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

[iCEBREAKER]

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 how 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?

Thanks for the honest answers (esp. #3, which encourages my obstinacy  ).   

I already told you the "then what" if BTC had gone to a buck: Frap.doc would be S.O.L.

It's only fair he enjoy the reward, since he embraced the risk.  Especially since that reward came with the externality of reputation damage.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... being a lying, slandering disengenuous sack of shit devoid of the concept of arguing in good faith carries an "externality of reputation damage" also

[Hashfast Shill]

... being a lying, slandering disengenuous sack of shit devoid of the concept of arguing in good faith carries an "externality of reputation damage" also

I totally agree with this.  In fact, I couldn't have said it better.

[iCEBREAKER]

... being a lying, slandering disengenuous sack of shit devoid of the concept of arguing in good faith carries an "externality of reputation damage" also

Where are the lies?  Be specific, because making an allegation requires at least one example.

Where is the slandering?

Where is the disingenuousness?

Where are the bad faith arguments?

You are throwing out wild accusations with zero specific instances cited.  Is the nebulous nature intentional, to make it difficult to refute the claims, or are you just drunk?   

I can't tell if you are talking about Frap.doc's behavior wrt HF or to the blocksize debate (where some of your charges possibly have a base in reality).

[Quickseller]

I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings [...] eliciting a pile on [...] by [...] Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

The negative rating that I left was in response to what I learned in this thread. I found it obscene that cypherdoc could receive $30,000 (3,000 BTC @ ~$100/each) for promoting a company that turned out to be a scam. If you are receiving that much money, or if you have a substantially influential reputation then it is your job to ensure that said company is legitimate.

I do not care that the courts ruled in your/his favor, just like I do not care that people thanked dooglus after he was paid ~$24,000 (35 BTC @ ~$700/each) for helping steal $2 million from bankroll investors from a scam bitcoin casino.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

An account farmer, an unrepentant shill, a French fascist, and a cob of corn walk into a bar.

[marcus_of_augustus]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything but even without a trained eye an obvious pattern is easy to discern ... "if the cap fits, wear it" and all that.

[iCEBREAKER]

I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings [...] eliciting a pile on [...] by [...] Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

The negative rating that I left was in response to what I learned in this thread. I found it obscene that cypherdoc could receive $30,000 (3,000 BTC @ ~$100/each) for promoting a company that turned out to be a scam. If you are receiving that much money, or if you have a substantially influential reputation then it is your job to ensure that said company is legitimate.

I do not care that the courts ruled in your/his favor, just like I do not care that people thanked dooglus after he was paid ~$24,000 (35 BTC @ ~$700/each) for helping steal $2 million from bankroll investors from a scam bitcoin casino.

You only disregard the court rulings because they failed to confirm your bias.  If the rulings agreed with your worthless dipshit opinion, you'd be all "See, I told you so."  But they didn't, so you go into full sore loser mode and start whining about sour grapes and newfound process concerns/objections.

The company has not "turned out to be a scam."

You have been bamboozled by GMAX and the local hivemind into believing something that is not true.

Fact: Bankruptcy court put HF into reorganization under Chapter 11, which is not done for scams.

Fact: Nobody has been charged with (much less convicted of) anything, outside of pro forma adversary cases.

Fact: The only significant adversary case, against Frap.doc, was terminated.

Fact: PMorici eventually moved to dismiss his own case.

All of those facts contradict the "HF turned out to be a scam" groupthink prevalent here.

Check your premises (and prejudices).

Pro tip: Most risky start-ups fail.

Clue:  No court has ever accepted, nor ever will accept, GMAX's novel "windfall entitlement" legal theory.

[Quickseller]

I looked into the details of that cypherdoc's personal ratings [...] eliciting a pile on [...] by [...] Quickseller in July 2015.  It looks like Maxwell is an instigator or leader of some sorts.

The negative rating that I left was in response to what I learned in this thread. I found it obscene that cypherdoc could receive $30,000 (3,000 BTC @ ~$100/each) for promoting a company that turned out to be a scam. If you are receiving that much money, or if you have a substantially influential reputation then it is your job to ensure that said company is legitimate.

I do not care that the courts ruled in your/his favor, just like I do not care that people thanked dooglus after he was paid ~$24,000 (35 BTC @ ~$700/each) for helping steal $2 million from bankroll investors from a scam bitcoin casino.

You only disregard the court rulings because they failed to confirm your bias.  If the rulings agreed with your worthless dipshit opinion, you'd be all "See, I told you so."  But they didn't, so you go into full sore loser mode and start whining about sour grapes and newfound process concerns/objections.

The company has not "turned out to be a scam."

You have been bamboozled by GMAX and the local hivemind into believing something that is not true.

