Bitcoin Forum

https://www.reddit.com/user/nullc

Would like to gmaxwell (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425)'s statement regarding this incident...

Damn I thought this was a clickbait thread, since I knew greg was banned a couple of days ago by the /r/btc trolls, but he is really banned from reddit at an account level? what the fuck happened? Im sure it has to do with /r/btc trolls looking at straws to ban him, since nullc was always schooling them in that shitty subreddit. I hope he can get his account recovered or comes back under another account.

He is a vulgar fucking control freak and needed to be banned.  I hope it is forever.

Being a vulgar control freak should not prohibit him from using the forums. Should we ban all the vulgar users from Bitcointalk?

Supposedly it is related to doxxing either Gavin and/or hashfast dude. Apparently reddit takes doxxing very seriously.

Some more info here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5glgb0/unullc_banned/dat79g2

Reddit has no clue who they are and what their standing is in the Bitcoin community. If you were not banned or your account being suspended

before, then you have not pushed enough buttons yet.... There were a bunch of people pushing buttons in both /r/Btc and /r/Bitcoin and I

think some mods got some "false" reports.  ??? I got banned on a gaming forum for 1 year... because I mentioned Bitcoin in a thread.  ::)

I didnt' say he is a 'vulgar control freak' - I said he is a 'vulgar fucking control freak'. 

About the part of banning vulgar users, I guess you have a point there.

Does it really matter?  And how is this relevant to Bitcoin itself?  Motion to move the thread to Off-Topic.  I can honestly say I've never understood the appeal of Reddit anyway.  This is basically the Bitcoin equivalent of 'celebrity gossip'.  What the developers do, or don't do, in other corners of the internet is their own damn business as far as I'm concerned.  Load of fuss over nothing.

Who cares because no one controls bitcoin.

lol - Greg Maxwell is no longer a Bitcoin topic.  Obviously you don't know what kind of ruin that guy brings to the network.  The ONLY relevant topic related to bitcoin today is stopping that idiot from having full control over the network.

Hum, I wondered why he was posting a lot on this forum lately.

He might have 3 other Alts as well...

1. https://www.reddit.com/user/gmaxwell

2. https://www.reddit.com/user/gregmaxwell

3. https://www.reddit.com/user/gregorymaxwell

Maybe not all his alts. I just don't see him being cool enough to have a "natural looking breasts" thread.

I see him being more of a "doesn't touch himself in the shower kind of person". LOL

Here is the post that I was banned for-- no joke:  https://people.xiph.org/~greg/temp/rbtc_wtf_part_27.png

It looks like what happened is that BitcoinXio reported it to the site administrators before realizing how transparently dishonest his explanation was-- since my post contained nothing but totally public information, published by the subject of it, which is part of a open source project distributed everywhere was, and which would cause no one any harm.  

There has since been a lot of misinformation spread about this-- one point reported is the claim that I was lying about the git commit message in my post.  I pretty frequently edit my posts to add links and details; in this case I initially created the post saying that this message that the author was accusing me of creating was actually created by Gavin. Then shortly after I edited it to include the whole commit message because the commit message actually contained the notice. As far as I know, I'd added that well before BicoinXio deleted my message--  but because I couldn't actually see the deletion myself. In any case, it was obviously there by the time I took that screenshot.

Considering that rbtc is pretty much a non-stop set of attacks using my name and info along with that of many other contributors to Bitcoin-- I'm having a little trouble squaring the idea that Reddit policy in fact would actually prohibit that-- but be that as it may, the actual letter of Reddit's policy would apparently even prohibit a user from giving up their own personal information. 0_o

There has been some other speculation that it had something to do with Marc Lowe, since in the subsequent thread where BitcoinXio admitted that rbtc moderators had been secretly using the automoderator to hide comments-- a practice I've called out many times-- I mentioned that one of the things they'd used it for was to hide any case where I linked to the litigation against him when he had the nerve to accuse me of being unethical or Reddit.  Now, as far as any can tell, simply saying a name can't run afoul of Reddit's doxing policy (in particular, since I connected it to nothing else there); but after concern was expressed that I was potentially violating it there, I simply removed it in all cases. It had nothing to do with the site wide suspension.

Three days later, the site admins got around to the report, so a post with an email address in it and hit the big red switch.

In any case, I responded promptly to reddit's admins, explained the history and my desire to not violate any rules there (even if they're silly).   If they don't want to have me posting there, thats a loss for their users-- and ultimately them.  The problem will still remain that rbtc will continue to encourage and promote untrue attack posts like the one I was responding to above-- and without the ability to counter untruthful speech with more speech, I'm not sure of what will happen there. Cheers.

