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

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   

[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.

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.

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. 

Ah, there it is again.  The predictable retreat into generalities because you have lost on the specifics.

The particularly cowardly and hypocritical thing about that is you would be singing its praises if the court had taken Frap.doc's coins.

I approve of you posting your opinion on this forum, but will push back when it is based on blatant falsehoods.

For some odd reason, you don't like me pushing back when you espouse defamatory narratives based on malicious gossip and incorrect facts.   

[tvbcof]

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.

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   

I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread.  It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk.

I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar.  He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and dilligence.  Probably much worse would be my guess.

[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.

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. 

Ah, there it is again.  The predictable retreat into generalities because you have lost on the specifics.

The particularly cowardly and hypocritical thing about that is you would be singing its praises if the court had taken Frap.doc's coins.

I approve of you posting your opinion on this forum, but will push back when it is based on blatant falsehoods.

For some odd reason, you don't like me pushing back when you espouse defamatory narratives based on malicious gossip and incorrect facts.   

Cowardly?

Hypocritical?

Defamatory?

Malicious?

Damn you really are trying to portray me in a bad light lol.

Talk about hypocrisy. 

[SebastianJu]

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?

iCEBREAKER... am i remembering wrong or do you often defend wrong going businesses?

Anyway... he got paid 3000BTC right? And you claim that was only 10% of BabyJet sales. The thing is... 10% of the sales are not even 10% of the profits. Profits were, even at that time, not so that you could spew away 10% of the sales price. On top... it might have been a hard calculated decision when Hashfast would have said ok, we give you 10% of the sales price for every Buyer you personally refer to us. That would be reasonable since he would have to work and the referrals would show that he brought these customers.

Instead he took on a role that he could not fulfill at all. He being responsible for all the babyjet sales is not imaginable. When he referred only a quarter of the buyers, which is very high, then his reward would be 40% of the sales he referred.

Dont you get that something with these numbers cant match from a business perspective?

And please... try to not go around naming... it doesnt make your point any more valid.

[iCEBREAKER]

Damn you really are trying to portray me in a bad light lol.

Talk about hypocrisy. 

Your actions portray you in a bad light.

I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.


SebastianJu,

Your 20/20 hindsight into the proper management of a bankrupt start-up is not relevant (much less interesting).

At this point, what difference does it make?

The judge heard the lawyers make basically the same 'cypher didn't deserve his commission' case you just (awkwardly and inexpertly) did.  It was laughed out of court, just as your retroactive micromanagement should be laughed off the forum.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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.

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   

I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread.  It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk.

I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar.  He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and dilligence.  Probably much worse would be my guess.

Can you link that thread?

[marcus_of_augustus]

cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins. All members of standing are also the injured parties now along with the HF customers who didn't get timely deliveries. Pleading guru status to justify his 3000BTC cha-ching! from hashfast is asinine, not unlike his other arguments in the technical realm where he is clearly out of his depth, yet perseveres with the zeal of a paid shill.

He needs to first declare all other pecuniary interests in the bitcoin realm before redeeming any kind of credibility in ANY kind of bitcoin-related debates, given his proven history to covertly shill. Regardless of the particulars surrounding whether he has scammed or not in the HashFast case, which seem like a conveniently convoluted rabbit hole of Byzantine proportions.

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.

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   

I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread.  It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk.

I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar.  He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and dilligence.  Probably much worse would be my guess.

[Syke]

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?

Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF.

[tvbcof]

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.

IOW, the facts be damned, because they threaten your preferred narrative.   

I read Fap.doc's OP on his Hashfast pump (and dump?) thread.  It's a stone-cold fact that he played off the (mis)conception that he's some sort of a Bitcoin guru to pimp Hashfast junk.

I didn't wade through the entire thread but his comments near the end were similar.  He's at very best a miserable failure in terms of analysis and diligence.  Probably much worse would be my guess.

Can you link that thread?

Here's the one I was thinking of.  There may be others.

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.0

[iCEBREAKER]

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?

Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF.

Your approval of smoothie's retreat into generalities about "every decision that every US court has ever made" after losing on the specific facts of the matter at hand has been noted.

How does correcting factual errors and requesting people consult primary sources "derail" threads?

Obviously, what you meant is that I "derail" your preferred narrative and its concomitant lynch mob.

[iCEBREAKER]

cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins.

What nonsense.  Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate?

Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread.

Remember when Bargraphics traveled to MO and reported positively on Activemining, which turned out to be a fraud?

No?  Good, neither does anyone else.

And Lord knows how many people endorsed ASICMINER ("Friedcat for President").

Ditto for a dozen other ASIC companies.  Not to mention pirate@40, etc.

Where is your (apparently highly selective) outrage over them?  Don't rush, I'll wait...

To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins.

What nonsense.  Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate?

Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread.

I resemble that remark!  

[tvbcof]

...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'.  Got backup for that?  That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio.  My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time.  IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future.

[iCEBREAKER]

...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'.  Got backup for that?  That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio.  My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time.  IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future.

Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence.

No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat .

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

[tvbcof]

...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'.  Got backup for that?  That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio.  My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time.  IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future.

Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence.

No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat .

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The judge seemed to nullify your rather stretched 'presumption of innocence' by indicating that bankruptcy court was simply not the venue for adjudicating the question.  You seem to be flailing pretty hard here and it is unbecoming of you.  I don't think that you should count legal skills among your talents and would advise strongly that you seek qualified legal assistance if you find yourself in legal troubles.

[iCEBREAKER]

...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.

Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'.  Got backup for that?  That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio.  My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time.  IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future.

Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence.

No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat .

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

The judge seemed to nullify your rather stretched 'presumption of innocence' by indicating that bankruptcy court was simply not the venue for adjudicating the question.  You seem to be flailing pretty hard here and it is unbecoming of you.  I don't think that you should count legal skills among your talents and would advise strongly that you seek qualified legal assistance if you find yourself in legal troubles.

"Flailing...unbecoming...unskilled...etc."

My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours.

Let's focus on facts, not personalities.

The judge certainly did not "nullify" anyone's presumption of innocence.

I could make hay of such a silly, unbounded leap in logic and respond in kind to your invective, but will instead choose to be the better man.   

[Xian01]

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?

Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF.

+1 for the suggestion of outright ignoring Icebreaker. They have a long, established history of fiercely shilling for Hashfast.

I question their motivations in this thread, beyond the obvious trolling and shit-posting.

[iCEBREAKER]

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?

Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF.

+1 for the suggestion of outright ignoring Icebreaker. They have a long, established history of fiercely shilling for Hashfast.

I question their motivations in this thread, beyond the obvious trolling and shit-posting.

Does smoothie *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made?  No?  Then what is the relevance?

I can't help but notice your entire post consists of character attacks and speculation about motivation.

Is there a reason you prefer mindless tea leaf reading to discussing facts gleaned from primary sources?

Did I offend you by countering the dominant local narrative with an unpopular opinion (albeit one in line with off-line consensus reality)?

[smoothie]

Damn you really are trying to portray me in a bad light lol.

Talk about hypocrisy. 

Your actions portray you in a bad light.

I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.


SebastianJu,

Your 20/20 hindsight into the proper management of a bankrupt start-up is not relevant (much less interesting).

At this point, what difference does it make?

The judge heard the lawyers make basically the same 'cypher didn't deserve his commission' case you just (awkwardly and inexpertly) did.  It was laughed out of court, just as your retroactive micromanagement should be laughed off the forum.

No one asked for your help.

And using absurd words to describe what I've done is obviously out of line. You are a child living in a man's world.

Please grow up. Thanks