Bitcoin Forum

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2k5w2nwul/california-northern-bankruptcy-court/hashfast-technologies-llc-adversary-proceeding/ (http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2k5w2nwul/california-northern-bankruptcy-court/hashfast-technologies-llc-adversary-proceeding/)

Looks like cypherdoc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=8389) siphoned 3000BTC off Hashfast while customers were pre-paying for undelivered mining equipment. The payments were made in return for his 'shilling' on bitcointalk.org in the HashFastEndorsement (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.0) thread. So probably some kind of pass-thru, tunnel or quid pro quo arrangement to ultimately bilk HashFast customers, I mean $2,274 per post, wtf?!

Holy shitballs... That is a lot of money for one post. I feel sorry for people that bought into Hashfast.

Note that the docs on plainsite are technically out-of-date.

There is an "amended" complaint, and Lowe's answer, along with audio from a hearing where cypherdoc's lawyer compares him to a superstar basketball player re: Bitcoin marketing to justify the vast sum of cash for shilling.

cypherdoc justifies this with pointers to his gold threads early on: apparently he thinks this not only qualifies him as a bitcoin expert, but also a bitcoin marketing expert worth $360,000 or $11,000 per day.

I am unaware of any marketing expert in any software business, professional or not, who makes $11,000/day. The only people I know who make that much are owners of companies who've hit it big with a major product release.

There is no directly-established link between even a significant fraction of customers' purchases of babyjets and his activity on bitcointalk.

I have the amended complaint, the audio of the hearing, and the reply to the amended complaint available on a site, which I can provide to people upon request when asked, in PM, on Freenode. My nickname there is "midnightmagic", same as here.

After hashfast blew up (I lost ~100 BTC to it, got nothing in return-- bummer considering they'd promised early customers to return deposited coins if they failed to deliver), I negatively rated Cypherdoc on the forum -- after all, he pushed this stuff hard and if reputation is to mean anything at all your reputation ought to take a hit when you promote something that rips people off.   Cypherdoc then emailed me and convinced me that he was just another victim, that got discounts for some promotion-- sure-- but his orders failed too.  I took down the rating. People make mistakes, and being another hashfast victim would be punishment enough.

I was quite surprised to read the complaint-- to learn that he'd been paid an astronomic 3000 BTC for his "promotion" services in addition to discounted hardware that he was refunded for (while many other customers got nothing).  It's also more than a little perplexing-- as a developer of Bitcoin and a moderator of the mining subforum payments like that seem completely out of line with anything I've experienced-- some people get a single demo piece for review and such, or an engineering sample for driver developer but I can't fathom what would justify payments like that, and I can understand why he's being sued to recover them. Doubly so because in my experience while cypherdoc is a long time participant, he was not all that well known outside of certain niche areas of the community (his claim to fame is the "gold collapsing" thread he started), and he appeared to have no expertise in mining that wasn't held by thousands of other participants.

Though my opinions might be colored a bit by the fact that since that time he's been rather rude and aggressive towards me in public (I suppose he's the expert in financial conflicts of interest if nothing else, 'enh?)  ...  but I only restored my negative rating of him on the forum after discovering that his poor-me act was just an act, and that he was by no means just a victim here.  I think he should return the funds which were fraudulently taken from hashfast customers; and that his hundred some shilling posts should not entitle him to walk away with a massive profit while so many of hashfast's customers-- some who did buy specifically on his advice--  have received nothing in return for their payment.

If indeed there was some greater fraud afoot, the parties involved should still find it greatly in there interest to settle this matter as fast as possible before its details come to light in discovery.

Wow.  Nicely played cypherdoc!  No wonder you have such a high opinion of your own work; it really does command high price in the 'free market'.  And here I was dubious about that.  My bad.

Anyway, carry on pumping Hearn's XT project to take over Bitcoin Core and get it's exponential bloat (and likely coin tainting as well) baked into Bitcoin.  It would be rude to ask if you are formally shilling for them and if so how much you get paid so I'll just muse about it I guess.

I recognized cypherdoc was bad news back when I saw his rabid shilling for Hashfast. Bilking them out of 3k BTC ? That's just asinine.

Looks like cypherdoc has got this thread promptly moved off the front page, no wonder, the HashFast scandal stinks to high almighty. I'm just disturbed now that he may have paid some bitcointalk moderators to achieve this manipulation ... maybe it is time for a general cleaning of house around bitcointalk.org?

As the ultimate arbiter of fairness...I have to say that there is some validity to the idea that this post would appropriately file this thread under 'scam accusations.'  It is also fairly appropriate to do otherwise under the argument that the content was relatively heavy on fact and lite on conjecture.

Nice to have a link to this thread in my back pocket one way or another.  Thanks for what could certainly be considered a 'PSA'.

For some reason nobody seems to want to believe that cypherdoc anything but a well meaning rube.  I have that impulse myself for reasons I don't fully understand, though I've entertained alternate hypothesis now and then.  I have at times wondered aloud why cypherdoc seems to take a hiatus in times of stress then come back strong seemingly newly armed with fresh talking points and angles to attack a problem.  Relatively recently I pondered if he had vanished to some war-room meeting to see who was going to eat the main losses in some endeavor as I recall, but I don't remember the details (and am to lazy to go through my posts.)  I'm pretty sure it was associated with someone who would lose out if sidechains or LN went live since that is the focus of my interest lately and it could damage the hell out of a range of other alternate solutions to Bitcoin's problems.

The amounts of money that he received are so large that I would doubt that he was actually being paid to post on that thread.  Granted, it may have been that this is what happened on paper, however I would find it much more likely that money was being laundered through him and/or was otherwise being used for illicit purposes.

The amounts of money he was making is comparable to how much the Clintons make for speaking publicly, and we all know the real reason they are paid for speaking....

What was the price of Bitcoin at the time though? Was that not back when we were $100? Not defending him at all, but the exchange rate matters a lot.

It said that at the time he received the Bitcoin, the value of the Bitcoin was worth ~$2,200 per post. I assume that the value of the Bitcoin he received is now higher.

So it would be the same as him receiving $2,200 in cash per post.

This is a very likely possibility. Is cypherdoc facing money laundering charges in addition to forfeiture of the BTC he received? I'm not familiar with reading US court proceedings.

I moved it. Last person I'm going to take bribes from is someone who has actively tried to have me removed from my position. He's already screwed his reputation, not going to give someone like that a chance to screw mine.

That said, I actually came in this thread to say I didn't think he was that kind of person, but that sure is pretty cut and dried. Sad to see.
Still belongs in scam accusations though.

Dunno about that;  after the hashfast failed to deliver many people neg rated him--  and he made it out like he just got some discounted units from them that he lost money on, like the rest of the customers.  Given what he said before understating his involvement, and the fact that he'd claimed that he only benefited if it panned out-- it sounded completely believable. Many people who do equipment reviews, software development, etc. for mining don't get anything more than some free hardware and often just engineering samples.  I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation.

Interesting. I didn't see it, or intend it, as a scam accusation. Note I used "probably epic scammer" and "looks like" etc on the possible fraud aspects of the scandal. And that part was only an addendum to the main point that he admitted in court documents that he is a paid shill.

The paid shilling to the tune of $2,274 per post is what cypherdoc used himself as a defense in a legal case. That was the main point of the post. I guess the obviously ludicrous court defense makes it plain there is some scam going on here and although I was highlighting something else it could easily look like a scam accusation.

In my view, there is something else fishy going on here with being paid that much to shill a non-existent mining product but that is for the courts to decide. I suspect he may have got himself into the situation where he happened to be the "trusted" bitcoin guru who ended up receiving all the incoming BTC funds for HashFast pre-orders and now he either doesn't want to hand them back or simply can't because he has lost them ... or some other weird bitcoin story that would-be sharpies get themselves into with crypto-currencies.

Not yet... This is a summons to appear in the HF bankruptcy case. It was schedueled for April 24, 2015.

Also: Hashfast is making a claim of relief against him:



NB. Hashfast went bankrupt owing 40+ million dollars

Akin to that cockroach shilling BFL for over a year prior to him becoming their COOckadoodledoo-cum(alloveryou)-VP. Said participated in the ad campaigns on this forum and purchased outright over three-quarter of a million dollars worth of cars and a home on a base salary of $50K/yr and a set a bitcoin miners producing ~15 BTC max according to his sworn statements under oath. Prior to BFL he was strapped for cash hence his GLSBE group-by attempt of which many got burnt in that ordeal in which he justified their lost with twisted "Honest Abe" verbiage.

Currently, Black Arrow is allowed to run a script on this forum that automatically deletes any posts shedding a bad light on that bad actor in spite of month's effort in getting such shut down.

So how much did  hashfast earn in total at all? Is he maybe the real person behind and he wanted to secure the cash?

Surely the victims can argue that paying out this amount of money wasn't a business decision but something different. I seeing the amount of value i think a court will agree.

Thats quite hefty. I have read the trust ratings and he really received 10% of the income of hashfast? Can any judge believe that that?

This really looks like a not so good done scam now. Probably not planned from the start because not clever enough. Except they thought they can deliver and nobody would complain.

Though even then, 10% of the income is not healthy for a company in any way. Giving that back is fully fair, regardless of the excuses.

Ill rate him red now.

Hmmm, where does the 10% figure come from, did HashFast pull in 30,000 BTC?

Regardless, 3000 BTC to shill some electronic hardware with speculative outcomes in incredibly misguided or shady. Why cypherdoc cannot see that the right thing is to give the money back to injured parties is kind of sad for a medical doctor sworn to the hippocratic oath. (Maybe he thought they said it was a hypocritic oath?:))

From the complaint, the agreement was 10%, and yes-- more than 30,000 BTC it appears.

The audio recording in the response is halarious, Cypherdoc's attorney describes him as the  "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world"-- presumably that was the least redicilous claim they could deploy to provide any other rationale the amounts paid in an effort to avoid the conclusions people actually in the Bitcoin world drawing in this thread.

Sauce (https://people.xiph.org/~greg/cypherdoc_fraud_hearing_1.mp3)--the specific quote is at 18:30.

Edit: The attachment discussion is interesting. I guess they've documented the wallet address. But I don't think the coins are legally tied-up at all?

I didn't notice cypherdoc shilling for Hashfast since I don't follow such things at all.  I wish I had noticed it since I would have rubbed his nose in it for all it was worth.  Better late than never I guess.

Dr. Lowelife follows in a long line of disgraced scammers starting around Bruce Wagner.  Remember how Wagner stuck around for a while pitifully thinking that he had a shot at preserving his 'Labron James-esque' legacy which existed in his mind?  (Actually, unless you are a pretty old timer, you probably do not.)  Anyway, it will be fun to watch of cypherdoc follows the same pattern.

The original court document has him representing himself. So cypherdoc thinks that he is the "LeBron James" of Bitcoin world? ... does that make HashFast the Cavaliers?

NLC noticed. He hounded him about it for years. I swear that troll is the twisted conscience of this place.