The naming of this file implies that there were parts 1 - 26. I want to know what they are!!  ;D

That post can be found in their public mod log as well: https://r.go1dfish.me/r/btc/about/log. For all the shouting about how great their public mod log is, no one at r/btc seemed to want to check the public mod log to see what the post actually was when it was deleted to see that it was not a dox but rather a commit message.

The speculation has to do with the removed post from here: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5g3weu/blockstreams_creator_changes_bitcoin_network/dapgq88/. From the following comments, it seems that the comment that was removed was yours and that it contained someone's dox (presumably Mark Lowe's). It would be nice to know that the comment actually was, if you were the one to write it.

Edit: After take a look through their (shitty) public mod log, I found the posts in question. The banning is almost certainly to do with the initial post with Gavin's email as all of the subsequent posts do not even mention any personal information of anyone else.

Here is the post with Gavin's email:
https://i.imgur.com/yGweQAK.png

And here is the other deleted one:
https://i.imgur.com/O04p1yp.png

To be clear, the bottom post originally had "Marc Lowe" in the place of that first "he"-- I yanked it shortly after making the post in an abundance of caution: I wasn't able to find any example where simply using a name not connected to any other identity or identifying information has ever been determined to be a violation of Reddit's policy, and I can find a great many posts where people name and shame others who've ripped them off-- but I had no desire to violate any rule and being more specific was pointless (everyone it matters to already knows) so I removed it, after someone suggested that it might be.   None of the response of Reddit which anyone has received has suggested this had anything to do with it.

What bullshit.
What's the rationale behind this hiding someone's posts without telling them that it's being done?
Simply linking a real life name with its forum nickname meets the definition of "doxing"?
What definition of "public figure" do they use?

/r/btc has a long history of associating with scammers.

a. Cryptsy scammer Marshall Long was their mod.

b. /u/hellowbitcoinworld scammed /r/btc by crowdfunding in the name of running Classic nodes and then ran away.

c. One of the main proponent of Classic & /r/btc is /u/jtoomim, who has scammed Zcash user through his cloud mining scam.

So, it is no wonder, when /u/nullc is exposing HashFast cloud mining scammer Mark Lowe, they'll be extra active to bury that information.

rbtc can't tell people that it's being done because then they'd have to admit that they too moderate things, which would break their narrative that the difference between rbtc and rbitcoin is that rbtc is 'uncensored'.

Apparently one that defines Gavin Andresen as not a public figure but defines me as one (since no action is taken about the basically daily stream of attack comments naming me on rbtc-- ... though I never asked for any action to be taken with respect to them other than letting me post rebuttals, but they've taken that away.)


But whatever, it's their site-- they can have dumb rules.

Never mind. Rules are there to break them. The result of all that little drama might be that you are now back here in best forum a bit more?

Why you just don't use this chance and make the 'need' of different forums obsolet by working on a reunion of the split community and find out about a best consensus in scaling that will include all proper possibilities like on- and off chain scaling in one go?

from what i can read.

one guy argues that althought NEW implementations will not see an alert.. OLD implementations can. so old implementations CAN be alerted.
as for the content of the alert. checking github. it does show "obsolete" as a standard message when a node see's a rule break.

by alerts it does not mean 'human broadcasted' alerts. but default internal node rule checking alerts (which are still active)

so old nodes will see this .. emphasis OLD nodes will see alerts.
emphasis only these versions have human broadcasted alerts disabled
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1

then i see Gmaxwell chime in to wash over the post first by distraction "its been disabled".. yea ONLY FOR NEW NODES!!! and only the human broadcasted alerts
then he uses an demonstration of an alert. could have been grabbed anywhere any time. to not argue the word "obsolete" but to argue that the demonstration had gavins name involved.

i think gmaxwell totally missed the point and was trying to poke at the name "gavin" and ignore the topic word "obsolete"..

how boring gmaxwell. arguing about gavin when the topic was about an alert that even github proves says "obsolete" to the old nodes

THERE IS NO ALERT THERE.

The poster claims that I abusively sent an alert to try to cause node to upgrade. But I did not, I took no action, and what he is seeing is not an alert.

The message the person was posting about is the message (older) full nodes display when they detect that most of the hashpower is enforcing rules they don't know about.  It isn't an alert, it's a notice generated by the software itself. And not one I created: I showed the commit message where it was created in my response.

