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

[Hashfast Shill]

These two quotes, along with others in this thread, make me feel like I'm talking to a kid.  Am I?

I think that's one of them shill's from the 1930's. Maybe you need a bigger dictionary? No offence.

http://wdy.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/08/54ea8150163e4_-_08-shamwow-2.jpg

It's just odious. I don't see what there is to explain.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Look man.
I'm just making conversation. I guess I could be doing homework. But you appear to have an agenda, or maybe I hit a nerve. Idk.
I'm not too worried to be honest.

[Hashfast Shill]

Look man.
I'm just making conversation smashing someone else's reputation in the face of contradictory information, innuendo, and group herd thinking, also known as a witchunt". I guess I could be doing homework. But you appear to have an agenda, or maybe I hit a nerve. Idk.
I'm not too worried to be honest.

https://i.imgur.com/RsedywO.jpg

Right.  I'm just interested in legal cases surrounding Bitcoin and this one, unlike the gazillion other scam cases, just sounded odd.  I have experience in bankruptcy cases and I know how shady the system can be.  This cipher guy sounds like a true Bitcoin advocate so it's interesting to try and figure out exactly what went on.  He looks innocent to me.

Sounds like you should go back to doing homework.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Let's not start off on the wrong foot.
Think of me as a virtual companion, your friend in this series of tubes known as the interweb. I don't have anything to add here really:

He's already screwed his reputation,

Dunno about that;  after the hashfast failed to deliver many people neg rated him--  and he made it out like he just got some discounted units from them that he lost money on, like the rest of the customers.  Given what he said before understating his involvement, and the fact that he'd claimed that he only benefited if it panned out-- it sounded completely believable. Many people who do equipment reviews, software development, etc. for mining don't get anything more than some free hardware and often just engineering samples.  I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation.

It was shady. He's shady. And now you're shady, too.

[Hashfast Shill]

Let's not start off on the wrong foot.
Think of me as a virtual companion, your friend in this series of tubes known as the interweb. I don't have anything to add here really:

He's already screwed his reputation,

Dunno about that;  after the hashfast failed to deliver many people neg rated him--  and he made it out like he just got some discounted units from them that he lost money on, like the rest of the customers.  Given what he said before understating his involvement, and the fact that he'd claimed that he only benefited if it panned out-- it sounded completely believable. Many people who do equipment reviews, software development, etc. for mining don't get anything more than some free hardware and often just engineering samples.  I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation.

It was shady. He's shady. And now you're shady, too.

So that is the extent of your evidence?  Linking to a post from someone who seems to be accused of lying everyday over at rBTC?  I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings and it looks like Maxwell starts off a wave of neg ratings on June 2015 eliciting a pile on of similar factless and presumptuous neg ratings by other questionable actors in the system like Midnightmagic and Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

Now, how likely is this statement from Maxwell, "I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation"?  Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  Because most people don't just remove ratings based on an unknown.  That being a private conversation between him and cypher.  Unless of course, you're willing to entertain the theory that Maxwell is instructing others to follow his lead in attacking cypher?  Which actually has some credibility as a theory given the sequence of negative ratings, timing wise, and the facts of the preceding paragraph.  Remember, Maxwell is referencing a private conversation he had with cypher that other negative raters wouldn't be privy to (and still aren't) unless Maxwell shared that information with them and/or was instructing them in what to do.  Thus, you can conclude that there was no initial wave of negative ratings by others that were pulled back or deleted given these facts and the probabilities involved.  And yet, it is also credible that Maxwell is an instigator of some sort.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Let's not start off on the wrong foot.
Think of me as a virtual companion, your friend in this series of tubes known as the interweb. I don't have anything to add here really:

He's already screwed his reputation,

Dunno about that;  after the hashfast failed to deliver many people neg rated him--  and he made it out like he just got some discounted units from them that he lost money on, like the rest of the customers.  Given what he said before understating his involvement, and the fact that he'd claimed that he only benefited if it panned out-- it sounded completely believable. Many people who do equipment reviews, software development, etc. for mining don't get anything more than some free hardware and often just engineering samples.  I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation.

It was shady. He's shady. And now you're shady, too.

So that is the extent of your evidence?  Linking to a post from someone who seems to be accused of lying everyday over at rBTC?  I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings and it looks like Maxwell starts off a wave of neg ratings on June 2015 eliciting a pile on of similar factless and presumptuous neg ratings by other questionable actors in the system like Midnightmagic and Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

Now, how likely is this statement from Maxwell, "I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation"?  Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  Because most people don't just remove ratings based on an unknown.  That being a private conversation between him and cypher.  Unless of course, you're willing to entertain the theory that Maxwell is instructing others to follow his lead in attacking cypher?  Which actually has some credibility as a theory given the sequence of negative ratings, timing wise, and the facts of the preceding paragraph.  Remember, Maxwell is referencing a private conversation he had with cypher that other negative raters wouldn't be privy to (and still aren't) unless Maxwell shared that information with them and/or was instructing them in what to do.  Thus, you can conclude that there was no initial wave of negative ratings by others that were pulled back or deleted given these facts and the probabilities involved.  And yet, it is also credible that Maxwell is an instigator of some sort.