He seems to have representation now (its in the legal docs but PM me if you need contact information for his attornies for some reason).

Makes sense, after all-- 3000 BTC pay for a lot of representation.  I assume part of the point of getting the attachment is so that he can't spend it all on his legal defense and then claim to be insolvent after losing. :(

jeez this forum.. such drama.

Its hilarious. I hope enough voices come up that explain the judge and the jury how much nonsense that claim is. Im really interested in the backstory of that. Besides tunneling coins i dont see a reason for that. So was he so big friends with the hashfast owners or is he a owner in reality? Having the CEO and the rest as scapegoats?

Leave cypherdoc alone! ::) Since he contributed with "money and a whole lot of education and perspective on the finances and economics of Bitcoin" with his useless thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.0) (cited from https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/csgtiwo)

The real cypherdoc:

http://gsm.ucdavis.edu/faculty/marc-lowe

Has anyone notified his employer about these allegations?

Ah, the hilarity of it all.  So that was the "highly successful business" he was running.  In all seriousness, I'm sorry people lost money to this chicanery.

Well the motion to attach was denied, so...Those coins are still very much his. Maybe he can start a fund to payback some of the victims.

If that's the real cypherdoc then he was trying to frame some poor ophthalmology with the same name because he has specifically said that people trust him to operate on their eyes.

The judge refers to him as an Ophthalmologist and a Doctor in court. fwiw.

So he's an opthalmologist, a silicon valley VC shark, MBA lecturer and an NBL-level super-star bitcoin mining shiller? Is there nothing this guy can't do?

Pft. I'm still blind. Explain that, Doc?!

Ps. Aside from GMAX who's down 100 BTC, is there a list of victims of the Hashfast legacy? A thread of poor souls somewhere, maybe? Is there an estimate of forum member losses?

I would have lost ~100 BTC for two baby jets ordered in August 2013 if my transfer of BTC did not delay.

But it did delay and I ended up not ordering thus not losing out.

30 seconds of skimming the link indicates the guy at UCD isn't an ophthalmologist, so (for theymos and this forum's sake) I don't recommend harassing him or his employer.

The motion for attachment was literally laughed out of court (https://people.xiph.org/~greg/cypherdoc_fraud_hearing_1.mp3).

Ah, the hilarity of you otherwise-extremely-intelligent guys being total fucktards over some old butthurt!

Seriously, the idiocy about Frap.doc's coins has become at least as bad as Frap.doc's idiocy about 1MB blocks.   :-\

Idiots beget idiocy I guess, seems to be following this frap.doc around. What idiot could think he could take 3000BTC from a failed mining venture (with undelivered hardware) and not expect to be targeted by the creditors? "Follow the money" has lead directly to cypherdoc in this case.

I would have nothing to do with the guy, quite frankly he's toxic to the forum.

You know what else is "toxic to the forum?" Your (and others') willingness to reach outlandish conclusions without regard for the actual facts of the matter.

Frap.doc didn't "take 3000BTC from a failed mining venture."

He took a sales commission for helping a brand new start-up raise the millions required for their ASIC NRE.  The bankruptcy came much later, long after he had done his part.

TSMC isn't cheap.  Hey, I know, why don't HF creditors try to get their money back from TSMC?

It makes sense, in your "follow the money" logic.  But alas, such an attempt would also be laughed out of court.


One such "idiot" would be Judge Montali, who (after ridiculing and thoroughly rubbishing your "follow the money" logic) denied the motion to attach.   ;)

So you say his "service" could create value worth way more than 3000 Bitcoins? I wonder how you get to that conclusion. If he would have known investors that would invest 30,000 Bitcoins, then 3000 Bitcoins would be a high reward still, but understandable. But he never had the ability or a standing big enough to justify that payment.

And TSMC? They did not take an amount that is way beyond a normal payment for them.

I cant see how you can come in and claim that the 3000 Bitcoins were justified. There was nothing he did or could have done that this justified.

And you say Judge Montali believed that he is some bitcoin god with followers in the thousands that would not only pay 3000BTC, no even more so that the payment had a slight justification. If the judge really believes he is such a big figure who deserves that payment then he spoke with the wrong person till now.

You are very confused about who is saying (and claiming, and believing, and justifying, and concluding) what.  Please listen to the hearing, then reevaluate in view of the facts and logic therein presented.

https://people.xiph.org/~greg/cypherdoc_fraud_hearing_1.mp3

Primary sources are our friends; gossip is not.   :)

Guess im not trained enough in hearing english in order to understand this really. Maybe some other reader can write what the file is about? Its long too.  ::)

But maybe you can tell why you think that payment is justified. You are the only one yet, i read of, that thinks he could deliver anything near or over 3000Bitcoins worth.

Best I can tell, iCEBREAKER is saying that cypherdoc helped scam people fair and square, and attempts to use 'violence' to clawback the ill-begotten 'nobly achieved' gains from him are improper.

This seems to be the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin (or at least since I've been involved.)  I've actually come around to this viewpoint somewhat relative to my initial stance.  That said, I don't really believe that calling attention to cypherdoc's malfeasance are 'violence' in the standard form (such as use/mis-use of the state sponsored judicial system.)  Cypherdoc made a big thing of all the due dilligence he did before pumping Hashfast (and nothing at all of the money he was making shilling for them which, in fact, he tried to hide to the extent that he would flat-out lie to Maxwell about it.)

Cypherdoc can keep his money as far as I'm concerned (which is easy for me to say as someone who didn't even bother to know what-the-fuck Hashfast was much less send them (and cypherdoc) a bunch of my BTC.)  What comes around goes around.  In the mean time, informing people of his reliability in terms research and suggestions and the like should offend no one.  Not even uber-Libertarians.

Don't believe tvbcof's malicious, defamatory gossip.  His distorted version of events is not supported by the primary source.

It's not about what *I'm* saying, it's about what the Judge is saying.

Clue for clueless tvbcof: the Judge didn't mention "the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin."

We know you hate Ayn Rand with the fiery intolerance of a supervolcano, but please don't flat-out lie to SebastianJu about what was said and decided at the hearing.

All that happened was that cypherdoc got a 10% sales commission for helping HF fund their ASIC.

Unfortunately BTC's price and difficulty shot up faster than HF could build their machines.  But cypherdoc had nothing to do with that.

That's why the judge ruled the lawyers, having destroyed the company itself and now desperately looking for a way to pay themselves, could not take his coins (at this time).

My comment about cypherdoc being a lieing piece of shit had nothing to do with the court system.  It had everything to do with him whining and crying to Maxwell about being a loser who lost money in order to get him to retract his negative rating when in reality he was sitting on a cool 3000 BTC which used to be in Hashfast victims wallets.

As for the court, I guess I am more of a Libertarian than you at this point.  I have close to zero confidence in them and by-n-large don't give a shit about what these corrupt asswipes say.

It is the case that I fund the justice system through my taxes and I would not shed a tear if they make cypherdoc squeal.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes.  Same goes for other Libertarian scammers who didn't pay attention to the old adage "If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

I happen to agree with the court that it is inappropriate for what's left of Hashfast to attach cypherdoc's 3000 BTC at the present time.  Again, if they rightly or wrongly do him much greater 'violence' in the future, well, golly gee wilikers...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.


Cypherdoc made no allowance for his being a clueless jackoff when he was shilling hard for Hashfast.  Yes, those who didn't do their own due diligence on the guy (and the company and Bitcoin itself) and lost money (edit: or lost something) and they are primarily to blame, but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears if cypherdoc takes a hit for his own (very optional) role in the smoking crater that the endeavor very predictably became.

So the judge only says its now not correct to charge him?

10% from the start. Either the hashfast owners were not the best businessmans, or cypherdoc was one of the bosses from the start. Getting paid his salary a way that its independent from the outcome of the business.

I mean these payments were even hidden from the investors. So investors could claim the money was embezzled. Maybe that happens at a later time.

When this works out for cypherdoc then we have a role model how to successfully create a scam. You only need to impose a ceo who makes everything so that it looks like a legit business failing. Payment to you cant be recovered and your target is reached.

I think even when hashfast would have been successfull, then maybe that payment would have never come to light, but it could still not be justified. Its hard to see what he could have done to create a value of more than 3000 Bitcoins.

So you prefer to believe gmax's gossip rather than consult primary sources and form your own opinion?  Good luck with that!

This isn't the first time we've seen someone hypocritically selectively declare how little they care for courts' and judges' opinions, just because the court/judge in question failed to confirm their preexisting prejudgments.  When you lose on the facts, pound the table and attack the venue, right?   ::)

Plenty of people (including myself and presumably gmax) did their due diligence before ordering from HF.  But that is no guarantee of success when objective business conditions later become unfavorable to an insurmountable degree.

You are certainly not "more of a Libertarian" than I.  A real Libertarian would not ignore court proceedings/findings/rulings simply because, and only after, they failed to reinforce his preferred narrative.  You seem to think that Libertarians are anarchists, who despise courts and judges.  Big mistake, you amateur.

Libertarians don't believe simply doing your own due diligence guarantees you won't lose money on a venture (especially an ultra-high-risk gamble involving a brand new, very ambitious BTC ASIC start-up).  That's another big amateur mistake.

The broad problem of Deep Capture does not necessarily mean everything done by the courts (or police, etc.) is automatically wrong.  EG, in the narrow example of Frap.doc's coins we saw the court reject its Capturer's (Katten Muchen Rosenman) demand to jam their blood funnel into the nearest thing that smells like money.  

That's your third big amateur mistake.  I suggest you read Anarchy, State, and Utopia to get a clue about what "libertarian" actually means.

"very predictably became?"

Please, point out where you (psychically?) predicted HF would become a "smoking crater" or STFU about your asinine 20/20 hindsight and egregious Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  You don't get to say 'I told you so' when you did not, in fact, tell us so.

If the bankruptcy was so very predictable, why did gmax and dozens of others of old time and expert Bitcoiners fail to notice?

I swear to God...you people...with your retroactive, after-the-fact, so-called predictions...   :D

You are confused because you are operating in a fact-free world of defamatory gossip and malicious narratives.

Actually it's worse than that.  You are operating on incorrect assumptions which you take to be facts.

Consult the primary sources, such as the audio of the attachment hearing, and you'll be more informed and thus able to usefully contribute to the discussion (instead of, as you did above, further distorting and inflaming the already present misinformation).

I'll actually not argue strenuously with most of your points as most of them contain an element of truth and at the very least are amusing.

I will say that via very simplistic analysis which seems to elude all, and especially 'free marketers', all mining is destined to fail (and may ultimately take Bitcoin down with them.)  That's not to say that one cannot make some money selling pick-axes if one is lucky and/or scammy however.

I'll also observe that outwardly you seem to be displaying classic battered wife syndrome toward cypherdoc who one supposes is sitting on 10% of the BTC that you once controlled.  Of course it's possible that your activities with Hashfast are more complex than average.  Who knows?