The tremendous irony is that you and other fudsters have spent untold hours fearmongering with claims that full nodes would some how be silently 'downgraded' by segwit, and ignored all prior points that full nodes can detect the new rules and will tell their users about them so they can choose their response.  (Current Bitcoin Core uses text (https://people.xiph.org/~greg/temp/warning_in_gui.png) which is much less obnoxious than Gavin's, but warns all the same).

flip flop

"its a notice"
lol!!!!

so now you are avoiding the word "obsolete" again, by distracting people by calling it a "notice".
oh and from your screenshot the guy never said you sent a "notice" he said that the "notice" wording mentions OBSOLETE

as for the rest of your post.
my mindset and others are proved right. you have made a change and tried to hide it by making new nodes not see alerts and by underplaying how old nodes will treat the change.
even now you want to downplay the ALERT by calling it "a notice". lol

how about be upfront from the start and just say old nodes wont be fully validating 100% so upgrade. instead of "old nodes are fine, its only a notice, your free to decide what to do".

after all <2000 are ready to validate sgwit. which is a BAD BAD thing for the other 3000+ to rely on other nodes. instead of the network independantly fully validating every bit of data it receives.

you should have done a NODE first. then bribe the miningpools with free party weekends.. not bribed pools first and downplay effect of the network nodes after

old nodes we both agree will be downgraded. the issue is that there is no node consensus to even give them the choice. nodes cannot veto out an option if they dont like it. you have simply skipped letting nodes choose. and went straight to bribing the pools
i think its been 4 little papering social events your employer has organised this year.

a couple of them were meant to be fully discussing possibilities of things like dymanic blocksize. but your employer said those couple events were just social, not intended to formally discuss scalability.

Since you don't want to be pedantic, you could call the notice an "alert". But that "alert" is something that is generated by the node itself warning that it thinks that it is obsolete. It is not an actual alert sent over the network.

An actual alert is actually a network message. There was an alert that was sent out warning that the alert system was deprecated. That alert also contained the "version is obsolete" message because the alert would override the notice generated by the node. Since it is known that the only nodes that would receive that alert are also ones that are already displaying the "version is obsolete" message, this was safe to do.

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

There is no need to upgrade for those against SegWit. That is why it is soft fork, i.e. "backward compatible". For 2mb Hard Fork, upgradation is mandatory, or else u'll be left behind.

There is no need to upgrade and no one is telling you to upgrade. The message that says you need to upgrade was included in Core for a very long time and has since been removed. The message is not showing because of segwit but rather because of previous soft forks. The CSV soft fork would have triggered this warning in all clients up to and including Bitcoin Core 0.12.0. The CLTV soft fork would have triggered the warning in everything up to and including 0.11.1. Because these have long since activated, anyone running any version of Bitcoin Core prior to 0.12.1 would have seen an alert displayed and generated by the node itself (i.e. no actual alert was sent) that said

Using the word "obsolete" is a bit of poor word choice. Since you really don't have to upgrade for soft forks, "obsolete" is not exactly a good word to use here. However I imagine Gavin used that wording to also account for hard forks which use the same block version signalling mechanism. This wording has since been changed to "Unknown network rules have been activated" with versionbits now being used for signalling.

The alert that was sent did not use the word obsolete. It says

Notice how there is no change in meaning here, in fact the alert essentially downgrades the warning. Instead of saying that upgrade is required, it is only recommended. The other stuff (outdated and network-inconsistent) is all inferred from obsolete. The only new information in this alert is that the alert system has been deprecated.

though you STORE the blocks.. old node not validating segwit wont be independantly testing and veryifying a tx within a block if the TX is segwit.
it just deems it as acceptable without even fully checking it.

its like having a wife. she goes to the supermarket and checks the fruit is ripe. you double check its ripe, but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong.

full nodes are like food connoisseurs/critics. and they want to be fully critical and checking everything for a reason. if they are not checking every part of the stuff they get. then they are not a full node..

in short they are now a trolley pusher not a fruit connoisseur
turning 5000 connoisseurs into 3000 trolley pushers. 2000 connoisseurs can cause problems for the meal(network) especially if those 2000 all have the same tastebuds (running one implementation from one source)

if they are not being critical about the data then they might aswell save the hard drive space and be relay nodes. because they cant independently trust what they have been handed.

find something your fussy about, whether its who cleans the house or who pays the bills. where you want to be in control. then hand it off to someone else.

no need??
you do know FULL NODES want to be FULL NODES for a reason right!!
a soft fork is not about keping full nodes as full nodes. its about bypassing opposition to push a change without a full node vetoing out a change.

much like avoiding an election by killing the president and having the senate vote in someone without the countries consent.
in the UK we never voted in Theresa may. and she already is causing grief and we have nothing to do to stop her.

seriously i know you love work arounds to not fix problems but just jump passed problems (you have displayed this many times). but full nodes want to be full nodes for a reason.

so saying that a full node will be downgraded but shouldnt care, and shouldnt need to worry because its not a problem.. is like saying you should go back to grade school and not worry about the world around you because your opinion doesnt count

This is off topic for this thread. We have already been over this multiple times. Nothing that you say will change my mind and nothing that I say will change yours.

