PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair

[RoadStress]

There are many unknowns in this teaming so you shouldn't talk about them doing "best efforts" if you don't also prove it.

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?

[smoothie]

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 ...

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.


[/lurk on]
 

[iCEBREAKER]

There are many unknowns in this teaming so you shouldn't talk about them doing "best efforts" if you don't also prove it.

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?

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.

[RoadStress]

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 ...

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.

HF said they were teaming with Uniquify to build a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC and that's what they did

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.

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!

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

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?   

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

[marcus_of_augustus]

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.

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?   

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?

[smoothie]

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 ...

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.

HF said they were teaming with Uniquify to build a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC and that's what they did

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.

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!

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

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?

[smoothie]

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.

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.  

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.  


 
Someone's in an argumentative mood today...

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes I got my facts mixed up. But in essence 10% of the company is its sales (well sort of).

My bad.

Nope never done sales.

Did I say it 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.  

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.   

[smoothie]

Yes I got my facts mixed up. But in essence 10% of the company is its sales (well sort of).

My bad.

Nope never done sales.

Did I say it 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.  

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

[iCEBREAKER]

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!   

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...

[smoothie]

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!   

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...

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. 

[tvbcof]

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

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

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.

I'm not trying to portray cypherdoc in a bad light.

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!

he commanded 10% of their (laughable) anticipated profits

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Have no dog in this fight, but did cypher really get commission?  As in "for the miners he personally sold"?  Or did he get 10% of total sales?  10% commission seems reasonable.  Paying out 10% of (total) sales is not, strictly speaking,  a commission, and paying 10% of gross sales (did HF sell much of anything other than BJs?) to some nobody posting on a forum?

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/

[smoothie]

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

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.

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. 

[tvbcof]

he commanded 10% of their (laughable) anticipated profits

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.

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

What percentage of total HF sales was Batch 1?  Ballpark.

You mean Batch 1 Baby Jets?  No idea.  

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