From my admittedly tangential read, there is a hypothesis floated in legal circles that cypherdoc's involvement is somewhat more complex than simple shilling.  That is, his wallet acts as a protected buffer and his shilling fees exist as an excuse and to escape future legal 'violence'.  Whether I like or trust the legal system or not, I'd rather see the funds I put in to support it (my taxes) used to tug at this string than to help resolve disputes between other faceless corporate giants which is where most of the money goes.  That's only because I happen to be into Bitcoin though.  Ideally the court system and government generally would studiously ignore Bitcoin, but that ship has already sailed.

At least you admit repeating gossip and narrative, rather than primary sources.   :P

Cypherdoc's involvement as a paid endorser, who took on the role of a proxy for the community by visiting HF in person, started and stopped long before anyone knew business conditions for 3rd gen ASIC companies were about to take a turn for the worse.

No, it was a hypothesis.  I mentioned it in several ways in a fairly compact way.  If you will not entertain and explore a variety of hypotheses it is nearly certain that your view of the world will be highly contained and constrained and you'll be caught flat footed by almost everything of importance.

What a pleasant excursion into generalities and platitudes.

Does it have anything to do with the specific matter at hand, IE the fact that a 10% sales commission is not unusual, unethical, nor illegal?

I've already explained why the conspiracy theory you call a hypothesis does not comport with the actual timeline of events.

Perhaps you could address how we are supposed to find value in entertaining a theory at odds with already known facts.

Is it purely an exercise in imagination and creativity for the sake of making sure Katten gets paid, or what?

Oh, that's right, I forgot.  You have some grievance with Frap.doc over other matters, but want to bash him with any weapon possibilly available, no matter how far-fetched.

Now you are defending cypherdoc too? Thanks for proving that you are just a dog following orders!

This isn't about Frappuccino_Doc.  It's defending the truth, and thus helping lurkers understand why reality turned out to be so wildly divergent from the herd-mind consensus of the HF Derangement Society.

In fact we've been in a furious debate about blocksize (and by proxy, the True Meaning of Bitcoin) for months.

Shouldn't you get back to shilling for Spamdoolies?  Maybe they will throw you a bone and give you a belly rub if you help them spam the hardware sub, as they have done over (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=898999.msg9901225#msg9901225) and over (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=938782.msg10285507#msg10285507) again.

I'm touched you devoted your sig to me, so epic is your butthurt about the thrashings I've given you every single time we've tangled.   :-*

The truth is that cypherdoc was paid for a service that helped the scammers from HF steal tens of millions of dollars. End of story. Just like you did. There isn't much to talk about.

You talking about a single even which took place 7 months ago makes me giggles.

That is not the truth, that is defamation.

Where is the proof HF was anything but an ambitious high-tech start-up that, despite their best efforts, went bankrupt due to unfavorable business conditions?

There is no active police or regulatory investigation, there are no charges pending, and every attempt to even put HF into Chapter 7 has failed.

Chapter 11 is not a status which is granted to "scammers."

I realize you lack the basic vocabulary, common knowledge, and rudimentary intelligence required to comprehend all that (hence your Epic Butthurt sig), but I don't wish any lurkers to be fooled by your odious libel so I've explained it one more time.

Please return to your endless shilling for Spamdoolies, but try not to spamdoolie the entire hardware sub next time.   ;)

So if HF was an ambitious high-tech start-up then on what his endorsement based? Nothing but beautiful words. He was promoting HF based on nothing. He had no knowledge to be able to endorse the start-up. Maybe you can clarify this to me.

There will be no charges, unless HF decides that he didn't provide the service that he was paid for. I wasn't accusing cypherdoc of anything except that he took A LOT of money knowing that there are big chances that they will fail being a high-tech start-up. Let me refresh your memory:


This is his endorsement. He even invoked God for the 3000 BTC that he took. He did his job very good, I'm not complaining, but I don't see anything about any risk especially when we are talking about a high-tech start-up that normally is prone to fail. Fuck the statistics. He looked them into their eyes! It's the best endorsement ever! No talking about technical stuff or technical abilities or skills to manage a business.

Yes he mentioned that he can't guarantee the October delivery, but having work ethics compensates for everything.

Yes cypherdoc is a scum bag. A 3000 BTC richer scum bag and he deserves nothing else than shit. Just like you do.

NO MORE NOISE!

If HF didn't have "work ethics" they would have not satisfied the 'best effort' standard required to stay out of Chapter 7 and remain in Chapter 11.

HF said they were teaming with Uniquify to build a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC and that's what they did, before going bankrupt due to the same combination of price and difficulty changes that caused Cointerra (and other companies that didn't even manage to build a chip) to fail.

If BTC had gone to $10k or even stayed at $1k, cypherdoc would be a hero for visiting HF in person and reporting back to us.  Don't put all the blame on others when gambles don't pay off.

So their "best effort" lead the company to go bankrupt while leaving thousands of customers with nothing after they paid a premium for non-delivered products. What about funding the company before turning to pre-orders or after that? I haven't heard of anything like that. Doesn't sound like a "best effort" to me, but hey it's ok since cypherdoc looked them into their eyes!!!

What does "teaming with Uniquify" means? I thought Uniquify didn't helped because HF failed to deliver the chips on time. How did this teaming worked? Did HF paid Uniquify anything? If yes how much and what did they deliver? Could they do it somewhere else cheaper? There are many unknowns in this teaming so you shouldn't talk about them doing "best efforts" if you don't also prove it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Please don't give the Cointerra example which is another US company which used the same strategy of over-marketing their products while failing at technical skills and failing to deliver.

Why don't you give other examples as burnin who managed to deliver damn good products while being a single person without any marketing or AM which again had very little marketing or Avalon, again no marketing or BITMAIN who managed to raise funding and came to the market directly with the product or KnC which even if they had medium marketing at least they had a 10 year experience behind them.

The good examples are out there, but you choose to ignore them because you are a scumbag and you like it rough in the ass just like cypherdoc.

No. If BTC had gone to $10k or even stayed at $1k HF would still fail and go bankrupt or at least they would've went BFL way where everyone was avoiding them. Their utterly fail to deliver on time and on spec has nothing to do with the exchange rate, only with refunds and customers ROI. They gathered $50M and they failed on every aspect that they could fail. Again please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know what that, or the rest of your word salad, means.

You may learn all about the history from the primary sources:

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/

Ok. It's plain and clear. Prove the "best efforts" or at least back them up with your logic. I showed you my logic that there was no "best efforts" since Uniquify didn't deliver anything. Or at least it's how I remember it. What exactly are their "best efforts" that you praise so much?

To be fair Cypherdoc made some good calls on the market back a few years.

But to find out that he got 3000 BTC for posting on this forum for a few months/weeks is pretty insane to me.

But then again I am not judge and I don't know the law behind people making stupid contracts where they give away 10% of their company's equity for someone to post on this forum a few hundred (or thousands?) of times.

Only in the Bitcoin world ... ::)

[lurk off]
Otoh, people coming by ungodly sums of money for totally inexplicable reasons isn't that uncommon.
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CC5YuLyXIAAKz98.jpghttp://howafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/queen-of-England.jpg

[/lurk on]
 

The bankruptcy court put HF through the "best effort" test.  If they had failed it, the court would have approved the motions to convert from Chapter 11 to 7.

Calls on what? On Gold? On bitcoin? Because his HF endorsement has nothing to do with being good at finance or any other domain. He endorsed a high-tech start-up. What is his history with any of those?

There will be always non-technical people with money that want to get rich. Or people who simply like nice words and fail to properly investigate themselves what they are investing into. See BFL's case. There is not technical data in cypherdoc's endorsement. Only nicely put words.



If your plan is to throw random statements and when asked for proof you throw the court thing then you are failing and I don't buy it.

Prove that HF built with Uniquify the chip! I dare you! Prove it that it wasn't pretty marketing or dust in the eye, call it whatever you want!

Everyone here in consensus reality accepts the fact that Uniquify and HF made a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC called the GN1.

My statement wasn't "random."  You asked for proof of "best effort" and that proof is given by the fact the court didn't put HF into Chapter 7.

Do you really expect me to provide you with some higher order of certainty than legal findings?  Metaphysical, perhaps?   :D

Why would you believe me, when you refuse to believe a court that is specialized in making such findings via the adversarial process?   ::)

How much did Hashfast owe creditors when they were wound up?

Yes his calls on the market had nothing to do with the endorsement he was doing for HF. Agreed.

Simply put I do not support the idea of him getting 10% of the company for advertisement/endorsement on his part. But then again is there a law against people being stupid about their company/equity/funds/money?

Not sure about that.

Of course in my view the right thing to do is to return the funds given lots of people (customers) whom were even his subscribers of his newsletter probably bought into the product because of his endorsement through his newsletter and then lost a lot.

I almost lost about $10,000 (or 100 BTC) at the time because of this. Glad I did not buy into what he was pushing for people to buy into.

Frap.doc didn't get "10% of the company" he got paid 10% of BabyJet sales.

See what happens when you eagerly lap up every unfounded rumor and factual distortion that confirms your biased narrative?

Have you ever done sales?  Do you have any factual basis on which to assert 10% is an unreasonable commission?

If HF had delivered on time and/or BTC stayed at >$1000, would Frap.doc have the right to demand part of the profits to which he helped lead people?

No, of course not.  So WTF makes you think it's his job or obligation to mitigate our losses?  Sheer stupidity, greed, or what?

Okay iCEBREAKER, first, calm down.

Yes I got my facts mixed up. But in essence 10% of the company is its sales (well sort of). At the point he was paid it was the first few months of the company's existence publicly hence why I would think 10% of sales would equate to 10% of the company at the time. "POTATO, POHTAHTO"

My bad. My mistake.  :P

Nope never done sales. Aside from selling my own coins, no.

Did I say his commission was unreasonable? No, you said that.

I said I believe he should return the funds given customers (even his own newsletter subscribers) lost money on HF.

That's pretty much it.  ;D


 ::)
Someone's in an argumentative mood today...

What a coincidence that the manner in which your facts mixed up *just so happens* to paint Frap.doc in the worst possible light, and reinforce the defamatory narrative being parroted here.

I'm sure it was even odds that you could just have easily mixed your facts up in a manner exculpatory to Frap.doc.   ::)

Why should he return funds to mitigate customers' losses, when they were under no corresponding obligation to have shared any potential profits?

"Heads I win, tails you lose" has been the raison d'etre of the Deranged Windfall-No-Matter-What Obsessives for over a year.

Sales commision != equity.  Not even "sort of."

I'll "calm down" when you start getting the facts right before throwing around accusations of malfeasance and demands for wealth redistribution.   ;)

I made no demands for wealth distribution nor made any accusations of malfeasance. (you putting words in my mouth)

If at all I was giving my opinion on the situation. If you don't like it that's your problem.