The post was alleging that I, specifically, utilized a cryotgraphic key to perform some act that the author thought was improper.  This is simply a lie. I responded on reddit answering that lie and my post was deleted, and ultimately my account suspended over that factual correction.   It would be helpful if franky1 would acknowledge that. And as far as the subject of this thread goes-- that is about all that matters.

In terms of the notice,  It was written by Gavin, not I.  And it no longer exists in Bitcoin Core since it was removed a year ago for version 0.12-- it was replaced with the far more informative messages (https://people.xiph.org/~greg/temp/warning_in_gui.png) I linked above, which is not tainted by the authoritarian and centralized thinking that anything other than the very latest version is automatically obsolete.

If you don't like the content of the old text-- don't take it up with me, I didn't write it and I contributed to removing it.

If you don't like that something was displayed, don't take it up with me-- I had nothing at all to do with it.

On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork.  So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot?  I giggle at the enormity of that count.

And you're free to decide what to do-- accept it without a careful check, since it looks like a fruit and smells okay from where you stand-- or take action to verify it completely. It's your decision.   Sadly, with your hardfork mania you want to take away people's ability to decide by forcing changes onto them which they can't ignore even if they want to, and by driving up the resource costs of running a full node so that many were will exist, checking anything at all.

If you look at the facts it's clear that being banned from reddit because of that is absolute nonsense. This is obviously plotted so now they can circle jerk on /r/btc acknowledging each others bullshit without no one smarter than them that actually gets shit done and codes calling them out. I hope the reddit admins look at this case and restate their decision for a global ban, if you look at the facts it just doesn't make sense. In any case /r/btc will fall by itself because so many bs artists in the same place will make it collapse eventually.

gmaxwells mindset
national elections.. sorry folks citizens cant vote.. civil servants cant vote.
only the senators can vote.
but dont worry civil servants. YOU will notify yourself that you have been made obsolete. the day your obsolete..
but dont worry your still citizens. nothing wrong with being just a citizen. dont worry.
you can watch from a distance. its then upto you to reapply for a civil servants role under new contract. but dont worry. we done this in a way that you cant go on strike against it..
now all we have to do is bribe the senate with a few all-inclusive weekends (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-and-developers-meet-in-california-to-improve-communications-1470158657)

dont worry there nothing wrong with being downgraded to a citizen, dont worry

citizens =not full nodes
civil servants = full node
senate=pools

HashFast had nothing to do with "cloud mining."   Perhaps you should understand the subject matter thoroughly before parroting the hivemind's libelous, outdated, and provably counterfactual narrative (which was largely written and promulgated by GMAX).

GMAX isn't "exposing" anyone, he is continuing a campaign of online defamation and harassment against targets that according to the Bankruptcy Court have been cleared of the "scammer" accusation.

GMAX is still obsessed with getting a risk-free appreciated-BTC windfall refund for his ultra-risky ASIC preorder.  LOL.

GMAX was sent a refund check for 105% of the purchase price, but was too pure (IE stubborn) to cash it and thus admit the once-popular 'we-all-deserve-windfall-refunds' entitlement theory is flawed.

This is the only time I've seen him be wrong about something, so it's not surprising he doesn't know how to accept fault, change his mind, and move on. 

As Dr. Back says, 'if you find yourself disagreeing with GMAX about a technical matter, you're probably wrong.'  But this is a cluster of legal matters and the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents GMAX from reaching correct conclusions about scam vs bankrupt, doxing vs TOS, etc.



GMAX's libel and harassment eventually caused Cypherdoc to delete all his forum/social accounts, to the detriment of those who enjoyed his legendary GOLD COLLAPSING BITCOIN UP posts (and his silly Gavinista moaning/ranting as well).

Cypherdoc values his personal privacy/security and never intended for his handle to be connected to his True Name.  That connection only occurred as a result of the (disastrous/useless) bankruptcy lawsuit.

