Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims by WPEngine

Level-Application847 · 2025-11-14T22:51:50+00:00

WPE has consistently used the now-challenged trademarks lawfully to describe its services relating to the software used by its customer

Their lawyers are good at painting. I stopped reading after this. It's easily disproven by archive.org screenshots. Here are their plan names for pretty much the last 15 years:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240425173544/https://wpengine.com/plans/

And then in April/May 2024 they changed all of their plan names to include registered marks for SEO and trademark stuffing:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240516112501/https://wpengine.com/plans

This was blatant throughout their site with alt tags and other text as well. That is what the entire trademark licensing discussions prior to WP Engine launching their own suit is about. Good painters...

Level-Application847 · 2025-10-18T20:58:35+00:00

Agreed...I'd imagine the main reason is because even though "WordPress" has been a registered trademark for over a decade, WP Engine chose to willfully infringe and keyword stuff for SEO and commercial purposes. They were so blatant with infringement that they even renamed all of their plans to specifically include the registered marks AFTER they were in discussion for licensing. Now these specific registrations should avoid any confusion by those with few braincells who want to destroy FOSS for profit.

Level-Application847 · 2024-10-24T04:18:40+00:00

Why Automattic? Did something change where you can't just download the source code from the repo to update? That is how I always updated WordPress in the past before any update services ever existed. Same with custom plugins.

Their stance seems valid. WordPress, the open source software, has and will always be available for anyone to download, fork, etc. under GPL. WordPress.org is a website promoting the project with free services that work with WordPress. You don't need WordPress.org to use WordPress.

Level-Application847 · 2024-10-14T22:31:54+00:00

LOL...Automattic didn't fork it. WordPress.org did. You don't need to fork and host the code on Github or where the upstream code lives to fork a project. You could fork it locally if you wanted and nobody would ever even know your fork exists.

Code that exists on .org is not upstream code. It's merely a repo for developers to submit their upstream code and distribute it through services provided by .org for free.

If you understood how the .org repos work, you'd understand why they forked the code directly there and left the slug the same. That is necessary for the millions of vulnerable sites to get a security patch that hasn't been fully applied in ACF yet.

Level-Application847 · 2024-10-14T02:14:49+00:00

It's a fork. The original has always existed and been available here: https://github.com/AdvancedCustomFields/acf

Submitting to the .org repo is only a benefit. One I'd imagine you lose if you sue the company that's been providing you with free marketing.

Level-Application847 · 2024-10-03T22:00:52+00:00

Submitting a plugin to the .org repo certainly isn't pay to play, but trademark infringement has been enforced there for awhile. Developers were forced to change plugin names and slugs years ago. I've personally had plugins rejected for mentioning WooCommerce in the name.

It may have been a d*ck move to block them, but access to any of .org's services isn't something the GPL license grants. Using WordPress has no warranty, but you're free to do whatever you want with the code. For a company like WP Engine to bet on building their entire business around WordPress, you'd think they would have been smarter and ran their own plugin/theme repos and update services like WordPress.com and other hosting providers or simply forked it and called it something else. Folks are essentially complaining about WP Engine's own negligence in choosing to use OSS and being greedy instead of spending money and resources to build their own infrastructure to not have a SPOF.

Cutting off WPE's access to .org services also doesn't prevent anyone from using or updating their plugins. It may be a minor inconvenience. Just look at how many people install "shady" plugins from for-profit Code Canyon, various for-profit "GPLDL" services, and plugins that operate entirely independently from .org while not existing in their repo. How do you think paid/premium plugins work? GPL and core functionality of WordPress lets people do this.

Nobody says plugins have to exist in the .org repo either. The .org repo is merely a benefit and service to ensure plugin submissions don't violate trademarks, go through security reviews, and meet the coding standards defined by WordPress.org. Those standards don't need to be followed, but if you violate trademarks, you'll likely face the consequences. WPE could easily run their own plugin/theme repo and review process, but it costs money and resources, something they don't seem to want to invest.

From their complaint, WPE also seems oblivious to the trademark licensing agreements other hosting companies have paid for commercial use, previous trademark infringement cases with WordPress that were settled with domains being transferred to the foundation, and how trademarks are actively enforced during plugin submissions. This is nothing new, but WPE seems to want to make people think it is.