I admitted I was wrong in getting my facts mixed up, that wasn't enough for you was it? Not a problem.  :)

Carry on being so eagerly able to point the finger when you find something wrong with what someone says on this forum, even after admission you still are all hyped up and passionate about your stance to go so far as to the point of putting words in my mouth.

lol classic

First of all, calm down.  No need for the bold and underlining.  My eyes aren't *that* bad!   :D

Second, you are aware lawyers are currently attempting to forcibly redistribute Frap.doc's coins (from his wallet to their own).

So when you say "I believe he should return the funds" that sounds exactly like an endorsement.

Hiding behind the "giving my opinion" excuse is a distinction without a difference.

And you ignored the part where I made fun of your conceit that it's merely a coincidence your mixed up facts *just happened to* paint Frap.doc in the worst possible light.

Putting words in your mouth isn't nearly as bad as your cheerleading an effort to steal another man's coins.

Funny how correcting you on the facts (commission != equity) made absolutely no difference to your conclusion... ;D

My opinion is my opinion. It has nothing to do with any legal proceedings.

Please stick to what you are good at and stop trying to put words into my mouth.

Also I'm not trying to portray cypherdoc in a bad light. Just calling it how I see it.

Once again you don't have to like what I have to say, just know it is your problem buddy.

Oh and BTW, I am calm, just needed to make it clear that no demands were made by me even though you want to portray me as attacking cypherdoc, even though I am not, just giving my opinion on what happened.

Take it how you want, spin it, twist it, put words in other people's mouths but don't try it with me...it doesn't work.  :P

Everyone knows that as soon as Fap.doc gets back from vacation he is going to issue a huge apology for his poor read of Hashfast, hardware development and manufacture, Bitcoin mining economics, etc.  Probably he'll even apologize for telling people to sell gold and buy Bitcoin for the last 1.5 years.  And, of course, he'll make a public apology for acting like he had these things mastered when in reality he is just another clueless wanker.

Also, of course, he is going to re-distribute the 3000 BTC to all of the people who sunk money into the Hashfast black-hole.  Since he commanded 10% of their (laughable) anticipated profits for his sway in the community it would be easier and fair to simply distributed these funds uniformly across everyone who took a loss.

I agree with the court that it makes no sense for Fap.doc to relinquish his wallet to yet another group of possible scammers.  It would just complicate the distribution that I'm sure he plans to implement on his own.

Well there's your problem right there.  Your opinion is based on forum gossip, not actual facts determined by sworn testimony and evidence in a court of law.



Perish the thought!

You merely concurred with the popular narrative his coins are undeserved at best or ill-gotten at worst, and conclusion the coins should be returned to their presumably more rightful previous owners.

And correcting you on the facts of the matter, IE commission vs equity, made absolutely no difference.  My, aren't you a paragon of perspicacity!



I refuse to believe to believe you aren't smart enough to understand the common practice of paying sales agents commission.

Your game of telephone keeps adding more extravagant disinformation to the source signal everyday.

He was paid commission in the form of 10% of Batch 1 Baby Jets sold.  Not total sales.

We've seen the actual '10% of Batch 1 Baby Jets' commission mutate into unfounded rumors of 10% of total sales and even 10% of equity.

That is ridiculous.  Am I the only one here capable of reading legalese?

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/120867/

Just because it was supported by a judge in a court of law of the U.S. doesn't make it right. Do you agree with every decision that every US court has ever made?

Exactly just because we disagree doesn't make one party right and the other wrong.

Agree to disagree.

Even if I got my facts mixed up it doesn't change that someone made out better than the people he led to believe that HF would deliver and never did then had the gall to play the victim of "losing" out on his order but in fact he had pocketed 3000 BTC.

Not much of a loss there if you lost a few babyjets and got 3000 BTC commission for posting on a forum.

You have your opinion and I have mine, obviously for some odd reason you just don't like me posting my opinion on this forum it appears.  :P

All I can say is that if I had agreed to tout my record of buying at $2 and selling at $1000 then suggesting that I would think about starting to buy again half a year ago to convince people to sink funds into some enterprises which collapsed, I would cough up the 'commission' I received for doing so.  No shit!  I really think that I would.  That's why all that I ever do is to explain to others what I am doing and why and never (iirc) suggest that others do the same.  I also would not take a 'commission' for anything even if it were offered to me.

In other words, yes, I do understand the 'common practice of paying sales agents commissions'.  I just think that most people who pay or are payed are fucking scumbags most of the time.  Nothing I've seen dissuades me from characterizing cypherdoc as such.  I've simply not studied Hashfast enough to make a determination one way of another, and have no compelling reason to do so.

You mean Batch 1 Baby Jets?  No idea.  

To quote Hillbag, "At this point, what difference does it make?"

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   ::)

Ah, there it is again.  The predictable retreat into generalities because you have lost on the specifics.

The particularly cowardly and hypocritical thing about that is you would be singing its praises if the court had taken Frap.doc's coins.

I approve of you posting your opinion on this forum, but will push back when it is based on blatant falsehoods.

For some odd reason, you don't like me pushing back when you espouse defamatory narratives based on malicious gossip and incorrect facts.   ;D

I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread.  It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk.

I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar.  He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and dilligence.  Probably much worse would be my guess.

Cowardly?

Hypocritical?

Defamatory?

Malicious?

Damn you really are trying to portray me in a bad light lol.

Talk about hypocrisy.  :D :D :D

iCEBREAKER... am i remembering wrong or do you often defend wrong going businesses?

Anyway... he got paid 3000BTC right? And you claim that was only 10% of BabyJet sales. The thing is... 10% of the sales are not even 10% of the profits. Profits were, even at that time, not so that you could spew away 10% of the sales price. On top... it might have been a hard calculated decision when Hashfast would have said ok, we give you 10% of the sales price for every Buyer you personally refer to us. That would be reasonable since he would have to work and the referrals would show that he brought these customers.

Instead he took on a role that he could not fulfill at all. He being responsible for all the babyjet sales is not imaginable. When he referred only a quarter of the buyers, which is very high, then his reward would be 40% of the sales he referred.

Dont you get that something with these numbers cant match from a business perspective?

And please... try to not go around naming... it doesnt make your point any more valid.

Your actions portray you in a bad light.

I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.


SebastianJu,

Your 20/20 hindsight into the proper management of a bankrupt start-up is not relevant (much less interesting).

At this point, what difference does it make?

The judge heard the lawyers make basically the same 'cypher didn't deserve his commission' case you just (awkwardly and inexpertly) did.  It was laughed out of court, just as your retroactive micromanagement should be laughed off the forum.

Can you link that thread?

cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins. All members of standing are also the injured parties now along with the HF customers who didn't get timely deliveries. Pleading guru status to justify his 3000BTC cha-ching! from hashfast is asinine, not unlike his other arguments in the technical realm where he is clearly out of his depth, yet perseveres with the zeal of a paid shill.

He needs to first declare all other pecuniary interests in the bitcoin realm before redeeming any kind of credibility in ANY kind of bitcoin-related debates, given his proven history to covertly shill. Regardless of the particulars surrounding whether he has scammed or not in the HashFast case, which seem like a conveniently convoluted rabbit hole of Byzantine proportions.

Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF.

Here's the one I was thinking of.  There may be others.

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.0 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.0)

Your approval of smoothie's retreat into generalities about "every decision that every US court has ever made" after losing on the specific facts of the matter at hand has been noted.

How does correcting factual errors and requesting people consult primary sources "derail" threads?

Obviously, what you meant is that I "derail" your preferred narrative and its concomitant lynch mob.

What nonsense.  Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate?

Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread.

Remember when Bargraphics traveled to MO and reported positively on Activemining, which turned out to be a fraud?

No?  Good, neither does anyone else.

And Lord knows how many people endorsed ASICMINER ("Friedcat for President").

Ditto for a dozen other ASIC companies.  Not to mention pirate@40, etc.

Where is your (apparently highly selective) outrage over them?  Don't rush, I'll wait...

To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

I resemble that remark!   :)

Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'.  Got backup for that?  That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio.  My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time.  IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future.

Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence).

No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat .

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The judge seemed to nullify your rather stretched 'presumption of innocence' by indicating that bankruptcy court was simply not the venue for adjudicating the question.  You seem to be flailing pretty hard here and it is unbecoming of you.  I don't think that you should count legal skills among your talents and would advise strongly that you seek qualified legal assistance if you find yourself in legal troubles.

"Flailing...unbecoming...unskilled...etc."

My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours.

Let's focus on facts, not personalities.

The judge certainly did not "nullify" anyone's presumption of innocence.

I could make hay of such a silly, unbounded leap in logic and respond in kind to your invective, but will instead choose to be the better man.   :)

+1 for the suggestion of outright ignoring Icebreaker. They have a long, established history of fiercely shilling for Hashfast.

I question their motivations in this thread, beyond the obvious trolling and shit-posting.

Does smoothie *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made?  No?  Then what is the relevance?

I can't help but notice your entire post consists of character attacks and speculation about motivation.

Is there a reason you prefer mindless tea leaf reading to discussing facts gleaned from primary sources?

Did I offend you by countering the dominant local narrative with an unpopular opinion (albeit one in line with off-line consensus reality)?

No one asked for your help.

And using absurd words to describe what I've done is obviously out of line. You are a child living in a man's world.

Please grow up. Thanks  ;D

You still haven't answered my question above in BOLD.

 ::)

LOL you don't like it when people portray you in a bad light too huh?

He was just trying to "help you improve".  ::) ::) ::)

Do you *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made?  No?  Then what is the relevance of retreating from on-point specifics into fuzzy generalities?

As an aside, you *do* of course realize that US courts commonly reach contradictory decisions which are resolved by higher courts, and sometimes precedents are overturned.  So it is not possible to agree with all of them.

I tried to help you and tvbcof improve by pointing out your factual errors (IE, commission vs equity and presumption of innocence).

What factual errors of mine have you and tvbcof pointed out?

[crickets.png]

[tumbleweeds.gif]

I notice that none of those other proven scammers (that you yourself have just placed frap.doc in the company of incidentally)
still inhabit the forum, afaik. So he is either very brazen or just as yet unproven, if he is indeed a scammer.

I'm not straining hard, this is all quite easy I can assure you. The mods seem to want to get this off the front page and into meta discussions so I'm happy to oblige with the meta ramifications. Thankfully I was not involved in any way with the ASIC mining boom/bust and are not as intimately aware of the ins and outs and what-have-yous as you seem to be.

You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?

He's paid shill #2.

He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company.

"Aching rabbit hole?"

LOL, you know someone is getting rabid and frothy when they so carelessly mix metaphors.   ;D

You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target.

People took legal advice from a random on the internet?  Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer.

How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you?

Quote from: cypherdoc on August 08, 2013, 10:54:43 PM
I am pleased to announce that I have been selected as a paid sponsor for HashFast Technologies LLC. [snip!]


See! :D

What debate about frap.docs coins? He's clearly a shill and a liar and possesses 3000btc collected from HashFast customers, those facts are beyond debate.

