SCAMMER: Cablepair (Tom) from BTCFPGA.com/bitcoinasic.net

[repentance]

It's now been confirmed by Ari Asmar - owner of the real Can Electric - that they have no association with the re-branded bASIC.  A scammer tag needs to be applied right now, IMO.

[1715357484]

1715357484

[1715357484]

1715357484

[1715357484]

1715357484

[1715357484]

1715357484

[Matthew N. Wright]

It's now been confirmed by Ari Asmar - owner of the real Can Electric - that they have no association with the re-branded bASIC.  A scammer tag needs to be applied right now, IMO.

Good grief.

[MPOE-PR]

It's now been confirmed by Ari Asmar - owner of the real Can Electric - that they have no association with the re-branded bASIC.  A scammer tag needs to be applied right now, IMO.

Good grief.

Ahahahaha this is rich.

[repentance]

theymos, we need a response on this.  There is no doubt whatsoever now that BitcoinASIC.net is using the name of Can Electric without the permission of its owners and that Can Electric has nothing to do with Ehasher or other aspects of bASIC's re-branding.

[Deprived]

theymos, we need a response on this.  There is no doubt whatsoever now that BitcoinASIC.net is using the name of Can Electric without the permission of its owners and that Can Electric has nothing to do with Ehasher or other aspects of bASIC's re-branding.

Would guess the website was "hacked" - in the same way Tom's account here was "hacked".

[repentance]

theymos, we need a response on this.  There is no doubt whatsoever now that BitcoinASIC.net is using the name of Can Electric without the permission of its owners and that Can Electric has nothing to do with Ehasher or other aspects of bASIC's re-branding.

Would guess the website was "hacked" - in the same way Tom's account here was "hacked".

If that's Tom's claim, then there's no reason at all not to label BitcoinASIC.net a fraud.

[heinz]

theymos, we need a response on this.  There is no doubt whatsoever now that BitcoinASIC.net is using the name of Can Electric without the permission of its owners and that Can Electric has nothing to do with Ehasher or other aspects of bASIC's re-branding.

Would guess the website was "hacked" - in the same way Tom's account here was "hacked".

If that's Tom's claim, then there's no reason at all not to label BitcoinASIC.net a fraud.

If he refunded in a timely manner, everyone would of been paid back long before this 'hack' happened of bitcoinasic.net.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

I formally request that whomever owns this site, sue me: https://www.bitcoinasic.net/index.php?route=information/information&information_id=5

Website Terms and Conditions of Use
 
1. Terms
 
By accessing this web site, you are agreeing to be bound by these web site Terms and Conditions of Use, all applicable laws and regulations, and agree that you are responsible for compliance with any applicable local laws. If you do not agree with any of these terms, you are prohibited from using or accessing this site. The materials contained in this web site are protected by applicable copyright and trade mark law.
 
2. Use License
 
Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on CAN-ELECTRIC's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:
modify or copy the materials;
use the materials for any commercial purpose, or for any public display (commercial or non-commercial);
attempt to decompile or reverse engineer any software contained on CAN-ELECTRIC's web site;
remove any copyright or other proprietary notations from the materials; or
transfer the materials to another person or "mirror" the materials on any other server.
This license shall automatically terminate if you violate any of these restrictions and may be terminated by CAN-ELECTRIC at any time. Upon terminating your viewing of these materials or upon the termination of this license, you must destroy any downloaded materials in your possession whether in electronic or printed format.
3. Disclaimer
 
The materials on CAN-ELECTRIC's web site are provided "as is". CAN-ELECTRIC makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, CAN-ELECTRIC does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.
4. Limitations
 
In no event shall CAN-ELECTRIC or its suppliers be liable for any damages (including, without limitation, damages for loss of data or profit, or due to business interruption,) arising out of the use or inability to use the materials on CAN-ELECTRIC's Internet site, even if CAN-ELECTRIC or a CAN-ELECTRIC authorized representative has been notified orally or in writing of the possibility of such damage. Because some jurisdictions do not allow limitations on implied warranties, or limitations of liability for consequential or incidental damages, these limitations may not apply to you.
 
