VEGA CODING AKA RUSTICUS ON TELEGRAM 290$ (REOPENED)

[222]

@Alex @Ping

[222]

This is a bump

[222]

This is a bump

[1.247]

@Alex @Ping
Can we close this dispute please.

[222]

@Alex @Ping
Can we close this dispute please.

It will be turn 2 months and the dispute still wont be solved since noone from the staff helps. Amazing forum, love it. 

[3.810]

@VEGA can you test the stealer you modified and provide proof it's working? 

A video with the files, with your own changes and you running the program.

Top Ad by @Views | Ends in 22/03


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

[1.247]

I fully understand the request for a video demonstration to verify the software works. I am willing to cooperate, but I must clarify a critical technical constraint preventing a successful "full execution" video, and propose a standard debugging step to resolve this dispute fairly.
1. The Technical Impossibility of Full ExecutionMy specific role in this project was to build a "pipeline" (modifying the output handler) to send data from the software to a new server. I did not write the core software that generates this data; that was provided by the client.
Currently, the core software provided by the client is not generating any data.

• Analogy: I was hired to attach a new exhaust pipe to a car. However, the car's engine does not start. Because the engine (the client's software) isn't running, nothing comes out of the exhaust pipe (my modification).
  
• Conclusion: I cannot record a video of the software "working" because the base software I was given does not perform its primary function of generating logs/data.
  

2. Proof of My Work (The Pipeline)I have already verified that my specific code for the server communication logic is syntactically correct and functions as intended when data is present. I have successfully unit-tested the connection to the server. The failure occurs upstream, in the client's original code, which is failing to feed data into my pipeline.
3. The "Control Test" Proposal (Crucial for Fairness)To determine objectively whether the fault lies with my modification or the client's original file, we must establish a baseline. We cannot assume the original software works, as the client admitted they never verified it.
I respectfully request the Moderator ask the Client to perform the following:

Please provide a video demonstrating the ORIGINAL, unmodified source code (the exact version sent to me) running successfully and generating data.

The Logic for Dispute Resolution:

1. If the Client CAN show the original works: Then the error is likely in my modification. I will immediately accept responsibility and fix the code to match the working original.
   
2. If the Client CANNOT show the original works: Then they provided me with broken software from the start. I cannot be held responsible for fixing a broken product that was outside my scope of work.
   

ConclusionI am ready to proceed, but asking me to prove a broken program works is an impossible standard. The burden of proof must first be on the client to show they provided a functional base. Once they verify the "engine" runs, I can prove my "exhaust pipe" works perfectly.

[222]

I fully understand the request for a video demonstration to verify the software works. I am willing to cooperate, but I must clarify a critical technical constraint preventing a successful "full execution" video, and propose a standard debugging step to resolve this dispute fairly.
1. The Technical Impossibility of Full ExecutionMy specific role in this project was to build a "pipeline" (modifying the output handler) to send data from the software to a new server. I did not write the core software that generates this data; that was provided by the client.
Currently, the core software provided by the client is not generating any data.

• Analogy: I was hired to attach a new exhaust pipe to a car. However, the car's engine does not start. Because the engine (the client's software) isn't running, nothing comes out of the exhaust pipe (my modification).
  
• Conclusion: I cannot record a video of the software "working" because the base software I was given does not perform its primary function of generating logs/data.
  

2. Proof of My Work (The Pipeline)I have already verified that my specific code for the server communication logic is syntactically correct and functions as intended when data is present. I have successfully unit-tested the connection to the server. The failure occurs upstream, in the client's original code, which is failing to feed data into my pipeline.
3. The "Control Test" Proposal (Crucial for Fairness)To determine objectively whether the fault lies with my modification or the client's original file, we must establish a baseline. We cannot assume the original software works, as the client admitted they never verified it.
I respectfully request the Moderator ask the Client to perform the following:

Please provide a video demonstrating the ORIGINAL, unmodified source code (the exact version sent to me) running successfully and generating data.

The Logic for Dispute Resolution:

1. If the Client CAN show the original works: Then the error is likely in my modification. I will immediately accept responsibility and fix the code to match the working original.
   
2. If the Client CANNOT show the original works: Then they provided me with broken software from the start. I cannot be held responsible for fixing a broken product that was outside my scope of work.
   

ConclusionI am ready to proceed, but asking me to prove a broken program works is an impossible standard. The burden of proof must first be on the client to show they provided a functional base. Once they verify the "engine" runs, I can prove my "exhaust pipe" works perfectly.

Dude, you didnt even tested your own code modified, you sent me the file to test it bymyself on a vm because you didnt had a virtual machine, you didnt even either executed it on ur own pc because you sayed is to "risky"(keeping in mind that you had the full source code lol)