You made yourself a target, I have no idea why you would come here and argue frap.docs innocence when you are obviously sitting on another huge pile of HashFast's coins, how many btw?

So your contention is that by expressing an unpopular opinion I've made myself a "target?"

Should people be afraid to speak up when they see factual errors, for fear of you (and The Village) targeting them?

"Target" for what, exactly?  Please, do elaborate.  Is this an FBI-concern type "target" or are you just venting frustration at being unable to control the narrative without opposition?

I'm not here to argue frap.doc's innocence (that's for a court to decide), only to correct factual errors.

Why do you so greatly resent being referred to primary sources and correction of factual errors?

Is it because you are so set in and emotionally attached to your preferred narrative?

What a sad state of mind in which to find yourself.  No wonder you are so cranky, rabid, and increasingly frothy.   :)

Sorry you are not enjoying your break with consensus reality and ensuing fugue state.

I suggest you take your resentment, and shove it in your "aching rabbit hole."   8)

Torrents of ad hominem insults?  Silly, unbounded leaps in logic?  Invective?  All of this right here on trolltalk?  Who could have imagined such a thing?

Well, at this point i consider you a being cypherdoc himself or being paid by him. Its unbelieveable how you fight for him and when you miss arguments then you go attack with other means.

I cant believe someone would come in here and fight with that time and aggressivity while having nothing in return for him. Cypherdocs case is clearly not just and surely the payments to cypherdoc will be shed light on at another time. A lawyer not being able to convert this would need to be replaced otherwise.

Well iCEBREAKER, i went through the hassle and clicked through your untrusted negative feed back you piled up, it seems you were a shillboy for hashfast in the past already. Guess that explains why you think cypherdoc deserves the payment. The amount of posts we see is not the real amount of posts he did to shill for hashfast. ::)

Besides that... you are a troll how its defined normally. I guess discussing with you makes no sense since when you dont have arguments you get personally attacking, derailing the topic. I think ill stop now waisting time with you.

Oh well, it seems you can see when things like that happen. Question is why you attack for portraying you as not being able to judge the audio while when you attack its not a problem. Though i guess thats your modus operandi. ::)

Standing up for the truth is its own reward.  That you belive I need some kind of external/financial motivation says more about you than me.   ;)

The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed.  The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.

It was brought by Katten, one of the most powerful law firms in the world.  You aren't going to find better lawyers.

Of course you blame the lawyer for the Motion failing, because your narrow mind cannot accept that it failed on the plain facts of the matter.

Instead, you flagrantly violate Occam's Razor with paranoid delusions that cypher and I are the same person, etc.

I guess Judge Montali is, in your mind, a troll and possibly the same person as cypher/myself.   ;D

iCEBREAKER were you in control of the Hashfast_CL account or not?

Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge!


A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!

If the judge had ruled in your (IE HF's) favor and approved the Motion to Attach, you'd be crowing about it and singing his praises.

But he didn't so, now you resort to attacking the venue (and me, the messenger).

How does it feel to be siding with HF?   ;D

Do your puppet masters at Spamdoolies know you've been shilling for another company?

Ah comeon... i stand up for those attacked too when they are attacked unfair and i find out. See dogie. Though this here is not explainable with something.


As far as i read it did not fail, it only should not be part of the first thing going on. That doesnt mean it wont come back on the table later.


Then surely they only tried to bring it up early and its unlikely they will drop that point easily.


Sigh... so i hoped you can speak normally and with arguments and... you get personal again.


Your behaviour is somewhat unexplainable and... oh wonder... no cypherdoc writing here. Instead you beating around. Though cypherdoc writes on other places in forum.


No, Judge Montali seems to go at it structured... cypherdocs payment will be a topic soon for sure.

Why should a judge not rule against a payment? The lawyers only have to proof that the company paying that much funds was clearly not in the best interest of the company. I mean if this behaviour would be safe then you could simply create a scam company, collect funds, pay 10% to a contractor who saves your money and with the rest of the money you fake a wrong going real business. Would be a smart and not avoidable way to earn scammywise.

So i really think judges can go against that.

RoadStress, for once, is correct (*looks out window to check for flying pigs*).

SJ, you have no clue about how this works.  Not trying to slam you, but your opinion is flat out wrong.

If you'd listen to the hearing, you would get it.

Sorry if the spoken English is hard to understand.  Perhaps a transcript will become available.

If it helps, the part where your arguments are literally laughed at and mocked begins at 2:37.

TL;DR Katten (HF's lawyers) have no solid evidence and don't believe they need any.  So, for now, they lose.

So, marcus_of_augustus is Dr. Gregory J. Balle of New Zealand.

What kind of doctor presumes guilt before innocence especially when there is no evidence let alone a verdict?

How many times are you going to keep trolling me with that same message over on reddit with your /u/shiller1235 account, Dr. Balle?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie)

Who in their right mind would put Dr. Balle on a crypto currency panel given his obvious lack of ethics and morals in judging someone without any evidence, proof, or a verdict?

https://www.digitalcurrencycouncil.com/uncategorized/bitcoin-south-2014-new-zealands-first-cryptocurrency-conference/

If you think it applies here, that term does not mean what you think it means.

HF's high-powered lawyer similarly tried to simply declare victory and award herself Frap.doc's coins.

It didn't work; in fact her borderline-frivolous claim was literally laughed out of court with an abundance of mirth and 'LeBron' wisecracks.

Judge Montali basically said 'Yawn, wake me up when you have some real evidence.'

The 3000 BTC which were earmarked for mining gear and now sit in a wallet which is under cypherdoc's control is 'prima facie' evidence that cypherdoc made out like a bandit on this one.

Cypherdoc's shilling (and I use the word formally here since he has admitted to it) is preserved for the world to see.  That is 'prima facie' evidence that he either passes himself off as an expert when he is incompetent, or is simply a scamer.

Those are perfectly serviceable examples of 'prima facie' to me.

As we've been through before (probably on this thread if I was not to lazy to parse through it), the judge simply said that no matter how cypherdoc ended up with the loot (which is to be determined in a different venue) there is no reason to hand it over to the plaintiff at the present time.  Nothing more, nothing less, and it seems like a perfectly rational decision to me.  If I were the judge, however, I would have told cypherdoc to not lose the 3000 BTC and don't go to far away because there are others who may need to have a little talk with him.

Making out like a bandit, as Dr. Frap did, is not illegal.  The key word is "like" which here means 'in the manner of but not exactly.'

He took the risk of his sales commission being denominated in BTC, and it worked out very well for him.  It could have gone the other way, if BTC had crashed back to $2 instead of ramping to $1200.  You are just hating because you are jealous.  Believe me, I understand the temptation!   :P

'Expert vs incompetent' is not relevant here, hence the infamous LeBron quip.  Bitcoin (esp in 2011) ASICs are far too new for recognized experts.

Frappo's job was to act as community liaison and help HF raise part of their NRE.  He did that, with full compensation disclosure right at the top of his thread, not hidden in fine print at the bottom.

Your "earmarked for mining gear" phrase is intentionally misleading.  If you had a stronger argument, you wouldn't have to resort to just making stuff up, as if HF wasn't allowed to pay for anything except ASICs (no salaries, no sales commissions, no web site, no tech support, no QA, no lawyers, no red staplers, not even coffee).

How can you consider the 3000 BTC that you took from HF to not be the proof that you are asking? They paid you to pimp their sales using beautiful words even if you have 0 technical experience when it comes to what it takes to get a fully working miner from the ground up.

Cypherdoc antagonizes marcus_of_agustus who does a little research and responds with this thread.  cypherdoc loses mojo as high-powered-shill; flees trolltalk.

I think someone captured what marcus_of_agustus said the cypherdoc here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOvMHBz69k

Thank you... really... i had to laugh hard when i read that. :D

But i don't blame you. It became obvious that you have some issue with recognizing these forms of moral behaviour.

Because in his sick mind it is ok to endorse a tech start-up company while having no technical background since he "looked them into their eyes" and while cashing in 3k BTC! Yes cypherdoc tell us more about the others people lack of ethics so we don't focus on you.

Scams all the way down.

lol, nuff said

Another way to look at it--  is there anyone here who still would have done business with hashfast if they knew cypherdoc was going to get 10% of the purchase price, in advance of delivery, regardless if the delivery ever happened?  I don't really think so-- it certainly would have greatly upped the risk estimates. Getting some discount gear or a demo unit is one thing, but 10% for making some forum posts?  Thats alarmbell territory--  and yet cypherdoc knew this material information, and didn't share it.

Cypherdoc's contract was more reason to disbelieve the terms they were promoting that made their sales pitch so attractive in the first place:  Full refund of the Bitcoin's sent if they failed to deliver. They only works if you retain the coins... now it's possible that they could give him 10% and purchase at spot to prevent ending up with an unbacked liability, but at a minimum it would have resulted in a lot more critical questions. Doc also repeated as fact on reddit Icebreakers claim that his "job was to act as community liaison and help HF raise part of their NRE (https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jfibw/gavin_also_tried_talking_to_gregory_maxwell_in/cuq0lli)" that he knew the presale funds would be used to cover unfunded NRE, rather than the position of these costs having already been covered by outside investors. He surely didn't share _that_ fact with any of in his posts. I guess he had a few hundred thousand reasons not to, enh?

He continued his promotion without reservation while Simon happily made promises about refunds in the event of failure, even though his _job_ existed because these claims were impossible and the sales contracts were being made in bad faith.

The ludicrous 3000 BTC payment for a couple forum posts (regardless of if you think of it in terms of $350k or 10%) makes a little more sense if you consider that he was being paid to raise _investment_ rather than promote a product.  So sad for everyone else that Cypherdoc knew they wouldn't get the funds if people had a complete picture and understood the liabilities.  I guess thats more charatable than the prior leading theory that they were paying him so much in order to tunnel money out of the company.

Cypherdoc defends his unconsionable windfall here with "a contract is a contract, is it not?"-- but the customers of HF whom had far less access to information and were (AFAICT) deliberately mislead by Cypherdoc and others all had contracts which were not upheld, and under the law are some of the first in line for recovery in an insolvency. The technical details of the chineses walls drafted into documents to attempt to isolate people from their fradulent actions isn't of consequence to the people that got screwed,  no amount of contracting with me can enable Alice to help me rip-off Bob without creating liability for Alice in any sane system of law. The courts should have the thoughtfulness to see through the pretext here and recover all the available procedes from HF's bad business from all of the people involved in misleading people in the first place.

Please note I was not originally privy to the exact wording of Frap.doc's contract (which is now public domain) but gleaned the gist of it via various context clues.

How about a beer summit, where you buy the drinks (in vino veritas) and I answer any and all questions you have about WTF happened at HF?  No pleading the 5th, no evasion or deflection, no holds barred.  Just your honest, good faith questions and my complete answers.

Despite our gloriously rancorous past head-butting, I don't want to be your (or Frap.doc's) enemy.  These days, I prefer to save my enmity for Team XT and (repeating myself) Team Fiat.

