If it makes you feel any better, you were a contributing factor in his death?

Hired highschool kids rather than an appropriate staff to take care of dangerous equipment.
Resulting in a piece of equipment ("a saw") that malfunctioned and injured a customer ("badly").
Speaks ?humorously? about the fallout, the victim, the victims family, and paid attorneys only 3% in relative comparison to the full sum asked for by the victims.
Paid to attorneys to keep them from collecting for more than seven years until the victim died.

The last word in your statement is "lol". (Laughing Out Loud)

While the first four sentences indicate a clear indication that you are aware that the incident was due to your companies fault.

=====================

No matter how you cut it, you are clearly guilty by self admission on holding out on the victims what they were due.

You really should work at BFL....well...their offices are closed though.

Again, QuestionAuthority reminds us why he is an asshole. BFL, hire this guy!

I will place a formula to all things BFL.

Read on:

They weren't lucky when they started making FPGAs.
They weren't lucky when they started 65nm ASICs.
Nor were they lucky when they started 28nm ASICs.

They used up a lifetime of luck when they hired Josh, to make "complicated" things.
They weren't lucky when they tried to make custom Power Supplies with China.
They weren't lucky when their staff of builders put together many/some of their miners together.

They weren't lucky when they met Bruno.
Less still when they met the FTC team and Ms. Wong.
They weren't lucky when they had their assets frozen and were forced to live on a few thousand a month.
Nor were they lucky when Paypal cancelled their corporate account or froze ?1 million +? in funds.

Were they even that lucky when they were forced to give alot of their customers refunds?


Sonny wasn't even that lucky when his probation was extended.

I could go on...

......

So why would they be lucky in court battles?

Well, I guess this means BFL will still be allowed their butter laden defenses to keep them from being cut by the hot blade of truth.

Days until BFL tries to negotiate a settlement: -40 days...woops guess they are already doing that.

Did you not read the short excerpt?

Withheld funds? As in set aside.


You made so little sense, you didn't even register as sentient life.

Proposal to make Josh sell his Bitcoin home to cover the expenses of BFL. I mean these are all troubles brought about by Josh poking that Pedo bear anyway. Right? (In my opinion)

Why should the other BFL principles have to pay for Josh's mistakes?
Don't you agree?

All who agree say I.
All who disagree say Nay.

TL;DR

BFL just got fucked again...

I still don't see the bill for Bruno PD (private detective)....is he not being compensated for all of his investigations into the happenings at BFL?

I'll explain it even so "a noddy" could understand.

See this is Josh,



this is Josh being himself when trying to tell the truth,



this is Josh when he is trying to lie.



Any questions?

I don't believe he will squeal.

He'd only squeal if he had no other choice.

----------------------------

What will be incredibly funny is how much he wrote online besides this forum. You should all start gathering links to his other advertising accounts and forward them to the FTC.

He will try not to contradict his online persona (under many aliases). He will probably put forth the idea that he only has 1 or 2 accounts.
Bruno could very easily nail him on those points as he's pinned down a ton of aliases.

It will be very hard to say anything without contradicting his online persona's claims.

If you want to help the FTC, you should all go over his many claims and simply point it out to the FTC with links attached.

Frankly, there are far too many indications that Josh was a founder of BFL.

Looking over alot of different pieces of information about his time with BFL (some of it blindingly highlighted by BRUNO) indicated that he was likely present at BFL in a higher capacity than simply an employee. It seems he was entagled with the founders of BFL before they even seemingly signed the paperwork to be a company.

No one, I mean literally, no one....can deny that the man did more than enough in the way of antics to be fired like any regular employee.
Yet, year after year, he was always a part of the team at BFL. Even stating openly that BFL both encouraged his behavior as it helped their sales. BFL knew everything about what Josh was doing. That is for certain. (not even a matter of speculation)

Instead, from the many things that have come to light it seems that Josh is more than simply someone who had a 50k employment and a deal to get some production hardware before even his own customers.

The guy couldn't be fired. The only times I ever saw him panic about his job was when I brought up the idea that he was costing his company money through his interactions online.

And in light of what I now believe, that he was indeed a founder of BFL, he was probably only sweating bullets because he would have to be the one liable for any antics that bit him in the ass financially.

-------------------------
(speculation)
If I assume too much, I believe that Josh had a significant ownership in BFL, probably a deal that is off the books.
How else would you explain that the guy could basically do anything to his customers (however vile it was) and still retain "his employment".

What I really want to know from insiders is what went on behind the scenes during his employment at BFL and if he really was even treated as merely an employee.

Every indication was seemingly that he was one of the heads at BFL, regardless of his official title.

