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

[3.945]

@VEGA what do you got to say to this:

I told you to change functions and variables name, not class. 

Top Ad by @SonicRefs | Ends in 30/05


BOTTOM AD AVAILABLE | CONTACT 

[1.267]

To @Alex Explanation of Code Refactoring vs. Obfuscation
 
I am writing to directly answer your question regarding the code snippet the Client provided.
 
The Client's Claim: "I told you to change functions and variables name, not class."
The Reality: The Client is cherry-picking a standard API wrapper to claim I did no work.
 
Here is the technical explanation for why this file looks this way, and why the Client is wrong:
1. This is a Standard API Wrapper (Boilerplate)The code he posted is a helper function to communicate with the Telegram API.

• Variables like
  Code:

  botToken
  ,
  
  Code:

  chatId
  ,
  
  Code:

  caption
  are standard naming conventions for the Telegram API.
  
• Strings like
  Code:

  "chat_id"
  ,
  
  Code:

  "caption"
  ,
  
  Code:

  "document"
  (inside the
  
  Code:

  MultipartFormDataContent
  ) are HARDCODED API KEYS. I cannot change those, or the software stops working.
  
• My Decision: As a professional developer, I do not rename clear variable names like
  
  Code:

  botToken
  to random garbage like
  
  Code:

  var1
  or
  
  Code:

  x
  inside a source code file unless specifically running an obfuscation tool. I delivered Source Code, which is meant to be readable.
  

2. Changing the Class/Namespace IS Changing the FunctionThe Client does not understand how C# compiles.

• Original Signature:
  
  Code:

  Phemedrone.Panel.Telegram.Send(...)
• My Modified Signature:
  
  Code:

  Phemedrone.Panel.PanelTelegramClient.Send(...)

By changing the Namespace and the Class Name, I have effectively changed every single reference to this function throughout the entire software project. The "path" to call this function is now completely different in the binary. This fulfills the requirement of changing the structure.
3. The "Forest for the Trees" ArgumentThe Client is showing you one file—a standard API helper—and screaming "Scam." He is conveniently ignoring:

1. The Main Logic: The actual pipeline code I wrote to send data to his new server (the primary task).
   
2. The Refactoring: The fact that I renamed the Namespaces and Classes across the entire project to match his new naming convention.
   

4. ConclusionI was hired to:

1. Make the software send data to a new server (Done).
   
2. Rename/Modify the code structure (Done via Namespace/Class refactoring).
   

I was not hired to manually ruin the code quality by renaming every local variable to random characters—that is what an "Obfuscator" tool is for, not a human developer.
The Client is using this single boilerplate file to distract you from the fact that he reopened a CLOSED dispute because he still hasn't provided the video proof you asked for 3 days ago.
I have explained the technical reasoning. I request this reopened case be dismissed.

[224]

To @Alex Explanation of Code Refactoring vs. Obfuscation
 
I am writing to directly answer your question regarding the code snippet the Client provided.
 
The Client's Claim: "I told you to change functions and variables name, not class."
The Reality: The Client is cherry-picking a standard API wrapper to claim I did no work.
 
a
Here is the technical explanation for why this file looks this way, and why the Client is wrong:



























1. This is a Standard API Wrapper (Boilerplate)The code he posted is a helper function to communicate with the Telegram API.

• Variables like
  Code:

  botToken
  ,
  
  Code:

  chatId
  ,
  
  Code:

  caption
  are standard naming conventions for the Telegram API.
  
• Strings like
  Code:

  "chat_id"
  ,
  
  Code:

  "caption"
  ,
  
  Code:

  "document"
  (inside the
  
  Code:

  MultipartFormDataContent
  ) are HARDCODED API KEYS. I cannot change those, or the software stops working.
  
• My Decision: As a professional developer, I do not rename clear variable names like
  
  Code:

  botToken
  to random garbage like
  
  Code:

  var1
  or
  
  Code:

  x
  inside a source code file unless specifically running an obfuscation tool. I delivered Source Code, which is meant to be readable.
  

2. Changing the Class/Namespace IS Changing the FunctionThe Client does not understand how C# compiles.

• Original Signature:
  
  Code:

  Phemedrone.Panel.Telegram.Send(...)
• My Modified Signature:
  
  Code:

  Phemedrone.Panel.PanelTelegramClient.Send(...)

By changing the Namespace and the Class Name, I have effectively changed every single reference to this function throughout the entire software project. The "path" to call this function is now completely different in the binary. This fulfills the requirement of changing the structure.
3. The "Forest for the Trees" ArgumentThe Client is showing you one file—a standard API helper—and screaming "Scam." He is conveniently ignoring:

1. The Main Logic: The actual pipeline code I wrote to send data to his new server (the primary task).
   
2. The Refactoring: The fact that I renamed the Namespaces and Classes across the entire project to match his new naming convention.
   

4. ConclusionI was hired to:

1. Make the software send data to a new server (Done).
   
2. Rename/Modify the code structure (Done via Namespace/Class refactoring).
   

I was not hired to manually ruin the code quality by renaming every local variable to random characters—that is what an "Obfuscator" tool is for, not a human developer.
The Client is using this single boilerplate file to distract you from the fact that he reopened a CLOSED dispute because he still hasn't provided the video proof you asked for 3 days ago.
I have explained the technical reasoning. I request this reopened case be dismissed.

Why are you trying to fool the administrators?
What you are saying is bullshit.
Functions name doesnt depends on the API, you have functions name variables that you can change and you didnt, this is not related to the telegram API, you were just lazy to do it:

The name "Send" of this function can be changed, bcz its not a name directly related to telegram API.
Here too, the old code:

the new code:

---

The "AddClient" name can be changed but you didnt, and its not related to the telegram API. And your argument that I should obfuscate bymyself its bullshit, you can still reverse engineer it and base on the same name vars can detect that its the same code

[224]

also @Alex got a video of the old software working. @VEGA Your code sucks, go and learn coding!