Gregory Maxwell (nullc) vs #Cypherdoc on /r/bitcoin:



Cypherdoc is guilty.

Guilty by his own admission.

Guilty of being a paid shill.

Perhaps not guilty of a crime.

But this is damning still.

 :D

3000 bitcoin? Does that make him a better con man than Josh Garza?

That's a whole new level of shilling

I am not Dorian.

Crazy, man, crazy

Are there any developments in the court case yet? I would like to know how things develop on that front. And i wonder if a judge will really see it as so unproblematic at the end.

Last notification that I received showed they where trying to disallow my claim in it's entirety with the following explaination "The books and records of the Debtors are not reliable.  Therefore, the Liquidating Trustee does not have sufficient evidence to determine amount, validity, and/or the nature of the claim."

Pretty shady, I'm sure they are trying to do this with everybody that was unfortunate enough to pay with bitcoin in the hopes that several of them no longer have control of their old wallets.  I'm not entirely sure I still have control of the wallet I paid from sadly.  Will be looking into it this weekend thats for sure.

Hm, sounds like another thing someone has to keep track of then. I already made the error of not backing up everything i did on exchanges, so i have no details about what went on on bitfunder regarding activemining, for example. Now they even say bitcoin transactions are no proof at all. The judge surely is no bitcoin fan.

Or will they accept signatures as proof?

http://www.coindesk.com/1-million-bitcoin-currency-commodity/ (http://www.coindesk.com/1-million-bitcoin-currency-commodity/)

cypherdoc dragging it out through the courts ...


... so it seems the transfer may well have been fraudulent in which case cypherdoc would be a scammer of epic proportions.

FIFY

It's already clear that as a scammer, he earned the 'epic proportions' trophy a while ago.

http://www.blockcy.com/digital-currencies-commodities-judge (http://www.blockcy.com/digital-currencies-commodities-judge)

appears that this ruling means cypherdoc has to hand back the full 3000 btc, as a commodity, to the receivers of HashFast, maybe there will be some justice for those who paid BTC for pre-orders and never received any mining equipment.

Haaaa ha ha ha.  Seems that as I anticipated, the judge in the earlier case would say to Dr. Lowelife, "No, keep the 3k BTC for now, but don't forget where you put them and don't stray to far away."

that's not what it means at all.

it means that the trustees just have the chance to possibly win back the full 3000 btc, however unlikely.

did you ever consider just handing it back to the people who never got any hardware delivered for their pre-order bitcoin deposits? Like the people that it most probably rightfully belongs to? How does your ethical thinking work here?

doesn't work that way. once plaintiffs got lawyers involved that need to be paid that became impossible.

And why do you think they got lawyers involved?

meh, whatever excuse that scammer can come up with.

great! we will get our bitcoins paid to HF back from Mark Lowe (cypherdoc)!

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/tag/marc-lowe/

LULZ.  Cough 'em up, bitch!

Or you could try 'losing' them.  I wouldn't recommend it.  Wouldn't life have been easier if you had just sat on your early stash and not gone about trying to rip people off?

LOL.  Come correct, homes.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/7033049/HashFast_Technologies_LLC_et_al_v_Lowe

Case Filed:   Feb 17, 2015
Terminated:   Jun 17, 2016

 ???

Wait. What? It's over? ???

yep. looks finis, like dead & over with.  #REKT, just like this thread.

What happened? Settled out of court?

PM me a Pacer login and I'll find out.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4pzkqq/gregory_maxwell_is_staff_at_bitcointalk/d4peupe

You read it; TERMINATED

If he's unwilling to elaborate on the details of the outcome there's a good chance they look bad for him ... or he would be crowing from the rooftops. Just going on past behavior experience and base human nature.

OP, you sound kind of butthurt.  Is it your intention to inflict as much pain and misery onto cipherdoc as possible because of some other agenda?  Now that the case is over terminated, there seem to be no basis for your inflammatory thread.

He was probably forced to give up his ill-begotten BTC or things are still happening and his lawyer advised him to keep the cork in his pie-hole.  Maybe both.

What makes you more qualified than the bankruptcy process to reach such a defamatory conclusion?  The unrivaled strength of your prejudiced opinion?   :D

It's up to the court to declare the sales commission "ill-begotten BTC."  It has refused to do so, despite being asked, and Judge Montali went so far as to literally laugh in the face of those proposing such a finding for their poor legal scholarship.

If the starving sharks from Baker Hostetler truly believed they had a slam dunk case against LeBron, they wouldn't have settled for much less than the full hoard of BTC, plus their expenses.  After all, it's their last chance to get paid.

Cypherdoc is probably being coy because he made a big fuss about never compromising and how much he was enjoying forcing Baker to "burn hours."

Since much of the case is uncharted waters, and jury decisions are a Markov process, settling wasn't a bad choice of action.

Nobody admits fault, the creditor committee (read: starving sharks) is compensated for their kabuki expenses, and life goes on.

Let's note this is all a civil matter, yet you still continue to imply (or outright conclude) there is some criminal plot lurking in the background, which only those sophisticated enough may perceive.

Are you perhaps starting to realize your precious hivemind got this one wrong?

https://i.imgur.com/XiwrFKL.jpg

It turns out that lawyer fees on both sides of a bankruptcy case are ungodly expensive.  So much so, that when you step back and realize what's going on, you quickly realize that the whole farcical show is for them and them only.  It's a corrupt system.  No one gets any money except them in the end.  In other words, don't be surprised as a customer when you don't get back a penny.  Just realize that your plaintiff attorney took you for a ride to line his own pocket.  Nevermind that the original allegations were made up.

Actually, sometimes customers do in fact get back pennies.  How many times have you received a bankruptcy or class action settlement check for $0.02?  It happens all the time :D

Hey, I was reading here and it says that "fraudulent conveyance" (which is what he was accused of) does not mean what most of you here are implying; that cipher acted in a criminal fashion.  No.  If you read the definition, it just means the plaintiffs think he was overpaid for his services.  That's hugely different.  Furthermore, how would you ever prove that given that the Bitcoin mining industry was so new?  Most independent contractors or consultants get paid, and that's that.  End of story.  How is this any different?  And why would it be a mystery that cipher negotiated the best deal he could get, irrespective of a perfect ex post facto view on bankruptcy? Seems to me if the courts would have reversed his pay that would put a chill on every single contractor/consultant contract with startups (>95% go BK) across any industry.

http://www.caddenfuller.com/Articles/Bankruptcy-Law-Understanding-Fraudulent-Conveyances.shtml

Actually, the incentive was to see if I could get someone to waste some efforts here, and if so, who (aka, trolling.)  Worked.

Watching the Children Of The Hivemind eagerly yet mistakenly fixate on the term "fraudulent" has been very entertaining.

Their confirmation bias, groupthink, and resultant desperation to avoid the looming, inevitable cognitive dissonance is a wonder to behold.

Even after getting their day(s) in court, they now reject the facts as found by that appropriately specialized bankruptcy process, in favor of their own preferred make-believe reality.

EG, tvbcof's "Umm, I was just, like, trolling; I never actually believed Cypherdoc was a crook; I just like to defame people for fun" excuse.   :D

LEBRON MVP 2016

I don't know that I ever said cypherdoc broke any actual enforceable laws.  I have said repeatedly that he is a formal and textbook shill who leveraged his claimed expertise to put a lot of other people's money into his own pocket.  I (incorrectly it seems) pegged him as a guy who didn't have the mental power to get through med school.  That he did leads me to believe that he probably knew all along how things were going to work out for his victims.  No doubt the guy is a world class slime-ball as I define things.

The last thing that cypherdoc and I seemed to agree on that Bitcoin @ $2-ish was worth the chance.  Since then he had been wrong more than he was right where as I mentioned publicly that I was selling some around $1000-ish range and would suggest getting back in (gently) back when we were in the $300-ish range (if memory serves.)  That's just the seemingly good calls of mine that I remember off the top of my head.  People who listened to cypherdoc, OTOH, would have emerged bloody and battered on many fronts.  Everyone knows he's a fuckin' looser although it took a disappointingly long time for lots of people to figure it out.  Sad day for them.

Edit:  Oh ya, before I go back out to do some real work, I have to note that it is unbecoming of you (iCE) to emerge as cypherdoc's #1 butt-boy, especially given your good work in other areas.  <shrugs>

Cool story bro, but your melodramatic squabbles with him about when to buy/sell/panic/rebuy are not relevant to the OP's scam accusation.

"Victims?"  How funny for you to continue claiming he's a villain, after that rumor was rubbished by the bankruptcy process.

Nobody "knew all along how things were going to work out" because future difficulty and fiat exchange rates are not predictable.

When you talk crazy unsupportable shit like that, you only put your own "mental power" under additional scrutiny.

Please, attempt to elaborate on the "claimed expertise" you assert cypherdoc "leveraged."

You will find that he never claimed to be anything but an enthusiast/hobbyist/miner, albeit one with an advanced degree in an unrelated technical field.

He did the community a favor by reporting about his in-person meeting with HF execs, and at the time we were grateful.  He could have kept that valuable knowledge to himself and avoided the disappointed/angry/bitter/fixated Children Of The Hivemind's slings and arrows.

Doesn't anypony have a Pacer account; we're all dying to get the juicy details!   :D

I guess we can watch how many coins move to find out.  What's the address again?  1LEBRON something something?   ;D

You don't seem to find this sort of behaviour particularly unbecoming a medical doctor. I mean 10%?! Dafuq dude? Srsly.

Edit: Whatever, he ain't touchin' my eyes 8)

Who's gonna pony up the 50 quid so we can read that file?

"UNBECOMING A MEDIAL DOCTOR?"

WTF is that nebulous charge supposed to mean?  Did he violate the Hippocratic Oath, or the California medical board guidelines?

That's quite a large movement of the goal posts, away from the previous "shill, liar and probably epic scammer" accusation.

Not that I expect logical consistency from your lynch mob; the hivemind's job is to groupthink, not be factually correct.   ;)

10% is bog standard for sales commission.  Not his fault BTC went up afterwards.  If it went down, it's not like you would support compensating his loss.

Whining about his medical skills only shows how petty and grasping you are being.  Your puny bee brain wouldn't last a day in med school.

I said whatever. My gawd you are verbose :D

His statement says that's what they offered him. Oops. Another fail on your part. And i suppose you begrudge hedge fund managers that get paid 20% performance bonus PLUS 2% base? Not to mention the many other 10-20%  industry norms for consulting work out there. Btw, from what I hear, 10% is the going rate for mining consulting. Sorry. And what exactly does his  profession have to do with any of this? Sounds like a pretty smart guy to me.

It's just odious. I don't see what there is to explain.
PS. When was my last fail?

Don't try to confuse BlindMayorBitcorn with facts, his mind is made up!

And he can't bother to read posts with all of 5 lines of text.  Too Looong!

Who needs a bankruptcy process when you have the court of public opinion?