GMAX knows this, and likes to twist the knife as frequently as possible by mentioning cypher's True Name in connection with the (now debunked) scammer accusation.

It's very fitting that this illegal and obnoxious pattern of behavior brought down the Reddit admin BANHAMMER.  Cypherdoc is a man of means, and Conde Naste doesn't want to be held responsible should anything bad happen to Cypherdoc subsequent to his doxxing/defamation happening on their site.

You might think given how much GMAX complains about r/btc's similarly baseless and defamatory campaign of personal destruction against him, he would know better than to do the same thing to Cypherdoc, especially since the HashFast+Frap.doc scam accusation had 2 years of intense courtroom litigation to find proof of scam, yet went nowhere.

hang on.
lets get this right
so icebreaker. who was happy with gmaxwell R3cking hearn(r3) . for being paid by bankers.
now icebreaker seems less friendly towards gmaxwell because its now public knowledge gmaxwell is paid by bankers too.

sidenote:
gmaxwell hates gavin.
where gavin(Bloq) and gmax(blockstream) are both paid by the same guy coindesk(DCG) who is involved with hyperledger(bankers altcoin) where all three (r3) (Bloq) and (blockstream) are highlighted as involved with hyperledger directly (members).. plus indirectly via investors

so hearn, gavin and gmax all paid by bankers and all have direct AND indirect ties to hyperledger ..

and then we have gmaxwell trying to take the moral highground pretending to be 'all about the bitcoin dcentralization' and 'it will all be ok' and anyone not blockstream friendly must be an altcoiner and should F**k off.. and if you are blockstream friendly you should patent your code under blockstream DLP so that blockstream can charge you FRAND royalties if you want to revoke your blockstream owned licence from your software

while gmaxwell plays with hyperledger and monero.. oh and multimillions of banker FIAT..

I have a written contract from hashfast saying that if they failed to deliver I would receive a full refund of the amount of BTC paid. I directly reached out to Simon Barber to double check this fact, due to the frequent mining scams that had previously happened where there was no intention to create mining hardware but simply to refund "dollars" if Bitcoin appreciated, and Bitcoins if the market moved the other direction. Cypherdoc also confirmed hashfast's refund policies in public.  Without those assurances I never would have made a purchase, just as I never purchased from BFL, and the same is true for many other early hashfast buyers.

What you call a "windfall" was a significant loss (something like 80%? I don't recall) in fact, beyond what hashfast had promised. This isn't just me yapping-- a california court (http://www.coindesk.com/judge-approves-fraud-claims-against-bitcoin-mining-firm-hashfast/) also held that there was significant evidence of fraudulent behavior on this point.

The questions are simple: Did hashfast promise early buyers that they were externally funded without need of customer funds to build goods, and that in the event of a failure to deliver they'd simply return the Bitcoin paid? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc get paid 3000 BTC (even of his agreement worth  _over three hundred of thousand dollars_) to make a couple dozen forum posts laying out his reputation vouching for the operation? Yes. Did people rely on Hashfast and its agents promises and send them funds instead of other oppturnities (such as sitting on them, or spending them with other mining operations)? Obviously. Did the operation substantially both fail to deliver and fail to return the payments to the customers it agreed to do that with? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc's removal of 3000 BTC from the organization make it physically impossible for them to return the Bitcoins-- it appears so.  Did Cypherdoc lie to myself and others about his level of involvement (claiming to have lost funds) until forced to tell the truth by a California court? Yes. Could Cyperdoc largely have recovered much of his reputation by voluntarily returning the funds he removed to the bankruptcy or the customers, minus an actually reasonable payment for a few hours of message posting-- quite likely.

Cypherdoc has repeated posted my personal information gleamed from hashfast records, including my shipping address-- great fodder for the nutbags threatening my life, no doubt--  If he thought any of my behaviors were illegal he'd certainly be able to begin litigation.  Give me a break.

The guy traded his reputation for a huge windfall, he has nothing to cry about.  No one's reputation is worth anything if someone's reputation isn't trashed if they put it on the line to promote something and that thing turns out to be a major loss for all involved. That is what you paid him for, unless you want to argue that he was paid 3000 BTC for something _other_ than putting a valuable reputation on the line? (such as, say, tunneling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_(fraud)) funds out of the company?).   Besides, regardless of the shenanigans at hashfast, he directly lied to me-- claiming that he was just another customer paid by discounted units, which never shipped leaving him at a loss too-- to try to evade a reputational hit. On that basis alone I don't have any reservation in saying that he's a dishonest coward.  