Honestly Doc, you’re not doing yourself any favors here. Go buy yourself a Tesla or something. You sure earned it.

[Hashfast Shill]

Let's not start off on the wrong foot.
Think of me as a virtual companion, your friend in this series of tubes known as the interweb. I don't have anything to add here really:

He's already screwed his reputation,

Dunno about that;  after the hashfast failed to deliver many people neg rated him--  and he made it out like he just got some discounted units from them that he lost money on, like the rest of the customers.  Given what he said before understating his involvement, and the fact that he'd claimed that he only benefited if it panned out-- it sounded completely believable. Many people who do equipment reviews, software development, etc. for mining don't get anything more than some free hardware and often just engineering samples.  I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation.

It was shady. He's shady. And now you're shady, too.

So that is the extent of your evidence?  Linking to a post from someone who seems to be accused of lying everyday over at rBTC?  I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings and it looks like Maxwell starts off a wave of neg ratings on June 2015 eliciting a pile on of similar factless and presumptuous neg ratings by other questionable actors in the system like Midnightmagic and Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

Now, how likely is this statement from Maxwell, "I pulled back my negative rating, and others did as well; incorrectly sparing his reputation"?  Highly unlikely, in my opinion.  Because most people don't just remove ratings based on an unknown.  That being a private conversation between him and cypher.  Unless of course, you're willing to entertain the theory that Maxwell is instructing others to follow his lead in attacking cypher?  Which actually has some credibility as a theory given the sequence of negative ratings, timing wise, and the facts of the preceding paragraph.  Remember, Maxwell is referencing a private conversation he had with cypher that other negative raters wouldn't be privy to (and still aren't) unless Maxwell shared that information with them and/or was instructing them in what to do.  Thus, you can conclude that there was no initial wave of negative ratings by others that were pulled back or deleted given these facts and the probabilities involved.  And yet, it is also credible that Maxwell is an instigator of some sort.

Honestly Doc, you’re not doing yourself any favors here. Go buy yourself a Tesla or something. You sure earned it.

Not at all.  As an observer of this thread, I'd just like to get a coherent argument out of you.  More than just, "it's odious", "it's shady", "I'm just having a conversation", or "I should be doing homework".

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

They paid you to pimp their shit and you did. You have no shame.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.msg2895058#msg2895058

this refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think.

 

[Hashfast Shill]

They paid you to pimp their shit and you did. You have no shame.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270363.msg2895058#msg2895058

this refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think.

 

Well, I suppose if you're going to keep ad homming me as cypher, I might as well stop right here.  Thanks for the non-informative, non-unbiased conversation.  Final note:  this case was terminated, if you hadn't noticed.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4v2g3h/missing_in_action_cypherdoc/

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4v2g3h/missing_in_action_cypherdoc/

I think the failure of ETH Core to quickly disappear as predicted was too much for Frap.doc.

And he'd already had enough of forum admins who failed to be sufficiently submissive.

Here's the whiny post right before his final rage quit:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-743#post-25785




Regardless, the adversary case against him was settled.

And that was part of a bankruptcy, where they are obligated to sue everyone they possibly can, not any kind of criminal or other wrongdoing allegation.

So even the the mildest accusations against him never went anywhere (other than going around the lynch mob's circle jerk).

Sorry if you were bamboozled into thinking he did something wrong (other than supporting BitcoinXT and the Gavinista coup).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.

[marcus_of_augustus]

it was well overdue for him to be spending his time more wisely ... castles built on sand and all that.

[iCEBREAKER]

^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.

Are you still moaning about Frap.doc getting as his sales commission a bog-standard 10% cut of the (public half of) Batch One?

That's really weak tea, and was laughed out of court ("Le Bron" LOL).

Or are you still believing GMAX's lies and exaggerations, in which evil future-telling psychic Frap.doc took 10% of HF's total revenues in an effort to tunnel assets out of the company (many months before it ran out of money)?

Or are you still bleating for a windfall in US dollars, demanding HF refund many times the original price of the miners?

If the moral wrong is so obvious, I'm sure you won't have trouble describing it.

As it stands, you've simply asserted it exists.  Such mere insistence does not help me "see it."

And let's note you only choose to move the venue away from the bankruptcy court, into that of public opinion, when you LOST in the legal realm.

There is no due process in the court of public opinion; to be accused is to be convicted as there is no definitive Settlement or Plea to effectively repudiate the charges.

How noxious; you should know better.  Shame you can't accept your hiveminded lynch mob got this one wrong.

