Scammer - HashKing

[JoelKatz]

I really didn't state a time frame the insurance or guaranteed part would be returned by.  I can take 10 years if I wanted.  Everyone who invested were ok with the terms as they were. 

You might wish to look up the definition of "insurance". The crux of full insurance is that a person is made no worse off by a covered loss. Not having access to your money for ten years is worse than having immediate access to it.

[1714147040]

1714147040

[1714147040]

1714147040

[1714147040]

1714147040

[wachtwoord]

No. It said insured according to the conditions stated in the thread. So a 24 hour withdrawal period. That is the condition I agreed to.

You cannot keep the 24-hour time frame but you have the moral obligation to be as close to it as possible.

[greyhawk]

Everyone who invested were ok with the terms as they were. 

... so I went ahead and deposited 20 BTC to that adress. Good evening, gentlemen.

[hashking]

No. It said insured according to the conditions stated in the thread. So a 24 hour withdrawal period. That is the condition I agreed to.

You cannot keep the 24-hour time frame but you have the moral obligation to be as close to it as possible.

This conditions were in effect as long as the business was viable.  This business has closed its doors and is trying to make good as best it can.  If you guys keep acting like this I will just walk away. 

[JoelKatz]

This conditions were in effect as long as the business was viable.  This business has closed its doors and is trying to make good as best it can.

Right, so you are *not* going to honor the insurance. That was my point. I'm glad we agree.

If you guys keep acting like this I will just walk away.

That's childish and dishonest.

[hashking]

This conditions were in effect as long as the business was viable.  This business has closed its doors and is trying to make good as best it can.

Right, so you are *not* going to honor the insurance. That was my point. I'm glad we agree.

If you guys keep acting like this I will just walk away.

That's childish and dishonest.

I told everyone I was working on trying to get everyone paid out.  Your fucking attitude is childish.  You keep attacking me over and over again with the same thing.
 

[wachtwoord]

I told everyone I was working on trying to get everyone paid out.  Your fucking attitude is childish.  You keep attacking me over and over again with the same thing.
 

HK: If you try you will find I can be extremely understanding and cooperative. You will need to communicate though. Most of the problems in the world between people are caused by insufficient communication.

So please, I implore you, ignore the trolls and answer all the sensible questions that are asked. Work with us, not against us.

[JoelKatz]

I told everyone I was working on trying to get everyone paid out.  Your fucking attitude is childish.  You keep attacking me over and over again with the same thing.

I'm not "attacking" you. Read back over what I wrote and you'll see that I just summarized the other thread and then every time you said something false or misleading, I complained. Just stop saying false or misleading things and I'll stop replying. You don't have any of my money. I don't have any personal interest in this. I just detest when people who were trusted with money lie and weasel about their obligations.

Had you not claimed that you could take 10 years to pay back lost funds and still be providing full insurance, I wouldn't have said anything.

[Vandroiy]

Maybe 3 years is too unreasonable for a "guaranteed" deposit account, though? I'm not sure. Is there any legal precedent for this kind of thing?

Maybe? For "Guaranteed Fully Insured", with explicit lock-ins of none and 8 weeks?

If any of CecilNiosaki's points A or B are true, this is obviously fraud, because it advertised with wrong information. Q.E.D., what do you need a "legal precedent" for? Besides, legal precedent where? On any classical market, investors bring police along when such bullshit comes to light.

Is it really just me who thinks that lying about relevant parts of a contract crosses a line? I'd put scammer tags on all insurances that can't pay, because they fail at the only thing insurances are good for. Totally counter-intuitive contract interpretations are also not okay. If someone says "insured", nobody expects a three-year delay in there. To make it clear: if you let this pass, every contract that doesn't involve a payment time could say "I'll pay in three years" and not get a scammer tag until then. Reasonable? Bad luck, even that doesn't suffice! Because remember, there is a time-frame given in the OP of the Lending thread: an 8-week maximum lock-in, guaranteed fully insured!

This is not a matter of opinion!

I really didn't state a time frame the insurance or guaranteed part would be returned by.  I can take 10 years if I wanted.

How about... A MILLION YEARS!

If you guys keep acting like this I will just walk away. 

...

Why am I arguing on this forum. Sanity Points -= 2

[muyuu]

So how much information do you guys have about him to get your "contract" enforced?

It's pretty amazing that so many people have been caught in shit like this.

[theymos]

Maybe? For "Guaranteed Fully Insured", with explicit lock-ins of none and 8 weeks?

If any of CecilNiosaki's points A or B are true, this is obviously fraud, because it advertised with wrong information. Q.E.D., what do you need a "legal precedent" for? Besides, legal precedent where? On any classical market, investors bring police along when such bullshit comes to light.

Is it really just me who thinks that lying about relevant parts of a contract crosses a line? I'd put scammer tags on all insurances that can't pay, because they fail at the only thing insurances are good for. Totally counter-intuitive contract interpretations are also not okay. If someone says "insured", nobody expects a three-year delay in there. To make it clear: if you let this pass, every contract that doesn't involve a payment time could say "I'll pay in three years" and not get a scammer tag until then. Reasonable? Bad luck, even that doesn't suffice! Because remember, there is a time-frame given in the OP of the Lending thread: an 8-week maximum lock-in, guaranteed fully insured!

This is not a matter of opinion!