And bringing it back on-topic-- AFAICT, there is NO post on Reddit where I disclose any personal information about him. And the reddit administration already confirmed that the issue in question was the gavinandresen@gmail.com email address.

Yes, I previously noted your resolute fact-be-damned insistence on remaining committed to the formerly popular windfall-providing interpretation of HF's TOS.

But believing in your personal interpretation as hard as you can and stomping your feet won't change the fact windfalls are precluded by common law notions of equity.  That's why PMorici's fraud case went nowhere, and after spinning his wheels for a while he finally moved to dismiss his own case!  That outcome has been obvious since Ettinger's devastating initial Response to Morici's Complaint.  I told you so, over and over.

Any lawyer (who isn't incompetent outside of the narrow domain of IP law) will confirm windfalls are frowned upon by the legal system.  "Full refund provided in BTC" means you get back via BTC the purchase price, which was denominated in USD.

This isn't hard.  You don't get to reasonably expect all your Bitcoins back 'No Matter What Even If They Are Worth 10 Million Dollars.'

I was disabused of that faulty notion by a bright young law student in about 30 seconds and felt silly for ever having subscribed to such an unbalanced, impossible, self-serving idea.  It's been two years and you are still bitterly clinging.  What's your excuse?  Don't want the lawyer who told you to settle for nothing less than a windfall to be mad at you, for fear of the p-whip?   ;D


Cypherdoc was always transparent; he fully disclosed his compensated endorser status at the very top of his Hashfast Endorsement Thread OP.

Asking a potential scammer "are you a scammer?" is not due diligence.  Hashfast obviously wasn't a fly-by-night based on the fact its founders had a previously successful start up, physical location in California, contracts with Uniquify/TSCM, etc.

As I already said, Frap.doc desired privacy and is not a public figure, so your frequent mentions of his True Name and associated scam accusations disclosed personal information about him.  Of course Reddit will not allow their platform to be used for your witch hunt (and neither should Theymos, who is likewise sensitive about being doxed).

I won't defend Frap.doc doxxing you, that was obviously wrong, although I will note the only reason everyone including dangerous nutbags knows your shipping address is the mass doxxing accomplished by the spectacularly ill-advised and monumentally useless bankruptcy lawsuit.  Heck of a job, Brownie!

The hivemind's "tunnling" accusation has been made for over two years and went nowhere in court.  Repeating an Officially refuted accusation of a criminal act like tunneling is called defamation.  When it's written on the internet, that's called libel.  When you post it in a way that encourages mob justice, that's called harassment at best and incitement at worst.

It's not reasonable to believe Frap.doc and Hashfast knew in advance Bitcoin would enjoy a 10-fold price increase and thus conspired to tunnel assets out.  9% is a bog standard normal industry rate for independent sales contractors.

Your claim of tunneling has been demonstrated to be false.  It was rubbish all along, just like the 'secret mine' and 'secret escrow' and all the other debunked HF conspiracy theories.

We all though HF had a great shot at success and they came close despite the target moving rapidly away towards the end.

Let's see what cypherdoc actually said, as primary sources are superior to interpretation (unless the interpreter is Peter Wuille).

Dude. Explicit agreement. Without it I would not have bought. This is a clear reliance.  And-- it's also not a "windfall", as hashfast claimed they would put the assets aside. (And apparently did so, since they had no problem paying Cypherdoc 3000 BTC) -- strange to see you argue this here, while not arguing that cypherdoc was entitled to "only" three hundred grand rather than the much larger "windfall" he was actually paid. It was also equally explicit that if the Bitcoin price dropped to $1 or whatever, I'd still just be getting back the Bitcoins I paid.

Consider: You own 10,000 tons of steel and expect the price of steel to go up a lot but aren't doing much of anything with your steel right now.  Someone offers to sell you a machine that will, given time and inexpensive feedstocks return something between 5000 and 25000 tons of steel, likely 15000 tons... but only if delivered on time.  They offer to sell it for your 10,000 tons of steel... but you're concerned that they'll just do nothing and hand you the market price of the steel at the time of the sale back if the steel price goes up since that has been a common scam pattern. So they agree that they'll have third party investors pay for the production, and if they fail to deliver on spec they'll return your payment.   Absent fraud this is a good trade... the risk that the machine might end up producing less is acceptable to you, and they sweetened it even further by offering that if it significantly under-produces they'll give you an additional machine later (most of their costs are NRE-- machines are marginally cheap to produce).  The seller get a good deal because-- assuming he can deliver-- he gets a guaranteed return instead of a machine with an uncertain income an a bunch of operating requirements. So you go for it.