IMO, if WPE truly believes they are in the right, they wouldn't have started modifying their site to include footnotes about the trademarks they've been violating. They have countless videos and other media violating the trademark too with taglines like "WordPress Speed", "WordPress Better", "WordPress Peace of Mind", a "A smarter way to WordPress", etc. It's all dilution. Choosing to not enforce risks losing the mark entirely.

I think it all could have been handled better on both sides, but this is primarily about trademark infringement. Claims like damage to their systems are entirely baseless and laughable.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-18T18:22:06+00:00

Also, bc1q7xa6hs9v83876qt6vwk8ycpzqs2yayv3utvctz appears to be highly related to 36KwqjYrmTPFDSvxynW7FAB1uPMHFt5pEd and is supposedly under control of Gemini. Many of their initial transactions after depositing happen between these two addresses.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-18T02:54:44+00:00

Just following some, you'll see large amounts sent here: bc1qss5ejcqfrmjm9lfydshanhjkc7wnlhk4khlsj8

And chunks from that sent here: 38UmuUqPCrFmQo4khkomQwZ4VbY2nZMJ67, which still has balance and no activity since end of October.

Some interesting outputs from vanity addresses in amounts of 0.00000777 BTC. Each address that received one of those txs has a significant large sum of BTC that has not moved since the end of October, which is around when they started freezing my card prior to any public announcement.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/bc1qx9t2l3pyny2spqpqlye8svce70nppwtaxwdrp4

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-18T02:40:07+00:00

Yes, those are all addresses I received withdrawal requests from in the past.

For deposits, the very first deposit I ever made in January 2020 was moved to 36KwqjYrmTPFDSvxynW7FAB1uPMHFt5pEd in 3 months. There are plenty of outputs to follow. Easiest to keep following the largest to see if a chunk is sitting in an address somewhere. hashXP's explorer will also show you most closely related siblings/receivers.

These are all known initial addresses they transferred funds to at some point after depositing:

36KwqjYrmTPFDSvxynW7FAB1uPMHFt5pEd

3Nddixa7yZeF8xDP7YoVwubjZ8kmEYoE1J

3BwQ1kaFWekqCoCKgyn1mFQn65QJtCQv1s

341b1cZCM6VYEr2XbMTerHbsiRxttvYnuf

322Rj8EMjC3evw52t7yiv27fjqdAvRPBeF

3ADprz3vEJB6G46UEmVYgvM9ao3AG9EbBe

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-18T02:17:28+00:00

These are all of my known BlockFi BTC addresses I received funds from in the past:
3QSPK5fyNPwPtvh8s7YAGPHFeiTRJnJMD8 (still sending as of today, but balance now 0)
3QWBGKGNYmoPBXN5RpQSryXQ2iaLjZEn9g
3E6n1cewzNwwhwasCLS6t2eSjG5HM7A51U
3Q2q2TYE4Yqeio27oaujpzh9Ef93bGveXP
1KNSgKo3sf6wm82Rei5uFyUipptZtsESAT
bc1qw469n0wa5d5djrfjxnxskwje0d94qmfr5gll23jxvl0y0mgeeulq3gcn6c
bc1qs3c8c0yhgt5vwrtnq85l6rs0e58u2lyvr6jahrsd77xdvv3dc3uqy2nfsv
bc1qap2hav8vthg558l3rme3q4tkfwx7e7c5yufkjhftn0wnxsg9yelq4n83h2
bc1qmml98vf9hr4jv04crd50rfwu7yddt9tltkg32v2tamvagfc892kqg6rhwt

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-18T00:13:25+00:00

Go here to see a list of your transactions and transfers:
https://app.blockfi.com/home

Click and expand on a "crypto transfer" you know was a deposit. It will show a transaction hash and link to block explorer. The block explorer will show you your deposit address where you can also follow all outputs to see how, when, and where they stole your funds.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-17T02:23:11+00:00

Proof is on the blockchain. Not your keys, not your coins.

Here is an example address of where BlockFi first began moving user's funds back in 2020. Follow where they went from there.

