> Danny van den Berghe seems to be a blow hard, and if > you've gathered that impression, you are probably > correct. There is no doubt that JP May pays reliably > on bets he makes. Any thorough search of the e-gold > or dgc-chat list archives will reveal that fact.
Well, you can ask him why he didn't pay on this lost bet. If you have studied the archive so well, you will have seen that his language was rather 'uncivilized' even before he put up the challenge to crack the turing numbers within one day. You will also have seen that there was no talk about creating a website where you can convert the turing image into asci text. The whole discussion was about automated attacks on e-gold accounts, and my saying that the turing numbers where absolutely useless in that regard, because they are so easy to crack. > Here's my proof that Danny is a blowhard. Follow the > logic here: > Danny writes: > >>> That $100 would have been 0.34 ounces back then. > >>> Which is $130 at todays rates... > JP replies: > >> I am happy to jumble the digits and up the payout to $310, > >> how's that! > To which Danny retorts: > > It is the OUNCES FIGURE that matters to me. 100$ at the > > moment you lost the bet, was 0.34 ounces. > > You can see where Danny has refused an offer of $310 > to put his Turing cracker on the web. Aha, you did some good editing, carefully ommiting jpm's wrong statement: "> If the actual DOLLAR FIGURE matters to you (for God's sake!)..." That's what I am answering because it is me who sticks to ounces, and jpm who is talking dollars, so he had turned things upside down. Besides that, I did not refuse any payment, I just refuse to do anything extra which was not in the original challenge. We are on the internet here. One can go on playing games and add extras to a lost bet forever, just to avoid paying or loosing. Not with me. > > That's probably why the images have been improved by now. > > Naturally, Danny doesn't offer to crack the current > Turing number. You don't seem to have read the archives very well. After I cracked the old turing numbers I have said that I am willing to try tackle any new numbers they make, but only for a couple thousand dollars at least, not for $100. And payed up front. I have not been hired for the job so far. And I also made several suggestions how to improve the turing numbers, most of which you find in the new numbers. Cheers Danny --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
