I think Vod is saying what our local forum idiot would say, not him.

first bit I do not know, I said I guessed

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=mdma+excitotoxicity&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15
it does not help that mdma bought on the street more often than not is not primarily mdma

fun story: http://www.kissmyangeles.com/view/story/finding_molly

my guess is that pure mdma automatically destabilizes and equilibrates down to 84%. either way, mdma belongs to the set of drugs people take for fun that are actually neurotoxic

discussing now

However, if you paid for MPP , I feel like you're at least entitled to that amount. Therefore, for Batch 1 customers with MPP included, they should at least be entitled to that same dollar value by the company.

So we sat through ~2 hours of firms pitching their materials this morning and a few hours later, long story short, the majority of us (including me) voted  for Ashley M. McDow of BakerHostetler who will now be representing the creditors' committee as counsel. Tomorrow we are deciding and voting on committee bylaws.

Noted, I'm in the same boat as you individual small orders, just that I (unfortunately) have a bigger order.

Of course it'll be in all us creditors' best interests to have some serious auditing done to claw back as much of what is due to us as possible.

Again, please file your claims if you have a legitimate claim, so that you can be accounted for.

Note to future self: avoid any sort of situation that might invite me to deal with courts of law ever again if at all possible.

Stan, to clarify, when you say "personal aspect" you do mean "small orders represents individual people"? I don't quite follow what you mean by "Our rep will need to be assertive regarding individual funds compared to institutional funds on the hope he can get a higher percentage of the money back compared to the institutions." I'm currently interpreting this that this whole debacle probably hurts individual purchasers more than the individuals of an institution that purchased from HashFast. If so, then of course. The trustee is in SF so like you said, hopefully we stand a good chance of her being as fair as possible to those who suffered most from this

We're seeing lawyers pitch tomorrow or something and then we vote Thursday or friday

edit: we're voting sometime the same day they pitch

Did you guys file claims?

hopefully honesty and transparency will win the game. we might have a creditors' meeting at 4pst probably concerning appointing the chair and first subsequent steps. so I'll keep you guys in the loop as much as confidentiality may or may not allow me to.

No, I have no affiliation with anyone really aside from the fact that in the end, we all just want to get as much of our money back as possible.

The only entity in the group to worry about as far as I know is Uniquify. While I'm sure they're a respectable company, their history with HashFast leaves one to remain cautious.

Just wanted to let everyone here know I've been selected to serve on the bankruptcy committee. For those with claims, I'm here for you guys if you want your voices voiced. Can't say I'm too familiar with the whole process or anything though.

^for other investigations, would that not be illegally gained evidence though?

I had a dream about this a few weeks ago where I was sitting at a table across from a mysterious man who asked me this.

Surprised, I thought for a moment or two, then said, "Love"

He smiled.

This was my choice and that's fine, I stand by that and I hope the bankruptcy will proceed okay, though I've never been part of this shit before... but on the bright side it's been a stimulating game so far. But anyway, in the interests of being forthright I have to clarify this above statement. Cypherdoc, you were a compensated representative of Hashfast at one point. There was some conflict of interest in the trust your subscribers had for you and your affiliation with that company though our end goals and interests were more or less aligned.

Regardless, the whole point of purchasing miners at that point was so that I could make more bitcoins off the bitcoins I would invest. If everything worked out, everything would've been dandy and I would've appreciated and respected your representation of HashFast and my best interests as your sub. Given the hashrate then and the purported efficiency of the Golden Nonce chip, if I were able to be the first to mine I would've made bank. Along with their guarantees of a miner protection program and BTC refunds and absolute and definite wording that they'd deliver by October 20-30, I felt it was worth the risk.

Now, come a few months later when they did not deliver, I was not about to let them ream me of the bitcoins I put down. In January, there would've been no hope to ROI positively given KNC miners, and with their broken promises, violation of the FTC mail-order cancellation rule, a dollar refund at that point in January, had I taken their dollar settlement where that scumbag Ettinger also wanted me to give up my rights to sue in addition to their obligation to me to return the sole form of payment they took that I gave them, I would've only been about to recover 1/6-1/8 the bitcoins I had put down by purchasing them again. No way.

Now I don't blame you for HashFast's behavior or any of that, and yes, you did advise me to take the refund in January and from your perspective that would've been the safest option given the circumstances and revelations that have developed up to that point so I respect that, but speaking objectively, if one were to follow the advice you gave regarding HashFast, unfortunately, they would've lost a lot of money/time.

Good, that makes me feel better about my viewpoint . it's something i'm still developing as to what the ideal system of governance might be

in regards to edit 2, yes, I'm a bit skeptical as to how frictional such a protocol would be but it's an interesting experiment and I'm curiously watching

I agree, maybe I wouldn't use the word ruler but rather leader. It would be under such a system of ultimate freedom where I'd imagine that there'd still be some economic advantage to voluntarily work together. Like a company has specialization of different workers, might there not be someone (or a group) that should lead this company to engage resources as best as possible for whatever their goal might be? If that company serves constituents best interests better than the others available, it'd make sense for the constituents to align themselves with said company until it doesn't make any more sense to do so, in which case they can voice their dissent in the effort of changing what is not liked or leave. I guess this sounds kind of feudalistic, but I think as long as there's a way to opt out, that is a means to check tyranny and still maintain high degrees of freedom. empowerment of the individual

edit: interesting paper I just looked up by googling "bee colony specialization"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686371/

edit 2: The distributed applications movement (https://github.com/DavidJohnstonCEO/DecentralizedApplications) wants to turn organizations into a protocol where the collective majority stake decides the course the organization via proof of stake/work voting. Maybe pull requests are submitted and can be discussed and voted upon under this system and if enough votes were accepted, then the protocol would change. If the majority stakeholders do not serve the whole's best interests, those that don't agree could try to voice their opinion and appeal or leave, but at the same time, this type of democracy might be less competitive and be fraught with bureaucracy and indecision unless maybe they voted in and could vote out 'good' benevolent leaders. economic incentive/competition would determine that the best decisions be made

Not true, you referred subs to HashFast. They're now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and I have to fight tooth and nail with them and the DOJ to get back what was promised to me. I'm still optimistic but I'm weary after 10 months of this.