How typical and craven of you to wait until after the legal process has ended to register your process concerns and objections.

If you weren't just full of shit and transparently/pathetically wanting a second bite at the apple, you'd have spoken up BEFORE Judge Montali accepted the settlement and dismissed the adversary case.

The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court.

Now that you've been proven incorrect, you want to change the venue and put Frap.doc on trial in your own personal Morality Court, to be tried according to some hazy miasma of subjective nonsense you call "shades of right and wrong?"

GTFO.

Have some integrity and accept you were wrong THE WHOLE TIME.  You don't have to apologize (although that is the classy, traditional response to making an unfounded accusation) but you really should STFU with your "But-But-But" moralfag ass-whinging.   

Next time, don't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon and regurgitate popular opinions.  Think for yourself.

Don't get bamboozled by the legally illiterate and those who invested more than they could afford to lose.

Continuing the witch hunt long after the Supreme Witch Sniffer has declared "No Witch" is poor form.

Give it up son.  You lost.  Now stop the tsk-tsk finger-waggling and deal with reality as it actually exists rather than how you preconceived and prejudged it.

[tvbcof]

...
The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court.
...

You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward?

Not that I really give two shits one way or another, but it seems like you have your finger on the pulse of all things Lowelife and inquiring minds wanna know.  Just for academic and entertainment value.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.

[snipped for the love of mercy]

If you read the original thread, and I know that you have, it becomes immediately obvious the good doctor made out like he was taking as much a chance as anybody. When, in fact, he wasn't; in fact, he was swimming in it while everybody else was taking a proper bath.

[iCEBREAKER]

...
The Frap.doc and HF haters lost, in both cases, when they got their days (IE years) in court.
...

You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward?

Not that I really give two shits one way or another, but it seems like you have your finger on the pulse of all things Lowelife and inquiring minds wanna know.  Just for academic and entertainment value.

^I'm not a moralfag. But there are shades of right and wrong, and you'd have to be blind (or have maybe been involved?) to choose not to see it.

[snipped for the love of mercy]

If you read the original thread, and I know that you have, it becomes immediately obvious the good doctor made out like he was taking as much a chance as anybody. When, in fact, he wasn't; in fact, he was swimming in it while everybody else was taking a proper bath.

You two are simply repeating the same arguments from over a year ago, as if nothing has happened since then.  Please try and keep up.

You need to respond to the factual findings and determinations of two separate courts, which both declined to validate your accusations despite the pleadings of very good lawyers from very powerful law firms (in front of a very experienced judge).

Use of the term "victim" is uncalled for, unsupported by the facts, and emotionally manipulative.  But appeal to sentiment is all you have left, isn't it?

I'm not in touch with Frap.doc, although he did say he'd take me out for a drink if we ever meet IRL, despite our mutually antagonistic history of silly blocksize flame-warring.

How many times must it be explained that Dr. Frappe never hid his role as a compensated endorser?  Do you think repeating the word "shill" can magically make it true?

Drawing attention to the amount of BTC he earned ("ZOMG 3000 BITCOIN?!  GREEN JELLY NAO!!1!") as his bog-standard 10% commission is another act of emotional manipulation, because you leave out the context.  The context of his 3k LeBron stash is, way back when BTC was only ~$100, he made a very smart decision to ask for compensation in BTC rather than USD.

Now you want to hate, because he won that very risky bet.  Give me a break; the class warfare material jealousy crap is so Free Shit Army it burns.

There is a word for deciding an outcome before all the facts are known; that word is "prejudice."

Your prejudgement has now been repudiated by the appropriate court.  Now you want another bite at the apple.  Sorry, but you had your chance and failed.

There is entertainment value here, but your insistence on repeating debunked allegations long ago crossed the line into sore loser territory.

No less than Katten Muchin sharks tried to claim the LeBron stash was obtained by other-than-legitimate means.

They failed.

And you think you're going to succeed?  GTFO noobz.  You have no power (much less expertise) here, other than to subject anyone so foolish as to not Ignore you to an infinite amount of piling-on, lynch mobbing, hiveminding, circle jerking, and groupthinking.

You saying that Fap.doc is free and clear with the 3000 BTC that used to belong to victims of his shilling and it's smooth sailing for him from here forward?

*I'm* merely reporting what the fucking court said.  Stop trying to make *me* the focus of your failure to gather and analyze information properly.  Your current conceptual failure mode is not my fault; I'm trying to help you L-E-A-R-N.  What a thankless task!  

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You sure have a way with rhetorical flourish, hombre. I really do enjoy it, mostly.
Question: Do you think this was an honest statement at any point, regardless of the current market value of bitcoin:

This refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think.

 

...that very risky bet. 

What risks did he take again? Accepting bitcoins??