5. Revisions and Errata
 
The materials appearing on CAN-ELECTRIC's web site could include technical, typographical, or photographic errors. CAN-ELECTRIC does not warrant that any of the materials on its web site are accurate, complete, or current. CAN-ELECTRIC may make changes to the materials contained on its web site at any time without notice. CAN-ELECTRIC does not, however, make any commitment to update the materials.
 
6. Links
 
CAN-ELECTRIC has not reviewed all of the sites linked to its Internet web site and is not responsible for the contents of any such linked site. The inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by CAN-ELECTRIC of the site. Use of any such linked web site is at the user's own risk.
 
7. Site Terms of Use Modifications
 
CAN-ELECTRIC may revise these terms of use for its web site at any time without notice. By using this web site you are agreeing to be bound by the then current version of these Terms and Conditions of Use.
 
8. Governing Law
 
Any claim relating to CAN-ELECTRIC web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict of law provisions.
 
General Terms and Conditions applicable to Use of a Web Site.

Permission is granted to temporarily download one copy of the materials (information or software) on CAN-ELECTRIC's web site for personal, non-commercial transitory viewing only. This is the grant of a license, not a transfer of title, and under this license you may not:
modify or copy the materials;

Sue me on two counts! I modified the above by changing the first two words and making it one--Website. Also, I permanently downloaded said material by placing it on a public forum.

If I don't get sued, then that means their Terms and Conditions are worthless, ergo their entire operation is bogus as well.

Any claim relating to CAN-ELECTRIC web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

I guess that's one of the benefits of creating an omnipotent entity. You can have it occupying three locales simultaneously--Canada, Iraq, and now New York.

[server]

Maybe it's usefull to merge the information from this thread ?

[lukasbradley]

I hope that shows my integrity.  Believe me it would have been far easier to distance myself from bASIC and just leave the mess for Tom (and his customers).

I STRONGLY urged Dave to leave BTCFPGA after my meeting with Tom.  I thought he had nothing to gain, and a ton to lose through "guilt by association."

Dave insisted on trying to complete all the CC refunds, so people would get money back.  He did not, and never did, have access to the BTC.  He and I both attempted to have Tom transfer BTC to Dave so he could handle refunds, but that never happened.

Dave tried his very best, beyond what I would have done (and certainly beyond what anyone else in this forum would have done).  To insinuate he was a part of Tom's behavior is ridiculous and unfounded.

[Bitinvestor]

Thanks, Lukas. Do you think it was a scam from the beginning or did it simply go wrong at some point?

[nobbynobbynoob]

If it was a planned scam from the outset, they surely would have just run off with all the moolah, yes?

[Bitinvestor]

If it was a planned scam from the outset, they surely would have just run off with all the moolah, yes?

Maybe. I'm asking because Tom said he had a working prototype and Lukas said he couldn't see any value in it (or something like this, I don't remember what he said exactly).

[lukasbradley]

Thanks, Lukas. Do you think it was a scam from the beginning or did it simply go wrong at some point?

PERSONALLY, I don't think Tom started this venture with the intent of stealing money.  However, the end result is the same: Lots of people are owed money, and Tom is missing in action, with zero accountability.  What is most troubling is there were several of us who attempted to him help to varying degrees, and all he ever did was avoid and deny the need.

Tom has lied to me several times on several things, ranging from white lies, omissions, fabrications, to downright boldface lies.  I would say there are more untruths to the situation than hard facts.

I'd like to reiterate that I find the "doxing" of his family worthless and detestable.  That information will not help those who are owed, and only brings you down to that level.  I found Tom in about 4 hours on the ground.  Pictures of his baby won't help you do that.

It really pains me to write all this.  From a business perspective, I should walk away and keep my mouth shut, but I'm really struggling.  Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it.  On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it.  All of these things are bad for the community and bad for Bitcoin, and that greater effort is what this is supposed to be about.

Maybe a scammer tag will help drive Tom back to the fold so he can share, honestly and completely, what happened and how we can all move forward.  Frankly, I doubt it.  He is not behaving rationally at this point, maybe hasn't in months.

