VEGA CODING AKA RUSTICUS ON TELEGRAM 290$ (REOPENED)

[222]

@Alex @Ping @Liars

[3.810]

@Bad_King show proof of software working before the changes in the code.

Top Ad by @Views | Ends in 22/03


Next Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05

[222]

@Bad_King show proof of software working before the changes in the code.

I already posted it.



And the fact of its not working is only a thing, the main deal was also to change the funcion names of the code, wich he didnt do that, I can send you the full source code of the original code and the custome code, where you can check most functions are the same, he only changed like 2 or 3 so he can fool me.

[1.247]

@Alex
The primary objective of this project was two-fold:

Implement a system to capture data "spit" by the client's existing software and forward this data to a specified new server.

Change the function names within the code for obfuscation/renaming as requested by the client.

Claim 1: The Software Is Not Working

Client's Claim: The software is non-functional and is not spitting out data, thus failing the core objective.

Developer's Factual Response:

Unverified Base Functionality: During the initial discussion regarding the modification task, the client explicitly stated they were unable to verify if the original, unmodified software was currently functional or if it produced the required data output. The client confirmed they were relying solely on the owner's claim that the original software was functional, without providing any verifiable evidence (such as a working demo, log files, or screenshots) showing the software successfully "spitting data."

Scope of Work Limitation: My task was to modify the output handler and rename functions. My scope did not include debugging, repairing, or guaranteeing the functionality of the client's original base software.

Dependency Failure: The modification task (sending data to a new server) is entirely dependent on the client's base software successfully generating and "spitting" that data. Since the software is reportedly not producing any data, the primary prerequisite for my modification to function is not being met. Responsibility for the failure of the base software to produce output lies with the client or the original developers, not with my contracted modifications.

Claim 2: Failure to Change Function Names

Client's Claim: I only changed "like 2 or 3" function names to "fool" the client, and most functions remain the same.

Developer's Factual Response:

Function Name Changes: The requirement to change function names was fully met. I performed a comprehensive renaming of functions for the purpose of obfuscation and renaming, as requested. I am prepared to submit the full Original Source Code and the Modified Source Code for direct review by the moderator team to compare the function names in both files.

Technical Constraint (Meaning vs. Name): It is a technical necessity that while the name of a function can be changed (e.g., from calculate_total to tally_results), the underlying logic, parameters, and flow of the function must remain identical to preserve the software's original intended operation. Changing the function's core meaning or internal logic would fundamentally break the software, which was not the scope of work.

Proof: The difference between the original and modified code will clearly show a significant number of name changes, refuting the claim that only "2 or 3" were changed.

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the evidence:

The client's primary claim of non-functionality is a result of the client's base software not producing the necessary data output, a condition the client could not verify was working before my modifications. My modifications cannot be held responsible for the failure of the upstream process.

The client's claim regarding the lack of name changes is factually incorrect and can be proven false by a direct comparison of the source code files.

I request that the moderators review the two source code files (Original and Modified) immediately to verify the name changes and confirm the project scope was met according to the agreed-upon terms.

[222]

@Alex
The primary objective of this project was two-fold:

Implement a system to capture data "spit" by the client's existing software and forward this data to a specified new server.

Change the function names within the code for obfuscation/renaming as requested by the client.

Claim 1: The Software Is Not Working

Client's Claim: The software is non-functional and is not spitting out data, thus failing the core objective.

Developer's Factual Response:

Unverified Base Functionality: During the initial discussion regarding the modification task, the client explicitly stated they were unable to verify if the original, unmodified software was currently functional or if it produced the required data output. The client confirmed they were relying solely on the owner's claim that the original software was functional, without providing any verifiable evidence (such as a working demo, log files, or screenshots) showing the software successfully "spitting data."

Scope of Work Limitation: My task was to modify the output handler and rename functions. My scope did not include debugging, repairing, or guaranteeing the functionality of the client's original base software.

Dependency Failure: The modification task (sending data to a new server) is entirely dependent on the client's base software successfully generating and "spitting" that data. Since the software is reportedly not producing any data, the primary prerequisite for my modification to function is not being met. Responsibility for the failure of the base software to produce output lies with the client or the original developers, not with my contracted modifications.

Claim 2: Failure to Change Function Names

Client's Claim: I only changed "like 2 or 3" function names to "fool" the client, and most functions remain the same.

Developer's Factual Response:

Function Name Changes: The requirement to change function names was fully met. I performed a comprehensive renaming of functions for the purpose of obfuscation and renaming, as requested. I am prepared to submit the full Original Source Code and the Modified Source Code for direct review by the moderator team to compare the function names in both files.

Technical Constraint (Meaning vs. Name): It is a technical necessity that while the name of a function can be changed (e.g., from calculate_total to tally_results), the underlying logic, parameters, and flow of the function must remain identical to preserve the software's original intended operation. Changing the function's core meaning or internal logic would fundamentally break the software, which was not the scope of work.

Proof: The difference between the original and modified code will clearly show a significant number of name changes, refuting the claim that only "2 or 3" were changed.

Summary and Conclusion

Based on the evidence:

The client's primary claim of non-functionality is a result of the client's base software not producing the necessary data output, a condition the client could not verify was working before my modifications. My modifications cannot be held responsible for the failure of the upstream process.

The client's claim regarding the lack of name changes is factually incorrect and can be proven false by a direct comparison of the source code files.

I request that the moderators review the two source code files (Original and Modified) immediately to verify the name changes and confirm the project scope was met according to the agreed-upon terms.

Trying to sound intelectual by the way you are writing your messages wont make your arguments better, wtf.

---

I remain what I sayed, the orignal code was working as the screenshoots showed, and trying to modify and send me to me a code without even testing your own code is bullshit, wtf is that. You dont realize how you stupid you sound? How you dont have any neg review yet? Holly shit

[222]

This is a bump

[222]

@Alex are you going to do something or what? Its been 1 month since the thread opened and you only gave one message.

[222]

This is a bump

---

@Ping do something, 1 month passed omg