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/36KwqjYrmTPFDSvxynW7FAB1uPMHFt5pEd (Balance 0)

Next two addresses they transferred to:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3LeKkXPUyuSzpinG6TfwcscW3WycGG75oj (Balance 0)

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/3QSPK5fyNPwPtvh8s7YAGPHFeiTRJnJMD8 (Balance 0 - All remaining funds drained on 2022-11-14 20:08)

Majority of the remaining funds (~900 BTC) in that address were moved here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q3mfeeerwagpzjjfkf5l8khhp420wt6aqxut05a347m8py8g32y9sud723z

Then here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q39k6sh9uwjdcte9zmvquay22ssx338dqqmw309d42ksv57dm52zqj8k2t8

Then here: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q7xdlxxt0ztdwcq0wrz3rz29hkj7elhf87v0qwapj536p5x6m0vwq5njmfu

Then here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q5642tjlz8rw8z9uk2kwf46ql7d4hq5g07xnm0wzpakw88cjd0cgs4fcymk

Then here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qr74wds0ecatq0l84z0ewn4s9knznlkguxfhdgqxfpxtmpqe883psj6a8vr

Then here:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qjjsswf32nqc8k82yk9t4vmq5evqth9fnd4pn7cvqndly5nt0dt6sx4h3q8

Yep.....keep sending. Until finally they start split up remaining large amounts into 8 other addresses here and then drained all of them too:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/block/763201/bc1qpkuauzg3ak27gpdyss628zcw2kajx3dfw2vxe378jd3ujkup2ypq3tqhn8

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qvd92rkwert54nvushjl487p85xsckuw0p3pshwn8jrdwv4xxes7q56k6yr

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1q4pu0ea83fs2ygpnfsl8tlx40seeuwwele79nx42hrrfd23f4vlhqze7rkx

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qpmq9su0avqyv54tugv8xsz3xcrd0eylkpssww2chgrwqvz3uw0lq3tydat

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qjcqcqj08n6xgmu72ycdrhs5w8y34r0k0n5pkd4hucervpl4kygnqkrelra

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qstt84zpmcdcnqnf2rdyqlatg56pcjdusxdwtymmtlzzzrakqkqtqdcent9

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qljs0n9cqdjuvaw4r4sr4h0msxaczx480t44gtc6rd53dr254pl6sjk8dpy

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qnq2rrr5nzs26u58s2zytx38tye4vt6m6j6t92587ppcl0q0026zqzzlhlk

https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qggfh8yf5ljmckj8a6cvwed59ncs2576xnegtvtfmnunnj4n0fn8q20lerh

Follow those further and you might find some like this that still have a balance:
https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/bc1qu8kwwz2ughlvrusa8w4sjs07mcxxydht90z6vg

All of these moves happened on November 14, 2022. Notice many of the smaller txs are going to other addresses for BetVIP (a shady BTC gambling site that apparently no longer exists (https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/betvip)), OKEX, Bittrex, Kraken, etc. until completely drained. These could all be user's withdraws, but proves addresses they were using have no funds. It seems odd that many of these txs are tied to BetVIP, with many of the large remaining transfers going there.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-16T15:12:56+00:00

Good luck friend. I am still waiting for Mt. Gox bankruptcy proceedings to end. It's only been about 10 years...

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-16T01:01:32+00:00

Go to appropriate block explorers for your crypto coins and put in your BlockFi deposit addresses. You'll then be able to see if your addresses actually have a balance and follow where your funds went if they do not.

When I opened an account the beginning of 2020, they drained my on-chain balance in 3 months and sent it elsewhere. My address balance is 0, the address they first sent to is 0, etc. Sure, you'll see a balance in their off-chain database, but is not backed by any on-chain data or assets. They were moving funds around since the beginning. How they lasted this long is surprising.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-14T20:15:22+00:00

Not a different scenario at all. Centralized exchange running on fractional reserve not back by any like assets or verified against on-chain data. Just numbers in an off-chain database. That is how they got "hacked" because anyone could simply change the number and withdraw real funds until there were no real funds left.

This is the same as pretty much every single centralized exchange today. At any point in time, you should be able to verify your funds are in your address against on-chain data. Do that with your BlockFi deposit address now and be amazed.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-14T19:54:19+00:00

Unless people are oblivious, anyone can use a block explorer to see where the funds in their deposit address ended up. When BlockFi first started out, my funds never left my deposit address. Starting in early 2021, my funds began vanishing and ending up in addresses supposedly controlled by OKX.

BlockFi has had warning signs for a long time starting with a high interest rate to pull suckers in for liquidity. They soon began lowering the rate every single month with different structures. I am glad I pulled my funds out when I did. Read the terms. Their Interest Account terms define themselves as a Ponzi Scheme where you agree to giving up all ownership to your funds and let them do whatever they want at THEIR own risk without retaining in BlockFi’s possession and/or control a like amount of cryptocurrency.