[Bitinvestor]

Thanks for that, it explains a lot. Get help Tom.

[repentance]

Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it.  On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it.

The two are not mutually exclusive.  I think people are well aware of the fact that Tom's personal issues are greatly compromising his ability to do the right thing here.  While not an ideal solution, the best option at the moment would be for Tom to hand off processing the BTC refunds to someone else while he pursues whatever personal help he needs.  Maybe there aren't enough funds to refund everyone in full at this point, but even partial refunds would be better than nothing.

It's really not acceptable for only one person to have access to the funds of a business.  There always needs to be a plan in place where someone else can quickly grasp the financial situation of a business and move money as necessary.  People get sick, they have mental breakdowns, they get hit by buses, they decide they've had enough and walk away.  Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.

People can have compassion for Tom's personal circumstances and still believe that doing nothing isn't a viable option.

[lukasbradley]

Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.

Frankly, is raises a hell of a lot more than that.  I have many, many suspicious about Tom, but my conjecture might be completely off (though I don't think it is).  I don't think his issues are an excuse in the least, and I personally, face-to-face, offered him an out specifically crafted for him, with exactly what he wanted.  He left town instead.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Thanks, Lukas. Do you think it was a scam from the beginning or did it simply go wrong at some point?

PERSONALLY, I don't think Tom started this venture with the intent of stealing money.  However, the end result is the same: Lots of people are owed money, and Tom is missing in action, with zero accountability.  What is most troubling is there were several of us who attempted to him help to varying degrees, and all he ever did was avoid and deny the need.

Tom has lied to me several times on several things, ranging from white lies, omissions, fabrications, to downright boldface lies.  I would say there are more untruths to the situation than hard facts.

I'd like to reiterate that I find the "doxing" of his family worthless and detestable.  That information will not help those who are owed, and only brings you down to that level.  I found Tom in about 4 hours on the ground.  Pictures of his baby won't help you do that.

It really pains me to write all this.  From a business perspective, I should walk away and keep my mouth shut, but I'm really struggling.  Those of you who are owed BTC have been wronged, and it's childish for Tom to run and hide from it.  On the flip side, Tom desperately needs help in his personal life, and I sincerely hope he pursues it.  All of these things are bad for the community and bad for Bitcoin, and that greater effort is what this is supposed to be about.

Maybe a scammer tag will help drive Tom back to the fold so he can share, honestly and completely, what happened and how we can all move forward.  Frankly, I doubt it.  He is not behaving rationally at this point, maybe hasn't in months.

Well written, Lukas. I'll do my best to bide by your words in the future.

It's really not acceptable for only one person to have access to the funds of a business.  There always needs to be a plan in place where someone else can quickly grasp the financial situation of a business and move money as necessary.  People get sick, they have mental breakdowns, they get hit by buses, they decide they've had enough and walk away.  Tom's reluctance to let anyone else handle the BTC refunds concerns people because it raises the suspicion that he has insufficient funds to make those refunds.

Bitcoin 100 is structured in such a way, and will remain so. I've never had control of funds, and there's a backup person in place, in case.

[lukasbradley]

Well written, Lukas. I'll do my best to bide by your words in the future.

On a side note, Phinnaeus, I very much respected your work (and calm) during the Pirate fiasco.  I feel as if that scenario is a bit different than this.

[repentance]

Tom previously mentioned that the bASIC project was funded in part by people from the "Lenders club" and has referred to "old Bitcoin money" being involved in the project.  Some people belonging to that club are no longer in good standing in this community and I continue to find the silence about who else was involved in the bASIC project concerning. 

One would expect legitimate investors to require regular reports and evidence of progress on the project and to be aware that it was in trouble, demanding answers and solutions.  Hell, I even wonder whether those "investors" existed or whether they were a fiction created by Tom to lend credibility to his project.  Are they silent now because they don't want any responsibility for the failure of this project falling on themselves or because they never existed? 

Too much about this whole situation stinks to take anything about it at face value now.  I think this community needs to try to find out whether those investors exist and establish whether they have any legal liability in relation to this clusterfuck.