Later, they don't deliver and try to cut you a check for the market prices at the time of the sale. The very situation you were concerned about and which you sought and obtained multiple copies in writing, explicit agreement otherwise.-- and made it very clear that you would not buy without this agreement.

This is hogwash, and if people can get away with it the result is a trivially repeatable scam pattern:   Collect Bitcoin for mining pre-orders at prices almost too good to be true, later when the bitcoin price goes up: "refund" the market value of the coins at the time of the "sale"; otherwise if the Bitcoin price goes down-- "refund" the exact Bitcoins paid. Heads I win, tails you lose.  Yes, in HF's case they did actually attempt to build hardware, but that doesn't change the general pattern.

To call that a "windfall" is to make a mockery of contract. If this hadn't been explicitly agreed in advance as a condition of the sale then maybe there would be an argument, but here it was clearly agreed. The only limit on the enforceability of the agreement is insolvency of the entity that made it, which was sadly the case here (esp with Cypherdoc walking off with so much of the Bitcoins).

After it went sour and I negatively rated him, he contacted me directly and said his only compensation was discounts for hardware which he never received and that he was just as much of a victim as me, he plead at my sense of justice and I fell for it. So, indeed, I was not amused when I read the court documents and found out that he got 3000 BTC and full price refunds for the "discounted hardware". So much for "transparency" unless you mean transparently dishonest.

He argued before a California court that he was the "LeBron James of Bitcoin"; and that on this basis the payment of 3000 BTC (10% of gross income) was more than justified.  Are you saying he perjured himself?

Except... it isn't there.

My information cannot be found in the public bankruptcy proceedings. I specifically did not participate to keep that information out of them; because the at most few thousand I could have conceivably gotten out of the defunct entity was far less than the cost of security precautions necessitated by the publication of the information-- better the funds go to people who need them more.


Bullshit.  But feel free to file a lawsuit. Otherwise pound sand.  You're the one arguing that you paid Cypherdoc hundreds of thousands of dollars for effectively nothing. I wasn't even specifically arguing that tunneling was engaged in here: only that you bought and paid for his reputation (and thus he shouldn't be surprised that it's trashed when hashfast failed to make good on its agreements) or that he was paid an astronomical amount of funds for some other reason.  E.g. If it wasn't buying the reputation of a public figure ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") to endorse the product, -- then what was it?

Let me make this completely clear here:  There was clear dishonestly here and it is unambiguous, while the this and that details may not rise to the level of criminal conviction and the successfully dispersed funds make civil action a waste of time, no one involved has any right to demand the affection or respect of others.  You can sit here impotently threatening with bullshit litigation on behalf of your buddy, but I won't be cowed by it.  All doing so does is piss me off and encourage me to make it more clear what a ripoff I believe the whole operation was.


But you know all this, quoting you from elsewhere on Bitcointalk:


We agree-- that if an agreement was X bitcoin, it should be honored as that for better or worse-- and that cypherdoc was granted a windfall in exchange for his reputation, so why do you seem to have forgotten your prior position?

Yes, it sucks for us customers that HF made a stupid, ruinous mistake by gambling with that much exposure to BTC price changes and then losing the bet.  It would have been nice for Frap.doc to have loaned the windfall back to them, for the sake of his fellow customers, but that's his decision.

I said the reputation damage was an externality.  Your framing makes it seem like that unintended consequence was a premeditated central part of the (supposedly devious criminal) contract between Frap.doc and HF.

The court and dozens of hungry lawyers have dissected the famous contract between Frap.doc and HF; they found nothing untoward.  Get over it.  This HF Derangement Syndrome is bad for you and bad for Bitcoin.

The 9% sales commission BTC payment was made for the trouble he took to meet up with them and write up/discuss his endorsement on the forum.  That helped get Batch 1 sold out ASAP, a huge help in making ROI.  That wasn't being "paid for essentially nothing".  I simply noted the fact the payment became a windfall helps compensate for the collateral reputation damage.

Frap.doc's contract with HF is not the same as your sales agreement, unless you somehow got a customized one from Simon.

Perhaps since BTC had been stable around $100 at the time Simon made the statement under the assumption that stability would continue.

Did you ask him how he planned to keep your BTC in the Secret HF Stash, w/r/t opsec?  You'd normally be very interested in that sort of thing.

Why not suggest some multisig, or 3rd party escrow?  You know those are best practices from being here so long.   ;D

These questions suggest your narrative's internal logic is faulty.