Fact: Bankruptcy court put HF into reorganization under Chapter 11, which is not done for scams.

Fact: Nobody has been charged with (much less convicted of) anything, outside of pro forma adversary cases.

Fact: The only significant adversary case, against Frap.doc, was terminated.

Fact: PMorici eventually moved to dismiss his own case.

All of those facts contradict the "HF turned out to be a scam" groupthink prevalent here.

Check your premises (and prejudices).

Pro tip: Most risky start-ups fail.

Clue:  No court has ever accepted, nor ever will accept, GMAX's novel "windfall entitlement" legal theory.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not used exclusively for fraud and/or scams and/or similar, however Chapter 11 bankruptcy can be used when this is the case.

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

[iCEBREAKER]

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not used exclusively for fraud and/or scams and/or similar, however Chapter 11 bankruptcy can be used when this is the case.

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

No bankruptcy court is going to grant an insolvent scam's motion to be put in Chapter 11 (keep some key execs and reorganize) rather than Chapter 7 (fire management and liquidate everything ASAP).

You are calling every bankrupt business a scam, yet that is not the definition of the word.

Are you familiar with the legal concept of "best efforts?"  You don't seem to be.  Here you go: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-does-best-efforts-mean/

If Person X at Company Y put in their best efforts, yet the firm fails (due to business conditions out of their control), it's not a scam.

You may wish to expand the definition of scam until it comports with your subjective, incomplete, counterfactual "understanding" but that demonstrates nothing more than your inability to converse in good faith.

A scam requires (criminal) intention to not honor obligations.  HF did no such thing.  They wanted to be the Intel of BTC, not your punching bag and object of hivemind defamation.

Let's look at the story of VIAcoin and btcdrak.

He went against the Gavinista hivemind by opposing XT/Classic.

So now those dead-enders use VIA's (relative) lack of success to bash him with the "scam" cudgel:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4vgwe7/so_on_the_expiration_date_of_the_hk_stalling/

You might not be using bold letters and screaming incoherent rage like ydtm, but the basic action is the same:

ydtm: "VIA didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM"

you: "HF didn't make its long-shot gamblers rich --> ZOMG SCAM"

Some people call everything that they don't like reading "spam."  You two do the same thing with the other handy bullet word of character assassination.

Ironically, if HF was a scam, they'd have kept most of the BTC instead of spending it on hardware development and business expenses.  

[Quickseller]

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not used exclusively for fraud and/or scams and/or similar, however Chapter 11 bankruptcy can be used when this is the case.

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

No bankruptcy court is going to grant an insolvent scam's motion to be put in Chapter 11 (keep some key execs and reorganize) rather than Chapter 7 (fire management and liquidate everything ASAP).

You are calling every bankrupt business a scam, yet that is not the definition of the word.

Are you familiar with the legal concept of "best efforts?"  You don't seem to be.  Here you go: http://www.adamsdrafting.com/what-does-best-efforts-mean/

If Person X at Company Y put in their best efforts, yet the firm fails (due to business conditions out of their control), it's not a scam.

You may wish to expand the definition of scam until it comports with your subjective, incomplete, counterfactual "understanding" but that demonstrates nothing more than your inability to converse in good faith.

A scam requires (criminal) intention to not honor obligations.  HF did no such thing.  They wanted to be the Intel of BTC, not your punching bag and object of hivemind defamation.

If someone said to me that they would deliver 300 widgets within one year in exchange for payment today, fail to deliver such widgets due to "uncontrollable events" and subsequently file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then I would not trust that person in the future. I don't think it would be a good idea to prepay widgets from another company who is run by the same person as the company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The "best efforts" of HF were clearly not good enough.

[iCEBREAKER]

If someone said to me that they would deliver 300 widgets within one year in exchange for payment today, fail to deliver such widgets due to "uncontrollable events" and subsequently file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then I would not trust that person in the future. I don't think it would be a good idea to prepay widgets from another company who is run by the same person as the company that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The "best efforts" of HF were clearly not good enough.

Wow, such powers of deduction!  People say Benedict Cumberbatch is the best Sherlock, but you've got him beat.   

HF was forced into Chapter 11 by some greedy idiots who believed getting lawyers involved would either (depending on the particular dipshit) teach HF a lesson by convicting them of some imagined crime, or result in massive windfalls being distributed from some secret stash/hidden mine.

The "best efforts" of HF were clearly good enough to convince the bankruptcy court Chapter 11 reorganization (rather than Chapter 7 liquidation) provided the best chance of providing relief to creditors.

But at least you stopped the bashing with your overused scam cudgel.  So that's progress.  I take back the accusation of bad faith; it seems you are teachable after all.