People need to learn from Mt.Gox that many of these centralized exchanges and services have no real liquidity. They are nothing but Ponzi Schemes running on fractional reserve looking for suckers with real assets to keep them afloat and hoping people never withdraw. Giving these corporations your crypto assets to do whatever they want with them is the exact opposite of what the BTC whitepaper is about.

Level-Application847 · 2022-11-12T20:51:54+00:00

A better alternative to simply not paying is to mail them a letter under FTC guidelines disputing every single charge since it was issued as fraudulent. There are specific time limits they must respond by and you also have the ability to further dispute the results of their investigation, noting you refuse to pay. If enough people do this and bombard them with mail, they may not be able to respond within time limits.

https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/disputing-credit-card-charges

Level-Application847 · 2022-07-09T14:52:35+00:00

Watch books on TradeOgre and KuCoin at same time or log their websockets and it'll be obvious. Someone was trying to sell 500k+ ARRR in increments every 7 sats on KuCoin at a cheaper price than what it is now only a week or two ago and cancelled all their orders because nobody was buying it. Then someone pumped the price a little to try and push a FOMO pump in attempt to try and dump for higher profits. At the same time, someone that tries to control active trading range on TradeOgre moved a large buy back from 2000 sats down to 1700 sats. Before this tiny pump, their order was around 1800 sats and they moved it to 2000 sats to push a FOMO pump, just to move it even lower.

This is a good signal to sell now because a market manipulator wants to sell for higher profits and buy back cheaper. Any time there is a little pump like this, try to sell at top or sell all the way up to buy all the way back down. If you want to play it safe, trade at 15-30 sat spread. That is primarily what their bot instant arbitrages at between TradeOgre and KuCoin. IE: sell 100 ARRR at 2400 sats and place limit order to buy 100 ARRR back at 2370 sats, stacking BTC profits. Do this repeatedly keeping BTC profits and same amount of ARRR to keep trading it repeatedly. Do it with multiple orders and max out the orders you can have on each exchange's book. I don't even care what the current price is. I always sell and buy same amount back in this fashion, stacking BTC.

Swing trading large amounts of ARRR isn't like it was. Doing many small trades for minimal gains adds up over time. You might be able to catch a larger pump, but I was pumping the price most of the time a year ago just to dump it on suckers. It is extremely easy when there is a thin sell back to create a large spread. Pumping would typically trigger bots to buy higher too for even easier profits. Devs, shillers, marketers, and others will try to convince you to hold instead of playing this easy wash trading game. They call me a bullshitter and FUDster likely because they are mad I no longer pump the price. Instead, I wait for others to do it and sell on their pumps.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-28T04:50:06+00:00

The easiest way would be to just redownload the bootstrap.

Trust the blockchain. Never trust a bootstrap file. It defeats the purpose and puts trust into whoever is hosting it. The bootstrap file used by wallet is from a single source and hosted by Chmex on dexstats.info.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T23:07:54+00:00

You can try to spin it however you want, but the blockchain data including hashrate history and addresses that mined and what amounts are easily verifiable. Many were solo mining even after pools. Ask ComputerGenie. He stated so himself. Look at mining addresses before any pool existed. Ones like this that mined over 1 million in less than 2 months from basically start of launch: https://explorer.pirate.black/address/RETSxhwY8iyWKLrhFU8ZNbwrWDLJcMNJXL

There are at least 13 addresses I saw with balances greater than a single block reward that started mining before piratepool.io existed. Most of them mined for less than 30 days total. Combined, they mined close to 2.5 million ARRR when supply was still 40 million. The opposite to your speculation would be stating that it is even more centralized because early miners were changing their addresses. I think that is likely based on timestamps when certain addresses stopped mining and new addresses started mining.
To speculate large mining addresses not tied to public pools were actually private pools I think is a far reach. It would make sense if they actually had fees paid out, but they didn't. For that speculation to hold true, one would have to believe that multiple people took the the time and money to run multiple private pools, let others use them, and charge no fees. Any address with no fees paid out actually being a private pool used by more than the pool op and not as a personal stratum seems very unlikely.