I see zero evidence Simon or anyone else guaranteed to refund all your BTC no matter what, even if they went to a million USD or whatever.

Offering refunds to be paid in BTC was done as a courtesy so customers getting refunds wouldn't have to turn the refund fiat back into BTC again.

Where did I "threaten legal action?"  I don't believe I did, in fact I was first among the many cautioning the deranged litigious windfall-seekers against getting lawyers involved with HF.

I'm certainly not trying to cow you with threats of litigation, just pointing out that doxxing, libel, and harassment are illegal in California/America.  However, I will continue to cow you with facts and logic.   :D

I'm not Frap.doc's "buddy" for taking his side on this any more than I'm your buddy for siding with you against him in the Grand Schism.

I've never met Frap.doc, but the one time you and I interacted IRL was when you paid me a compliment for some insight.  I was so happy to get an atta-boy from the CTO of Bitcoin!  I wish we could get past the HF toxicity and be buddies since we both plan to be in Bitcoin for the duration of the experiment.   :-[


We need you on Reddit fighting the good fight.  It's ridiculous you're handing the r/btc turds ammo.

We were both HF customers but at some point our POVs diverged.  Everything I predicted came true.  Nothing you predicted came to pass.

It's not scientific to reject results because they dispute your preconceived ideas.  Two separate court cases now indicate your anti-Hashfast ideas may require recalibration.

That's why risking your Reddit account/reputation just to die on the Frap.doc-owes-me-a-windfall-so-he's-a-public-figure hill of error propagation is so disappointing.

As I already explained, "Cypherdoc values his personal privacy/security and never intended for his handle to be connected to his True Name."  So please stop making him the white whale for your Captain Ahab.

FFS.. silly nonsense.

Hang in there GMAX.

Wow, this is a total cluster fck... I thought this was just some silly mod misusing their power to flex their muscles... but the story has a huge

history, and I never even noticed this. You guys need to sit down and talk about this "face2face" ..... washing the dirty dishes in public, will just

feed the anger and animosity. It's a pity that these things spiral out of control like this... a good heart to heart talk, often resolves most of the

issues. Good luck guys... this is getting nasty.  :(

And it looks like greg is back on reddit. His account is no longer marked as suspended.

Of course, didn't you expect that? I did because he's an "honor" kind of person. Even if he never wanted to visit Reddit again he was never going to stop until his name was cleared.

It was clear that he would get unbanned, it is nonsense that he got banned because he posted gavins gmail address which everyone knows what email is and everything he posted is public, but from now on I would always avoid posting any emails since the rules are nonsense, we can't afford people gmax getting banned because we need people that know how bitcoin works to continue posting on public forums.

Xio is insisting that the ban was due to /u/nullc's 'doxing' of Cypherdoc (aka Marc Lowe).


It's all a bit pathetic, but I was interested in Xio's

'Public persona' is a non sequitur here, the applicable phrase is simply a "public figure".
Reddit says (http://) posting rules can be different for a public figure


Define Public Figure?
There's two "degrees" of such status, regular and limited purpose.

"A particular issue"?
Like a court case dealing with the legal definition of whether Bitcoins are a commodity or currency, where the two identities of the main character are publicly linked in court documents and on thousands of web pages?

Then Xio is being untruthful. (also-- what Doxing? I removed any mention of his name once I found out it even might be against Reddit policy, even though I wasn't linking it to any other account!)

Hey, since I, too, am sometimes a vulgar fucker, albeit not yet versed as a control freak, does that equate to you hoping that I need to be banned for half of forever?  :P

Did you finally get unbanned?

Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is now unbanned on Reddit.

Not anymore.  This time it's permanent (hopefully quasi-permanent, like Roger Ver's suspension).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5vuko7/whats_nullc_done_to_get_suspended_this_time/

We tried to avoid this outcome.

We pleaded for GMAX to stop getting involved with petty, vindictive subreddit drama.

We explained he is too valuable (and Reddit rules too arbitrary) to let himself be goaded into any further unwise ad hom ax-grinding.



He didn't listen.  For the sake of yet another one of his personal grudges, he doxed a troll and reaped the banhammer.

The Gavinistas found his weakness ("vulgar control freak" aka 'can't admit to being wrong and change his mind') and used it as a crowbar to pry him off Reddit.


They played GMAX like a violin.  Credit where credit is due.   :-[

https://i.imgur.com/oi6DnYQ.png

How untrue is this speech? Your activities have just been exposed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7eil12/evidence_that_the_mods_of_rbitcoin_may_have_been/