In the case of Hivemind vs Cypherdoc there can only be one acceptable outcome, because the confirmation bias of the groupthinkers must be preserved at all costs!   :D

Obligatory:

https://i.imgur.com/psQ2QYv.jpg

Is he a shill? Yes.
Is it a crime? No.

Now, wtf are you on about?

Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=391375.msg4213878#msg4213878

@iCE Did you work for HF? ???

What I would be on about is your lack of knowledge.  Here's the definition of a shill:

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wasn't that the first thing (first sentence) he disclosed in his endorsement thread, if I recall correctly?

I think that's one of them shill's from the 1930's. Maybe you need a bigger dictionary? No offence.

http://wdy.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/08/54ea8150163e4_-_08-shamwow-2.jpg

These two quotes, along with others in this thread, make me feel like I'm talking to a kid.  Am I?

Look man. :)
I'm just making conversation. I guess I could be doing homework. But you appear to have an agenda, or maybe I hit a nerve. Idk.
I'm not too worried to be honest.

https://i.imgur.com/RsedywO.jpg

Right.  I'm just interested in legal cases surrounding Bitcoin and this one, unlike the gazillion other scam cases, just sounded odd.  I have experience in bankruptcy cases and I know how shady the system can be.  This cipher guy sounds like a true Bitcoin advocate so it's interesting to try and figure out exactly what went on.  He looks innocent to me.

Sounds like you should go back to doing homework.

Let's not start off on the wrong foot.
Think of me as a virtual companion, your friend in this series of tubes known as the interweb. I don't have anything to add here really:


It was shady. He's shady. And now you're shady, too. :-\

So that is the extent of your evidence?  Linking to a post from someone who seems to be accused of lying everyday over at rBTC?  I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings and it looks like Maxwell starts off a wave of neg ratings on June 2015 eliciting a pile on of similar factless and presumptuous neg ratings by other questionable actors in the system like Midnightmagic and Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

Now, how likely is this statement from Maxwell, "I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation"?  Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  Because most people don't just remove ratings based on an unknown.  That being a private conversation between him and cypher.  Unless of course, you're willing to entertain the theory that Maxwell is instructing others to follow his lead in attacking cypher?  Which actually has some credibility as a theory given the sequence of negative ratings, timing wise, and the facts of the preceding paragraph.  Remember, Maxwell is referencing a private conversation he had with cypher that other negative raters wouldn't be privy to (and still aren't) unless Maxwell shared that information with them and/or was instructing them in what to do.  Thus, you can conclude that there was no initial wave of negative ratings by others that were pulled back or deleted given these facts and the probabilities involved.  And yet, it is also credible that Maxwell is an instigator of some sort.

Honestly Doc, you’re not doing yourself any favors here. Go buy yourself a Tesla or something. You sure earned it.

Not at all.  As an observer of this thread, I'd just like to get a coherent argument out of you.  More than just, "it's odious", "it's shady", "I'm just having a conversation", or "I should be doing homework".

They paid you to pimp their shit and you did. You have no shame. :)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.msg2895058#msg2895058


 ::)

Well, I suppose if you're going to keep ad homming me as cypher, I might as well stop right here.  Thanks for the non-informative, non-unbiased conversation.  Final note:  this case was terminated, if you hadn't noticed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4v2g3h/missing_in_action_cypherdoc/

http://img.memecdn.com/what-amp-039-s-up-doc_o_1682809.jpg

I think the failure of ETH Core to quickly disappear as predicted was too much for Frap.doc.

And he'd already had enough of forum admins who failed to be sufficiently submissive.

Here's the whiny post right before his final rage quit:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-743#post-25785

https://i.imgur.com/PiMvLV8.jpg


Regardless, the adversary case against him was settled.

And that was part of a bankruptcy, where they are obligated to sue everyone they possibly can, not any kind of criminal or other wrongdoing allegation.

So even the the mildest accusations against him never went anywhere (other than going around the lynch mob's circle jerk).

Sorry if you were bamboozled into thinking he did something wrong (other than supporting BitcoinXT and the Gavinista coup).

^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.

it was well overdue for him to be spending his time more wisely ... castles built on sand and all that.

Are you still moaning about Frap.doc getting as his sales commission a bog-standard 10% cut of the (public half of) Batch One?

That's really weak tea, and was laughed out of court ("Le Bron" LOL).

Or are you still believing GMAX's lies and exaggerations, in which evil future-telling psychic Frap.doc took 10% of HF's total revenues in an effort to tunnel assets out of the company (many months before it ran out of money)?

Or are you still bleating for a windfall in US dollars, demanding HF refund many times the original price of the miners?

If the moral wrong is so obvious, I'm sure you won't have trouble describing it.

As it stands, you've simply asserted it exists.  Such mere insistence does not help me "see it."

And let's note you only choose to move the venue away from the bankruptcy court, into that of public opinion, when you LOST in the legal realm.

There is no due process in the court of public opinion; to be accused is to be convicted as there is no definitive Settlement or Plea to effectively repudiate the charges.

How noxious; you should know better.  Shame you can't accept your hiveminded lynch mob got this one wrong.

How typical and craven of you to wait until after the legal process has ended to register your process concerns and objections.

If you weren't just full of shit and transparently/pathetically wanting a second bite at the apple, you'd have spoken up BEFORE Judge Montali accepted the settlement and dismissed the adversary case.

The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court.

Now that you've been proven incorrect, you want to change the venue and put Frap.doc on trial in your own personal Morality Court, to be tried according to some hazy miasma of subjective nonsense you call "shades of right and wrong?"

GTFO.

Have some integrity and accept you were wrong THE WHOLE TIME.  You don't have to apologize (although that is the classy, traditional response to making an unfounded accusation) but you really should STFU with your "But-But-But" moralfag ass-whinging.   :D

Next time, don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon and regurgitate popular opinions.  Think for yourself.

Don't get bamboozled by the legally illiterate and those who invested more than they could afford to lose.

Continuing the witch hunt long after the Supreme Witch Sniffer has declared "No Witch" is poor form.

Give it up son.  You lost.  Now stop the tsk-tsk finger-waggling and deal with reality as it actually exists rather than how you preconceived and prejudged it.

You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward?

Not that I really give two shits one way or another, but it seems like you have your finger on the pulse of all things Lowelife and inquiring minds wanna know.  Just for academic and entertainment value.

If you read the original thread, and I know that you have, it becomes immediately obvious the good doctor made out like he was taking as much a chance as anybody. When, in fact, he wasn't; in fact, he was swimming in it while everybody else was taking a proper bath.

You two are simply repeating the same arguments from over a year ago, as if nothing has happened since then.  Please try and keep up.

You need to respond to the factual findings and determinations of two separate courts, which both declined to validate your accusations despite the pleadings of very good lawyers from very powerful law firms (in front of a very experienced judge).

Use of the term "victim" is uncalled for, unsupported by the facts, and emotionally manipulative.  But appeal to sentiment is all you have left, isn't it?

I'm not in touch with Frap.doc, although he did say he'd take me out for a drink if we ever meet IRL, despite our mutually antagonistic history of silly blocksize flame-warring.

How many times must it be explained that Dr. Frappe never hid his role as a compensated endorser?  Do you think repeating the word "shill" can magically make it true?

Drawing attention to the amount of BTC he earned ("ZOMG 3000 BITCOIN?!  GREEN JELLY NAO!!1!") as his bog-standard 10% commission is another act of emotional manipulation, because you leave out the context.  The context of his 3k LeBron stash is, way back when BTC was only ~$100, he made a very smart decision to ask for compensation in BTC rather than USD.

Now you want to hate, because he won that very risky bet.  Give me a break; the class warfare material jealousy crap is so Free Shit Army it burns.

There is a word for deciding an outcome before all the facts are known; that word is "prejudice."

Your prejudgement has now been repudiated by the appropriate court.  Now you want another bite at the apple.  Sorry, but you had your chance and failed.

There is entertainment value here, but your insistence on repeating debunked allegations long ago crossed the line into sore loser territory.

No less than Katten Muchin sharks tried to claim the LeBron stash was obtained by other-than-legitimate means.

They failed.

And you think you're going to succeed?  GTFO noobz.  You have no power (much less expertise) here, other than to subject anyone so foolish as to not Ignore you to an infinite amount of piling-on, lynch mobbing, hiveminding, circle jerking, and groupthinking.



*I'm* merely reporting what the fucking court said.  Stop trying to make *me* the focus of your failure to gather and analyze information properly.  Your current conceptual failure mode is not my fault; I'm trying to help you L-E-A-R-N.  What a thankless task!   :D

You sure have a way with rhetorical flourish, hombre. I really do enjoy it, mostly.
Question: Do you think this was an honest statement at any point, regardless of the current market value of bitcoin:


 ???


What risks did he take again? Accepting bitcoins??

Thanks for the gracious compliment, old hoss.   8)  The flourish is just a fun decoration; I pray you never suspect I'm substituting mere style for actual substance.

As to your very pointed, albeit fair, questions:


1.  Frap.doc (through no fault of his own <--- IMPORTANT POINT) wound up as both a (potential?) creditor and (former) subcontractor of HF.

He was "in the same boat" as the rest of us Batch One customers, waiting on pins and needles as BTC price collapsed and diff skyrocketed.

Did he do a Perfectly Impeccable job of communicating every nuance of the situation?  Of course not.  Was he obligated to?  Not at all, IMHO.  Does that rise to the act of lying by omission?  Again, not IMHO.

IIRC Frap.doc was near the top of the order queue, so he got his hardware and started mining ASAP.  Thus his refund concern was negated, although it was valid until the time he got his miners.

IOW, Yes - Frap.doc was, as a customer, in the same boat as the rest of us, and he really did try to get more info, not only on his own behalf but for the community as well.  His limited, former role as forum spokesperson does not change that; it's a separate issue in every sense except emotionally.


2.  Accepting BTC rather than USD was very risky, despite the local attractor around ~$100 holding for months prior to his compensation agreement.

If BTC had dropped to $1.00, he'd be out of luck (and spared the indignity of attempted violation by Katten's ravenous money-sniffing blood funnel).


Now I have a couple of pointed but (hopefully) fair questions for you.

1.  Have you noticed an outsized, disproportional amount of outrage directed at HF, compared to other 3rd gen (28nm) ASIC companies which failed for the same reasons, such as the "All-Star" Cointerra team?

2.  To what extent do you think any such exaggerated outrage is the result of HF pushing back against the hivemind's lynch mob (as opposed to other companies passive acceptance/indulgence of community risk-free money-printing-machine entitlement syndrome)?

3.  Do you believe HF's defenders should just STFU and acquiesce to Popular Opinion, or stand up for what they know to be true, no matter now unpopular?

Cheers,

-iB    :)

1. I 'spose.

2. Probably some.

3. The latter. I guess. :-\

Bitcoin could have gone to a buck, big deal. And then what? All his passionate advocacy would have been for naught? I still don't see the risk you say he took in all of this exactly, except maybe to his reputation. And isn't that why we're really here?

