slack had access to the Pomegranate wallet.
Was this message intended to be a reply to me? I am not angry and unsure what you are asking me to explain.
Hi Tomas,
CE does indeed control the pom account. It wasn't a big secret, just didn't want to scare the community that a grid of over half a million PCs was now involved (since been told it's now PoS instead of PoW anyway, so that no longer matters). If we were bad actors then we'd have just used multiple IDs - and added all our spare capacity too, which we've never done.
The Slack account was created purely to claim that one-off coin thing, on the logic that it WOULD look suspicious if we didn't. It wasn't ever used again.
They admit they got no reply from the slack account, and that they didn't bother trying phone, email, or any other normal way of contacting a company CEO.
It's a charade.
i got one word for you mister:
sketchy
I got one for Dutch too. "Libel".