It's obviously fraud if he doesn't pay the insurance within some reasonable time. But I'm thinking it's possible 3 years is reasonable if he was using the profits set aside for insurance to buy mining hardware.

It's like an insurance company having all of its money tied up in certificates of deposit so it can't pay for a few years. If the insurance contract doesn't explicitly say that insurance will be paid within some time period, is this OK? Does "insurance" necessarily imply that insurance is paid within a short period of time? I'm interested in how cases like this have been handled legally.

[wachtwoord]

Once more with feeling. It wasn't insurance (that was just the pirate accounts). It were guaranteed accounts. This whole discussion is moot.

See:

I really didn't state a time frame the insurance or guaranteed part would be returned by.  I can take 10 years if I wanted.  Everyone who invested were ok with the terms as they were. 

No. It said insured according to the conditions stated in the thread. So a 24 hour withdrawal period. That is the condition I agreed to.

You cannot keep the 24-hour time frame but you have the moral obligation to be as close to it as possible.

[Puppet]

It's obviously fraud if he doesn't pay the insurance within some reasonable time. But I'm thinking it's possible 3 years is reasonable if he was using the profits set aside for insurance to buy mining hardware.

The issue is not the delay (which will last until eternity), its that he lied in his contract, promised an insurance against pirate default while secretly investing that insurance money in pirate. Its a scam, there are no two ways about it.

[FLHippy]

So how much information do you guys have about him to get your "contract" enforced?

It's pretty amazing that so many people have been caught in shit like this.

It's absolutely pathetic how many people are caught up in shit like this.
It's kind of like a reverse Oprah show...

YOU get robbed, and YOU get robbed, and YOU GET ROBBED!

I have sympathy for people who lose their wallets to trojans.
Less so for those that are a victim of their own greed.

[Maged]

It's obviously fraud if he doesn't pay the insurance within some reasonable time. But I'm thinking it's possible 3 years is reasonable if he was using the profits set aside for insurance to buy mining hardware.

Of course, since the insurance was based off of mining, regular payments towards the debt would be expected. That way, he can't just ignore the issue for 3 years.

As for the timelines for paying out, it's fairly obvious that the original terms applied only as long as the insurance wasn't needed. As for how long insurance can take to pay out if they don't state a timeline for insurance payouts, it'd be interesting to see the case law on that. I'm absolutely shocked that nobody requested a clarification on that while the business was still running.

[Maged]

Also, we need to evaluate this statement:

You say these 1% and 1.25% deposits are insured. Who is insuring them? Do you have a link to where this is explained somewhere? Thanks.

These deposits are guaranteed by me.  Which means no one will lose any money if I make any bad investments.

Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law?

[hashking]

Also, we need to evaluate this statement:

You say these 1% and 1.25% deposits are insured. Who is insuring them? Do you have a link to where this is explained somewhere? Thanks.

These deposits are guaranteed by me.  Which means no one will lose any money if I make any bad investments.

Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law?

Or I was guaranteed by Pirate to return my funds back to me.

EDIT: Another batch of payments went out.

[nimda]

Also, we need to evaluate this statement:

You say these 1% and 1.25% deposits are insured. Who is insuring them? Do you have a link to where this is explained somewhere? Thanks.

These deposits are guaranteed by me.  Which means no one will lose any money if I make any bad investments.

Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law?

Or I was guaranteed by Pirate to return my funds back to me.

I believe pirate falls under "bad investments," as quoted above

[DeathAndTaxes]

Also, we need to evaluate this statement:

These deposits are guaranteed by me.  Which means no one will lose any money if I make any bad investments.

Again, this brings up the issue of time. However, he was never specific about what he meant by "me". You could argue that he guaranteed the program with his personal assets. Should hashking be required to liquidate all assets that can be forcefully liquidated by law?

Honestly it is going to take some lawsuits (probably a lot of failed ones before a successful one) before debtors feel they have anything to lose.  Still given HashKing has shown no evidence of a legal entity (LLC, Corporation) "me" could only be interpreted to mean him, his person, his assets.  Without an LLC or corporation he has no personal liabilities.  Every cent he owns from his car to his house to the clothes in his closet and the balance of every bank account could be used to satisfy a judgement.  Still it remains to be seen if a judge would consider bitcoin debts to be enforceable.

In all honesty this would be a horrible trial case.  Poorly worded contract, interest rates above the usary limit of any state, no hard evidence of real world identity, no promisary note, no signed deposits. 

Sadly it seems these investors Bitcoin ATMs really not want to learn a lesson.  Scam after scam after scam they just keep doing the same dumb crap.   Hell there are 3 or 4 active ponzi on the forum right now.  Clueless idiots haven't attempted to pull their funds out.  When they crash and burn in a couple weeks you can just take this entire thread do a copy & paste replace HashKing with the name of the next scammer and save everyone a lot of time.

[Coinoisseur]

Hopefully I'm being helpful with this post.

Here, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=75480.0 , Hashking states he has rental income and has an established LLC. Perhaps that claim can be checked as part of this Scammer Investigation.


I'd, also, just like to say I'm almost as frustrated by people choosing the riskiest offerings as the people running them dishonestly. I'm running my own GLBSE listing as honestly as possible and it's incredibly hard to compete when the majority of investors aren't evaluating offerings and claims well (ASIC press release information taken almost as gospel, comes to mind).