-------------------------

Leaving aside Sonny and the funds lifted from unknown sources...who else could put forth significant capital to start BFL's investigations into ASIC manufacturing? (Well, I mean besides all the crowd funding after the evaluation of their ASIC design).

It's not special, it is downright tragic.

Lets hope for BFL's sake he suffers from an embolism.
OR
For our sake, that the embolism takes out that part of his brain that facilitates lying.

I'd love to see the transcript of him telling "the story" that doesn't contradict his many pages of text and comments on this very forum.

Wait, I feel a pain on the side of my head, might be a "truth" coming on pretty strong. Someone call an ambulance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXYvwEeWrm8

So, what you are all saying is basically this:

BFL seems to have sold its email list of BFL customers to a third party company.
Basically, that is what your trying to all say, correct?

That third party is then [apparently] using these emails to spam your inbox without clearly identifying itself as a BFL-sold marketing scheme?

I thought during the last email leak they assured people that their emails would not be revealed to anyone other than BFL.
I wonder if there is a monetary penalty for that? Anyone?

For anyone who does not know, when BTC-e goes down, they seemingly tend to block it's users.

In other words, it wasn't a local problem, this guy was just among those affected by the outage.


See this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1128960.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1128862.0

Uh, unless you actually own the datacenter and the racks, you can opt to ignore the DMCA.

If you are just renting space on some rack (as a client), then the DMCA complaint will just go above you head and to your host and they will then likely opt to drop you like a hot potato.

If you don't agree, tell me why. Be explicitly clear.

First, You might want to try getting the 10 minute volume at the start of the script within the first 60 seconds.
Then, with a 60 second timer deduct the next result from the previous result within the next minute.
Finally, write the returned value to a holding variable.


If you assign separate variables for each minute you should be able to get the true volume for any period of time that has passed.

(Might need to spend time writing out all the variables.)

@ Ighor

Do all (or only some) of the programmatic commands query the application itself, or does it query the server directly?

For example, if I write trader.get("AskPrice")

Does this query the application internally that collects this information, or does this query go to the api and the server answers the request?

----------------------

The reason I ask is because I am trying to determine if by writing a heavy number of queries if I am accidentally hammering the server api (through my internet connection) or if I am just hammering the application with the information it has available on hand, to answer the requests?

I noticed that in one command (asksprice, volume) you state that the application has to have a certain number of available order book rows visible for it to work properly. But it is unclear if that is because the application itself is answering the queries with whatever information it has on hand

OR

If the application just has a quirk that needs a certain number of internal settings to assigns internal values and then hands off the queries to an external server api to get an answer.

I am trying to prevent hammering the BTC-e exchange with queries so I would like to know if the application acts like an aggregate of data. In so far as the application answers some of the queries itself and only a few specific commands are answered by the server itself.

Another set of feature requests:

At the moment, when your application processes values within a script, it will turn any math resulting in a negative number into a "0".

For example, if you are trying to calculate a percentage, you have to force the value to turn into a positive number in order to see it in the console. Otherwise, it always becomes a "0".

The next feature request:

A minor request of two different things.

I see there is a way to confirm an action as a form of protection.

------------------------------------

Request 1:

A tick box (or password feature) which disables the application interface while it is open. (Specifically the buy and sell boxes)

Why?
After writing a few programs I like to watch the console for certain indicators I have programmed, but sometimes I have fallen asleep nearby and our cat/dog/baby will crawl over the keyboard. So out of a force of habit I minimize the screen to prevent accidental interaction.

------------------------------------
Request 2:

The unavoidable accident. Since I haven't tested it, I don't know if it is a problem or not.

I noticed in the prior version that the values in the buy and sell interface would always default to the most recent price activity. But now, disturbingly, they are set to 0.000.

While I am not brave enough to try and see if I can buy or sell my coins/fiat at 0.000. I think this recent application behavior could cause some problems.

Thanks for the fix,

I have a couple of ideas on feature requests, both big and small, important and minor.

-----------------------------------

One of thee most important feature requests is:

The ability to enumerate your open bids and/or asks.
At this time, if I ask the server/application how many bids are open, it only gives me a "Count" of open orders.

This means unless you know the original balance at the start, it is pretty much impossible to know how many Asks you have open nor their quantity per slot.

-----------------------------------

For example, if I ask, how many Asks do I have open.

The program only responds "3".

There is seemingly no way to enumerate their details, for example,

When were they were initiated? trader.get(AsksTime,"Slot1")

At what price (for re-positioning Asks) trader.get(AsksPrice,"Slot1")

How much does each slot have? trader.get(AsksAmount,"Slot1") or trader.get(AsksTotal) or trader.get(AsksTotal,"Slot1")

--------------------------------------

All of these things could be gathered from the UserInterface but not programatically.