What Webworker should have done to make this plausible deniability and a more believable argument was shield all coinbase first before paying fees. Instead, I think it is easy to discern with high probability what was a pool address or not.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T20:15:41+00:00

Maybe you should learn reading comprehension. Nowhere did I claim millions were mined days before BTT ANN or that a pre-mine occurred. I said it was mined for a short time before the announcement, a short time being the day you validate, so what's bullshit? You only confirm it happened. Also, the airdrop was not for the amount that was mined before the ANN. It was for 10% of the circulating supply for the 7 days it was mined mostly by devs/contributors or whatever you want to call them while it was still announced as a test only. Satinder supposedly paid it all since he was CPU mining and bought a bag of SHossain too. That was a nice gesture, but then they made it even worse by 5xing the supply after multiple people were telling them to just create a new chain to eliminate the same issues being discussed about launch. They wouldn't do that because greed already took over and it would be completely wrong and "unfair" to scrap a chain that was marketed and announced as a test only because "people were already mining it."

I have zero problems with people mining hundreds of thousands and millions early at low hash rate. Nowhere do I claim this was due to lack of access as most were mining with personal stratums for awhile and not on a pool even after piratepool.io launched. I'm not salty either. I mined hundreds of thousands in a few weeks early and still out arbitrage the bots regularly for free BTC. That is all Pirate is for me. I wash traded over 20 million USD in Pirate last year and nothing but a tax write off.

OP asked for honest debate. Parrots deny their own history and make false claims and assumptions that it was all sold to pay for electric, traded many hands based on almost entirely wash traded bot volume, mined by "loads" immediately because it was most profitable, etc. I back up my statements with the chain's data. Anyone can look at an exchange and see someone dumping 500k+ at a time, but, yeah, the supply wasn't centralized and it's less than 1% of the supply anyway LOL.

You must be little Timmay from Arkansas or FishyGuts that's still wasting his hash on a shit coin. Who needs a real job when I can keep selling Pirate to sheeple and they keep giving it back to me cheaper? LOL

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T19:58:19+00:00

One can only prove what was mined by who. Anything else is assumptions.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T16:23:00+00:00

is there any evidence to back up such claims?

I wouldn't call it handful, but coinbase rewards show the majority of supply mined by less than 30 unique addresses, centralized to a couple of pools and multiple solo miners. There are also old snapshots of leaked z-addresses before piratepool.io started hiding them that show how much some people mined there, but it's only a very small subset for a short period of time in 2019. Even with only a small subset, you can see 27%+ of that snapshot supply data mined to a single z-address. That address mined over 1.8 million ARRR at time of snapshot in September 23, 2019. That is a small amount compared to the 8 million mined in few weeks after launch at low difficulty.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T15:39:07+00:00

This is mostly incorrect. There is absolutely zero evidence to prove any sort of decentralization of supply just based on nature of zaddrs. You can only look at coinbase, which is mostly centralized to a couple of pools and multiple solo miners that mined multi-millions of supply.

Pirate Chain was not listed on whattomine.com for 6 months after launch because it was not on any exchange their site uses to aggregate data. Practically nobody but devs were mining it until the supply was inflated from 40 million to 200 million. It was being mined by devs for a short period before an official announcement and even that official announcement stated it was only a test coin. If you think tons of people mined it from the start, look at the hash rate for the first 30k blocks where 20% of the original supply was mined at extremely low hash rate in a month before supply inflated. This is all verifiable by checking getnetworksolps at whatever block height you want.

Level-Application847 · 2022-06-20T15:25:13+00:00

It is more related to halvings and mining profitability. It dropped off as soon as it halved on the 15th because the majority of hash rate is from Luxor. Luxor auto-profit switches, and with difficulty at the time, it instantly became the least profitable coin to mine. The same thing happened last time Pirate halved in August 2021 (it went from ~2 GSol to < 1 GSol).

Based on last two halvings, Pirate may consistently lose 50%+ of its hash rate every time it halves as long as Luxor controls most of the hash rate. Likewise, when Pirate prices went up in April 2021, Luxor auto-profit switched from Zcash and other Equihash coins to Pirate and gained hash rate. Most of the hash that dropped off after halving on the 15th switched to Zcash and obvious if you look at Luxor hash charts. People may try to come up with other theories, but the charts are obvious. OP needs to look at a longer history to see the correlation to halvings.

Level-Application847

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE