VEGA CODING AKA RUSTICUS ON TELEGRAM 290 $

[225]

This is so fucking funny, there are a few peace of code WHERE THE FUNCTION NAMES ARE NOT CHANGED AS I REQUESTED ON THE MAIN DEAL. WTF? He didnt even finished the fucking main task LOL. WTF?

[950]

Hey Mod, here’s the latest update on this client’s rant:
He’s now claiming:

1. He supposedly tested the original code and found it working.
   
2. My function-name changes aren’t complete.
   
3. That I had to “fully understand and test the original script” beyond just the data rerouting.
   

But let’s be real:

1. He never provided legit proof the original code works.
   • The only “evidence” is from a Telegram channel.
     
   • He has no logs, no screenshots, no real trace. Just empty claims.
     
2. He’s contradicting himself about testing.
   • Before, he admitted he didn’t know if the code worked.
     
   • Now suddenly he says “Yes, it did!” but still no actual logs or test results.
     
3. My job was only to rename functions & reroute data.
   • That didn’t require me to debug or “fully test” his entire random script.
     
   • He’s complaining I had to “know how the code works,” but I only needed to see where data was sent and change that path.
     
   • His claim that “some function names weren’t changed” is likely about obscure library calls or partial code he never even flagged to me. If he wanted everything changed, he should’ve said so with a clear list.
     
4. He’s becoming desperate, throwing random accusations.
   • He’s spamming new messages, rewriting the story.
     
   • This is typical when someone can’t prove their side: they just keep piling on new excuses.
     
5. He’s ignoring the basics:
   • The original stealer is fishy code from some random channel.
     
   • He never gave me a guaranteed-working script (nor real proof of it).
     
   • He asked me for function renames & data reroute, which I did.
     
   • Now he’s basically demanding I fix the entire script for free. Not what we agreed.
     

Bottom line:

• He’s shifting blame for a broken script onto me.
  
• He can’t show genuine logs or real test evidence, just random chat claims.
  
• I did rename the main functions and changed how data is sent. If a couple library references or half-buried function calls remain unchanged, that’s on him for not specifying them.
  
• The “full test” or debugging the entire shady code was never part of our deal.
  

He can spam new complaints all day, but that doesn’t change the facts: I completed what I was hired to do, and he’s fishing for excuses to shift fault onto me. If you have questions or need more detail, I’m here, but this client’s story keeps changing and he provides zero credible proof.

[225]

@Darkness I am sending you the proof that there are function names on the code where it wasnt changed as the deal was. If you want also the contact of the original dev(that is on another forum and have tg) you can also ask me for it.

[950]

As you can see from his response to my previous message, he's still not clarifying the points i've listed.
1. He still says he got proof of the function names which aren't changed for which i've already answered above in my response (His claim that “some function names weren’t changed” is likely about obscure library calls or partial code he never even flagged to me. If he wanted everything changed, he should’ve said so with a clear list.)
2. He's talking about some dev's contact which doesn't provide any solution to any of the points i've listed above. And no one is as free as he is to contact someone else for the proofs.
3. He's still not talking about the proofs of the software actually working.

[225]

As you can see from his response to my previous message, he's still not clarifying the points i've listed.
1. He still says he got proof of the function names which aren't changed for which i've already answered above in my response (His claim that “some function names weren’t changed” is likely about obscure library calls or partial code he never even flagged to me. If he wanted everything changed, he should’ve said so with a clear list.)
2. He's talking about some dev's contact which doesn't provide any solution to any of the points i've listed above. And no one is as free as he is to contact someone else for the proofs.
3. He's still not talking about the proofs of the software actually working.

Shut up

[225]

This is a bump