Perhaps you could be a little more understanding and less absolutist about the widget provider in your hypothetical situation.

Are you really saying someone's trustworthiness depends on factors outside of their control?     That seems absurd to the point of asinine.

What if the "uncontrollable event" was the widget maker getting hit by a bus and spending the year in a coma?  ZOMG FUCKING SCAMMER AMIRITE?

I think you need to reconsider and walk back the blanket claim with some additional nuance.

Now that you understand "best efforts" here is another useful term of art: force majeure.

Here's where this is going: was the price drip and difficulty spike a good enough excuse for the late/non deliveries and cashflow crisis?

We reasonable customers could only trust HF would make best efforts to make our very risky gambles pay off, not expect market-defying miracles No Matter What.

The sense of entitlement required to expect and require 100% Guaranteed success, on pain of distrust, is almost unfathomable.

[Hashfast Shill]

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

Well there you go.  Working Bashing someone off a flawed premise.  Take down your negative rating and apologize to the guy.

If no units got delivered, how is it possible there is a Hashfast User's Thread?  And before anyone tries to say this thread was based on a batch later than the first, it isn't.  Batch 1, the one cypherdoc endorsed, did get delivered on or around Jan 22, 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426644.0

[Quickseller]

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

Well there you go.  Working Bashing someone off a flawed premise.  Take down your negative rating and apologize to the guy.

If no units got delivered, how is it possible there is a Hashfast User's Thread?  And before anyone tries to say this thread was based on a batch later than the first, it isn't.  Batch 1, the one cypherdoc endorsed, did get delivered on or around Jan 22, 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426644.0

It looks like according to this article, two of their customers purchased ASICs, were promised delivery by a certain date (or the availability of a refund), however ended up receiving neither. From what I can gather, this was a common theme among their customers.

I do not remember posting that HF delivered no units to their customers, and that quote of mine does not say that.

@ICEBREAKER - the above article mentions accusations of fraud against both HF and two of their directors

[Hashfast Shill]

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

Well there you go.  Working Bashing someone off a flawed premise.  Take down your negative rating and apologize to the guy.

If no units got delivered, how is it possible there is a Hashfast User's Thread?  And before anyone tries to say this thread was based on a batch later than the first, it isn't.  Batch 1, the one cypherdoc endorsed, did get delivered on or around Jan 22, 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426644.0

It looks like according to this article, two of their customers purchased ASICs, were promised delivery by a certain date (or the availability of a refund), however ended up receiving neither. From what I can gather, this was a common theme among their customers.

I do not remember posting that HF delivered no units to their customers, and that quote of mine does not say that.

@ICEBREAKER - the above article mentions accusations of fraud against both HF and two of their directors

That article is old.  As you should note, Pete Morici (the claimant in that case) has dismissed his own case.  Obviously, because he had no case and was afraid of losing.  You should also note that there were 3 groups of customers; the majority of those who received their units, a few dozen who took dollar refunds for their purchase amounts (wisely in retrospect), and a small litigious group who unreasonably demanded refunds in BTC (like Greg) that had doubled in a risk free manner (held by company at it's risk) in terms of BTC price (windfall gains for customers if successful in clawback).  Because of Morici's lawsuit amidst the delays and controversy, the smart one's took their refunds in dollars or waited until their units got delivered (which they did).  

BTW, you are giving the false impression to everyone that no units were delivered:

"fail to deliver such widgets due to 'uncontrollable events'"

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering.

[iCEBREAKER]

My understanding of the situation is that HF sold (and received payment for) some number of ASIC miners that they did not end up delivering. Receiving payment for something that is never delivered, is in my eyes a scam. I understand that sometimes business does not quite go as planned, however I do not believe that this changes the question of if I believe that HF is a scam.

I understand that all start-ups are very risky, and I understand that some very high percentage of all small businesses/start-ups fail. However if person x were to run a start-up, that start-up were in incur some number of obligations, then the start-up were to fail and not honor those obligations, then I would not trust that person x, nor anyone else that was going around saying that it was appropriate to trust the start-up.

Well there you go.  Working Bashing someone off a flawed premise.  Take down your negative rating and apologize to the guy.

If no units got delivered, how is it possible there is a Hashfast User's Thread?  And before anyone tries to say this thread was based on a batch later than the first, it isn't.  Batch 1, the one cypherdoc endorsed, did get delivered on or around Jan 22, 2013:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=426644.0

It looks like according to this article, two of their customers purchased ASICs, were promised delivery by a certain date (or the availability of a refund), however ended up receiving neither. From what I can gather, this was a common theme among their customers.

I do not remember posting that HF delivered no units to their customers, and that quote of mine does not say that.