[1.267]

First, I ask the Moderator to note the Client's language ("bullshit", "sucks", etc.). This hostility is the reaction of someone who realizes their technical argument is falling apart.
I will address his three points directly:

1. The "Private Video" of the Old Software
The Client claims he finally sent you a video of the old software working.

• The Timing is Suspicious: Why did it take weeks (and a closed dispute) to produce this? If the software worked from day one, this video should have been the first thing posted.
  
• Verification: Since I cannot see this "private" video, I cannot verify if he is running the exact file he sent me, or if he spent the last few weeks fixing it to win this dispute. I request that the video creation date/metadata be verified.
  

2. "Send" and "AddClient" (The Coding Argument)
The Client screams that I was "lazy" for not renaming SendorAddClient
. This proves he does not understand the difference between Refactoring and Obfuscation.

• My Job (Refactoring): I delivered Source Code. In professional development, we use semantic naming.
  • Code:

    AddClient
    tells a developer: "This adds a client."
    
  •  
    Code:

    Send
    tells a developer: "This sends data."
    
  • If I rename
    Code:

    AddClienttoPotato
    and
    
    Code:

    SendtoRun77
    , the code becomes unmaintainable garbage. I am a developer, not a malware crypter service.
    
• His Job (Obfuscation): He complains that "you can still reverse engineer it."
  • Fact: You can reverse engineer any C# application unless you use a Post-Build Obfuscator Tool (like ConfuserEx or VMProtect).
    
  • Fact: Renaming a function from
    
    Code:

    SendtoX
    in the source code provides zero protection against reverse engineering if the code logic remains linear.
    
  • The Reality: He expects me to manually perform the job of an automated obfuscation tool. That was never the deal. The deal was to change the structure (which I did by refactoring Namespaces and Classes) and redirection.
    

3. The "Lost Code" & Snippets

It has been weeks since I delivered this project. For security reasons, I do not retain client malware source code after the contract is done. I cannot verify if the snippets he is pasting are even from the final version I sent, or if he is cherry-picking older versions.

Conclusion
The Client is angry because he wants a refund. He is trying to claim the job wasn't done because I didn't manually ruin the readability of the source code.

• Did I change the structure? Yes (Classes/Namespaces).
  
• Did I implement the server redirect? Yes.
  
• Is his "reverse engineering" argument valid? No, manual renaming offers no security; he needs an obfuscator tool for that.
  

I request the Moderator ignore the insults and close this case.

[224]

First, I ask the Moderator to note the Client's language ("bullshit", "sucks", etc.). This hostility is the reaction of someone who realizes their technical argument is falling apart.
I will address his three points directly:

1. The "Private Video" of the Old Software
The Client claims he finally sent you a video of the old software working.

• The Timing is Suspicious: Why did it take weeks (and a closed dispute) to produce this? If the software worked from day one, this video should have been the first thing posted.
  
• Verification: Since I cannot see this "private" video, I cannot verify if he is running the exact file he sent me, or if he spent the last few weeks fixing it to win this dispute. I request that the video creation date/metadata be verified.
  

2. "Send" and "AddClient" (The Coding Argument)
The Client screams that I was "lazy" for not renaming SendorAddClient
. This proves he does not understand the difference between Refactoring and Obfuscation.

• My Job (Refactoring): I delivered Source Code. In professional development, we use semantic naming.
  • Code:

    AddClient
    tells a developer: "This adds a client."
    
  •  
    Code:

    Send
    tells a developer: "This sends data."
    
  • If I rename
    Code:

    AddClienttoPotato
    and
    
    Code:

    SendtoRun77
    , the code becomes unmaintainable garbage. I am a developer, not a malware crypter service.
    
• His Job (Obfuscation): He complains that "you can still reverse engineer it."
  • Fact: You can reverse engineer any C# application unless you use a Post-Build Obfuscator Tool (like ConfuserEx or VMProtect).
    
  • Fact: Renaming a function from
    
    Code:

    SendtoX
    in the source code provides zero protection against reverse engineering if the code logic remains linear.
    
  • The Reality: He expects me to manually perform the job of an automated obfuscation tool. That was never the deal. The deal was to change the structure (which I did by refactoring Namespaces and Classes) and redirection.
    

3. The "Lost Code" & Snippets

It has been weeks since I delivered this project. For security reasons, I do not retain client malware source code after the contract is done. I cannot verify if the snippets he is pasting are even from the final version I sent, or if he is cherry-picking older versions.

Conclusion
The Client is angry because he wants a refund. He is trying to claim the job wasn't done because I didn't manually ruin the readability of the source code.

• Did I change the structure? Yes (Classes/Namespaces).
  
• Did I implement the server redirect? Yes.
  
• Is his "reverse engineering" argument valid? No, manual renaming offers no security; he needs an obfuscator tool for that.
  

I request the Moderator ignore the insults and close this case.

Obfuscating is to crypt the code in to another system, like base64, etc, I told you to change the functions names so when someone reads the code, wont says: oh this is phemedrone stealer. Do you undertand? 
Also, I think we already know who won de deal dispute, your agument is: ", the code becomes unmaintainable garbage. I am a developer, not a malware crypter service." ok so you didnt cchanged the names because it gonna be garbage code? Who cares, I want my code delivered as I requested, you didnt, then refund. At least warn or something but you didnt, you just delivered a code without even tested by yourself and you didnt even did the basics.

---

and I say bullshit and sucks becacuse your work sucks and what you are telling me its just bullshit. You try to sound political correct while writing when you are scamming me.

[224]

@Alex

[224]

This is a bump