[iCEBREAKER]

You sure have a way with rhetorical flourish, hombre. I really do enjoy it, mostly.
Question: Do you think this was an honest statement at any point, regardless of the current market value of bitcoin:

This refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think.

 

...that very risky bet. 

What risks did he take again? Accepting bitcoins??

Thanks for the gracious compliment, old hoss.     The flourish is just a fun decoration; I pray you never suspect I'm substituting mere style for actual substance.

As to your very pointed, albeit fair, questions:


1.  Frap.doc (through no fault of his own <--- IMPORTANT POINT) wound up as both a (potential?) creditor and (former) subcontractor of HF.

He was "in the same boat" as the rest of us Batch One customers, waiting on pins and needles as BTC price collapsed and diff skyrocketed.

Did he do a Perfectly Impeccable job of communicating every nuance of the situation?  Of course not.  Was he obligated to?  Not at all, IMHO.  Does that rise to the act of lying by omission?  Again, not IMHO.

IIRC Frap.doc was near the top of the order queue, so he got his hardware and started mining ASAP.  Thus his refund concern was negated, although it was valid until the time he got his miners.

IOW, Yes - Frap.doc was, as a customer, in the same boat as the rest of us, and he really did try to get more info, not only on his own behalf but for the community as well.  His limited, former role as forum spokesperson does not change that; it's a separate issue in every sense except emotionally.


2.  Accepting BTC rather than USD was very risky, despite the local attractor around ~$100 holding for months prior to his compensation agreement.

If BTC had dropped to $1.00, he'd be out of luck (and spared the indignity of attempted violation by Katten's ravenous money-sniffing blood funnel).


Now I have a couple of pointed but (hopefully) fair questions for you.

1.  Have you noticed an outsized, disproportional amount of outrage directed at HF, compared to other 3rd gen (28nm) ASIC companies which failed for the same reasons, such as the "All-Star" Cointerra team?

2.  To what extent do you think any such exaggerated outrage is the result of HF pushing back against the hivemind's lynch mob (as opposed to other companies passive acceptance/indulgence of community risk-free money-printing-machine entitlement syndrome)?

3.  Do you believe HF's defenders should just STFU and acquiesce to Popular Opinion, or stand up for what they know to be true, no matter now unpopular?

Cheers,

-iB   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You sure have a way with rhetorical flourish, hombre. I really do enjoy it, mostly.
Question: Do you think this was an honest statement at any point, regardless of the current market value of bitcoin:

This refund question is something i've been trying to get more info on myself as i am in the same boat you guys are much more than you think.

 

...that very risky bet. 

What risks did he take again? Accepting bitcoins??

Thanks for the gracious compliment, old hoss.     The flourish is just a fun decoration; I pray you never suspect I'm substituting mere style for actual substance.

As to your very pointed, albeit fair, questions:


1.  Frap.doc (through no fault of his own <--- IMPORTANT POINT) wound up as both a (potential?) creditor and (former) subcontractor of HF.

He was "in the same boat" as the rest of us Batch One customers, waiting on pins and needles as BTC price collapsed and diff skyrocketed.

Did he do a Perfectly Impeccable job of communicating every nuance of the situation?  Of course not.  Was he obligated to?  Not at all, IMHO.  Does that rise to the act of lying by omission?  Again, not IMHO.

IIRC Frap.doc was near the top of the order queue, so he got his hardware and started mining ASAP.  Thus his refund concern was negated, although it was valid until the time he got his miners.

IOW, Yes - Frap.doc was, as a customer, in the same boat as the rest of us, and he really did try to get more info, not only on his own behalf but for the community as well.  His limited, former role as forum spokesperson does not change that; it's a separate issue in every sense except emotionally.


2.  Accepting BTC rather than USD was very risky, despite the local attractor around ~$100 holding for months prior to his compensation agreement.

If BTC had dropped to $1.00, he'd be out of luck (and spared the indignity of attempted violation by Katten's ravenous money-sniffing blood funnel).


Now I have a couple of pointed but (hopefully) fair questions for you.

1.  Have you noticed an outsized, disproportional amount of outrage directed at HF, compared to other 3rd gen (28nm) ASIC companies which failed for the same reasons, such as the "All-Star" Cointerra team?

2.  To what extent do you think any such exaggerated outrage is the result of HF pushing back against the hivemind's lynch mob (as opposed to other companies passive acceptance/indulgence of community risk-free money-printing-machine entitlement syndrome)?

3.  Do you believe HF's defenders should just STFU and acquiesce to Popular Opinion, or stand up for what they know to be true, no matter now unpopular?

Cheers,

-iB   

1. I 'spose.

2. Probably some.

3. The latter. I guess.

Bitcoin could have gone to a buck, big deal. And then what? All his passionate advocacy would have been for naught? I still don't see the risk you say he took in all of this exactly, except maybe to his reputation. And isn't that why we're really here?