@ICEBREAKER - the above article mentions accusations of fraud against both HF and two of their directors

Frap.doc, the subject of the OP's defamation, was never a director or exec or employee of HF.  He just met them in person and reported his encouraging, positive findings back to the forum.

At the time, we were delighted he chose to share rather than hoard that potentially valuable information.  But I understand why QS is moving the goalposts to include people and events which occurred long after Frap.doc ceased to be an explicitly compensated endorser.

There is a certain kind of social parasite which ingratiates itself to its host community by enthusiastically amplifying and repeating the group's particular totems and taboos.

In this instance, Quickseller's repetition of old forgone accusations and condemnations based on counterfactual biases constitutes such overly vigorous social stroking.

In his attempt to pile on the wrongly and falsely accused, he's embraced the questionable principle of blaming others for unpredictable events over which they had no control.  Nevermind the established fact of their best efforts; who need facts when you've got a witch to hunt?   

[gmaxwell]

a small litigious group who unreasonably demanded refunds in BTC (like Greg)

I just saw this now, but it should be clear I have _never_ been party to any litigation against hashfast.  They tried to send me a "refund" check that was totally at odds with our clear written agreement so I returned it, when I complained they never even responded.  They never sent me any hardware.  I chose to not litigate because the time and risk to my personal safety couldn't possibly be compensated by whatever tiny amount I could get out of the clearly bankrupt company which had since managed to dispose of most of its valuable assets.

The fact that people apparently associated wish Hashfast keep harassing me over the internet is seriously irritating, however.

[iCEBREAKER]

a small litigious group who unreasonably demanded refunds in BTC (like Greg)

I just saw this now, but it should be clear I have _never_ been party to any litigation against hashfast.  They tried to send me a "refund" check that was totally at odds with our clear written agreement so I returned it, when I complained they never even responded.  They never sent me any hardware.  I chose to not litigate because the time and risk to my personal safety couldn't possibly be compensated by whatever tiny amount I could get out of the clearly bankrupt company which had since managed to dispose of most of its valuable assets.

The fact that people apparently associated wish Hashfast keep harassing me over the internet is seriously irritating, however.

You were given a 105% refund of the ASIC's purchase price.  You felt like you were too good and pure to cash the filthy evil check.

You petulantly decided you were entitled to a 1000% refund, which is also called a "windfall" and not allowed in standard contract interpretation.

So you got nothing.  Even worse, your arrogance and presumption fed the litigiousness of others who initiated lawsuits that ultimately ruined the chances of all HF customers to see a positive ROI.  No wonder they keep harassing you over the internet!   

And now you're giving the Gavinistas ammo by risking your Reddit account/reputation just because you feel so entitled to link Frap.doc's True Name with his alleged misdeeds (which have been repudiated by the Courts, but don't let facts get in the way of a good 2 Minutes Hate).

[gmaxwell]

You were given a 105% refund of the ASIC's purchase price.  You felt like you were too good and pure to cash the filthy evil check.

You petulantly decided you were entitled to a 1000% refund, which is also called a "windfall" and not allowed in standard contract interpretation.

I responded back with a copy of a written statement from hashfast that said something like "yes in the event that we fail to deliver we will return your XX Bitcoins, not the price of the devices we understand the the price of bitcoin is volatile." and asked them politely to explain the discrepancy between our clearly stated written agreement and what they were sending. Not even a response. Shameful business practices.

And you claim I influenced others? AFAIK, morci's lawsuit began months before I had any complaint, when hashfast slipped its first targets.

[iCEBREAKER]

You were given a 105% refund of the ASIC's purchase price.  You felt like you were too good and pure to cash the filthy evil check.

You petulantly decided you were entitled to a 1000% refund, which is also called a "windfall" and not allowed in standard contract interpretation.

I responded back with a copy of a written statement from hashfast that said something like "yes in the event that we fail to deliver we will return your XX Bitcoins, not the price of the devices we understand the the price of bitcoin is volatile." and asked them politely to explain the discrepancy between our clearly stated written agreement and what they were sending. Not even a response. Shameful business practices.

And you claim I influenced others? AFAIK, morci's lawsuit began months before I had any complaint, when hashfast slipped its first targets.

HF had more important things to do than respond to your lulzy demand for a magical pony named Windfall.  You can't get blood from a turnip.

I need primary sources, not hearsay, to reach a valid conclusion here.  Have you posted your customized HF contract?

Regardless, I'm not sure if any one person (even an executive/founder) has the power to make the entire corporate entity responsible for the unlimited liability represented by your interpretation of Simon's statement(s).

Why not ask for 3rd party escrow or multisig?  Did Simon say you'd get back the exact same Bitcoins, down to the last untainted Satoshi?