Thanks for the honest answers (esp. #3, which encourages my obstinacy  ;D ;D ;D).   

I already told you the "then what" if BTC had gone to a buck: Frap.doc would be S.O.L.

It's only fair he enjoy the reward, since he embraced the risk.  Especially since that reward came with the externality of reputation damage.

... being a lying, slandering disengenuous sack of shit devoid of the concept of arguing in good faith carries an "externality of reputation damage" also

I totally agree with this.  In fact, I couldn't have said it better.

Where are the lies?  Be specific, because making an allegation requires at least one example.

Where is the slandering?

Where is the disingenuousness?

Where are the bad faith arguments?

You are throwing out wild accusations with zero specific instances cited.  Is the nebulous nature intentional, to make it difficult to refute the claims, or are you just drunk?   :D

I can't tell if you are talking about Frap.doc's behavior wrt HF or to the blocksize debate (where some of your charges possibly have a base in reality).

The negative rating that I left was in response to what I learned in this thread. I found it obscene that cypherdoc could receive $30,000 (3,000 BTC @ ~$100/each) for promoting a company that turned out to be a scam. If you are receiving that much money, or if you have a substantially influential reputation then it is your job to ensure that said company is legitimate.

I do not care that the courts ruled in your/his favor, just like I do not care that people thanked dooglus after he was paid ~$24,000 (35 BTC @ ~$700/each) for helping steal $2 million from bankroll investors from a scam bitcoin casino.

An account farmer, an unrepentant shill, a French fascist, and a cob of corn walk into a bar.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but even without a trained eye an obvious pattern is easy to discern ... "if the cap fits, wear it" and all that.

You only disregard the court rulings because they failed to confirm your bias.  If the rulings agreed with your worthless dipshit opinion, you'd be all "See, I told you so."  But they didn't, so you go into full sore loser mode and start whining about sour grapes and newfound process concerns/objections.

The company has not "turned out to be a scam."

You have been bamboozled by GMAX and the local hivemind into believing something that is not true.

Fact: Bankruptcy court put HF into reorganization under Chapter 11, which is not done for scams.

Fact: Nobody has been charged with (much less convicted of) anything, outside of pro forma adversary cases.

Fact: The only significant adversary case, against Frap.doc, was terminated.

Fact: PMorici eventually moved to dismiss his own case.

All of those facts contradict the "HF turned out to be a scam" groupthink prevalent here.

Check your premises (and prejudices).

Pro tip: Most risky start-ups fail.

Clue:  No court has ever accepted, nor ever will accept, GMAX's novel "windfall entitlement" legal theory.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not used exclusively for fraud and/or scams and/or similar, however Chapter 11 bankruptcy can be used when this is the case.

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

No bankruptcy court is going to grant an insolvent scam's motion to be put in Chapter 11 (keep some key execs and reorganize) rather than Chapter 7 (fire management and liquidate everything ASAP).

You are calling every bankrupt business a scam, yet that is not the definition of the word.

Are you familiar with the legal concept of "best efforts?"  You don't seem to be.  Here you go: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-does-best-efforts-mean/

If Person X at Company Y put in their best efforts, yet the firm fails (due to business conditions out of their control), it's not a scam.

You may wish to expand the definition of scam until it comports with your subjective, incomplete, counterfactual "understanding" but that demonstrates nothing more than your inability to converse in good faith.

A scam requires (criminal) intention to not honor obligations.  HF did no such thing.  They wanted to be the Intel of BTC, not your punching bag and object of hivemind defamation.

Let's look at the story of VIAcoin and btcdrak.

He went against the Gavinista hivemind by opposing XT/Classic.

So now those dead-enders use VIA's (relative) lack of success to bash him with the "scam" cudgel:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4vgwe7/so_on_the_expiration_date_of_the_hk_stalling/

You might not be using bold letters and screaming incoherent rage like ydtm, but the basic action is the same:

ydtm: "VIA didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM"

you: "HF didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM"

Some people call everything that they don't like reading "spam."  You two do the same thing with the other handy bullet word of character assassination.

Ironically, if HF was a scam, they'd have kept most of the BTC instead of spending it on hardware development and business expenses.   ;D

If someone said to me that they would deliver 300 widgets within one year in exchange for payment today, fail to deliver such widgets due to "uncontrollable events" and subsequently file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then I would not trust that person in the future. I don't think it would be a good idea to prepay widgets from another company who is run by the same person as the company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The "best efforts" of HF were clearly not good enough.

Wow, such powers of deduction!  People say Benedict Cumberbatch is the best Sherlock, but you've got him beat.    ;D

HF was forced into Chapter 11 by some greedy idiots who believed getting lawyers involved would either (depending on the particular dipshit) teach HF a lesson by convicting them of some imagined crime, or result in massive windfalls being distributed from some secret stash/hidden mine.

The "best efforts" of HF were clearly good enough to convince the bankruptcy court Chapter 11 reorganization (rather than Chapter 7 liquidation) provided the best chance of providing relief to creditors.

But at least you stopped the bashing with your overused scam cudgel.  So that's progress.  I take back the accusation of bad faith; it seems you are teachable after all.

Perhaps you could be a little more understanding and less absolutist about the widget provider in your hypothetical situation.

Are you really saying someone's trustworthiness depends on factors outside of their control?   ???  That seems absurd to the point of asinine.

What if the "uncontrollable event" was the widget maker getting hit by a bus and spending the year in a coma?  ZOMG FUCKING SCAMMER AMIRITE?

I think you need to reconsider and walk back the blanket claim with some additional nuance.

Now that you understand "best efforts" here is another useful term of art: force majeure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure).

Here's where this is going: was the price drip and difficulty spike a good enough excuse for the late/non deliveries and cashflow crisis?

We reasonable customers could only trust HF would make best efforts to make our very risky gambles pay off, not expect market-defying miracles No Matter What.

The sense of entitlement required to expect and require 100% Guaranteed success, on pain of distrust, is almost unfathomable.

Well there you go.  Working Bashing someone off a flawed premise.  Take down your negative rating and apologize to the guy.

If no units got delivered, how is it possible there is a Hashfast User's Thread?  And before anyone tries to say this thread was based on a batch later than the first, it isn't.  Batch 1, the one cypherdoc endorsed, did get delivered on or around Jan 22, 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426644.0

It looks like according to this (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) article, two of their customers purchased ASICs, were promised delivery by a certain date (or the availability of a refund), however ended up receiving neither. From what I can gather, this was a common theme among their customers.

I do not remember posting that HF delivered no units to their customers, and that quote of mine does not say that.

@ICEBREAKER - the above article mentions accusations of fraud against both HF and two of their directors

That article is old.  As you should note, Pete Morici (the claimant in that case) has dismissed his own case.  Obviously, because he had no case and was afraid of losing.  You should also note that there were 3 groups of customers; the majority of those who received their units, a few dozen who took dollar refunds for their purchase amounts (wisely in retrospect), and a small litigious group who unreasonably demanded refunds in BTC (like Greg) that had doubled in a risk free manner (held by company at it's risk) in terms of BTC price (windfall gains for customers if successful in clawback).  Because of Morici's lawsuit amidst the delays and controversy, the smart one's took their refunds in dollars or waited until their units got delivered (which they did).  

BTW, you are giving the false impression to everyone that no units were delivered:

Frap.doc, the subject of the OP's defamation, was never a director or exec or employee of HF.  He just met them in person and reported his encouraging, positive findings back to the forum.

At the time, we were delighted he chose to share rather than hoard that potentially valuable information.  But I understand why QS is moving the goalposts to include people and events which occurred long after Frap.doc ceased to be an explicitly compensated endorser.

There is a certain kind of social parasite which ingratiates itself to its host community by enthusiastically amplifying and repeating the group's particular totems and taboos.

In this instance, Quickseller's repetition of old forgone accusations and condemnations based on counterfactual biases constitutes such overly vigorous social stroking.

In his attempt to pile on the wrongly and falsely accused, he's embraced the questionable principle of blaming others for unpredictable events over which they had no control.  Nevermind the established fact of their best efforts; who need facts when you've got a witch to hunt?   :D

I just saw this now, but it should be clear I have _never_ been party to any litigation against hashfast.  They tried to send me a "refund" check that was totally at odds with our clear written agreement so I returned it, when I complained they never even responded.  They never sent me any hardware.  I chose to not litigate because the time and risk to my personal safety couldn't possibly be compensated by whatever tiny amount I could get out of the clearly bankrupt company which had since managed to dispose of most of its valuable assets.

The fact that people apparently associated wish Hashfast keep harassing me over the internet is seriously irritating, however.

You were given a 105% refund of the ASIC's purchase price.  You felt like you were too good and pure to cash the filthy evil check.

You petulantly decided you were entitled to a 1000% refund, which is also called a "windfall" and not allowed in standard contract interpretation.

So you got nothing.  Even worse, your arrogance and presumption fed the litigiousness of others who initiated lawsuits that ultimately ruined the chances of all HF customers to see a positive ROI.  No wonder they keep harassing you over the internet!   :P

And now you're giving the Gavinistas ammo by risking your Reddit account/reputation just because you feel so entitled to link Frap.doc's True Name with his alleged misdeeds (which have been repudiated by the Courts, but don't let facts get in the way of a good 2 Minutes Hate).

I responded back with a copy of a written statement from hashfast that said something like "yes in the event that we fail to deliver we will return your XX Bitcoins, not the price of the devices we understand the the price of bitcoin is volatile." and asked them politely to explain the discrepancy between our clearly stated written agreement and what they were sending. Not even a response. Shameful business practices.

And you claim I influenced others? AFAIK, morci's lawsuit began months before I had any complaint, when hashfast slipped its first targets.

HF had more important things to do than respond to your lulzy demand for a magical pony named Windfall.  You can't get blood from a turnip.

I need primary sources, not hearsay, to reach a valid conclusion here.  Have you posted your customized HF contract?

Regardless, I'm not sure if any one person (even an executive/founder) has the power to make the entire corporate entity responsible for the unlimited liability represented by your interpretation of Simon's statement(s).

Why not ask for 3rd party escrow or multisig?  Did Simon say you'd get back the exact same Bitcoins, down to the last untainted Satoshi?

Of course you influenced others.  Look at the pile on of negative ratings you induced after your shitpost extortion attempt dated 2015-06-16:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

As well, look at the beginning of this very thread and your postings there.

BTW, assuming you're not totally ignorant of how the legal system works in the US, why do you think you were:

1. indirectly entitled to negotiate (extort) the coins he was paid by HF via a direct quid pro quo attempt with a negative rating, and
2. entitled to extort coins that had been frozen by the bankruptcy court for the benefit of all creditors.  He couldn't have sent those coins to you or anyone else for that matter without risking contempt of court.

... any update outcome of the lawsuit?

Does cypherdoc have the Hashfast 'windfall' (pre-order no-hardware-delivered) bitcoins still in his possession now that the smoke is clearing?