Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit

[franky1]

from what i can read.

one guy argues that althought NEW implementations will not see an alert.. OLD implementations can. so old implementations CAN be alerted.
as for the content of the alert. checking github. it does show "obsolete" as a standard message when a node see's a rule break.

by alerts it does not mean 'human broadcasted' alerts. but default internal node rule checking alerts (which are still active)

so old nodes will see this .. emphasis OLD nodes will see alerts.
emphasis only these versions have human broadcasted alerts disabled
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1

then i see Gmaxwell chime in to wash over the post first by distraction "its been disabled".. yea ONLY FOR NEW NODES!!! and only the human broadcasted alerts
then he uses an demonstration of an alert. could have been grabbed anywhere any time. to not argue the word "obsolete" but to argue that the demonstration had gavins name involved.

i think gmaxwell totally missed the point and was trying to poke at the name "gavin" and ignore the topic word "obsolete"..

how boring gmaxwell. arguing about gavin when the topic was about an alert that even github proves says "obsolete" to the old nodes

[1714617346]

1714617346

[1714617346]

1714617346

[1714617346]

1714617346

[gmaxwell]

from what i can read.

one guy argues that althought NEW implementations will not see an alert.. OLD implementations can. so old implementations CAN be alerted.
as for the content of the alert. checking github. it does show "obsolete" as a standard message when a node see's a rule break.

so old nodes will see this .. emphasis OLD nodes.
emphasis only these versions have alerts disabled
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1

then i see Gmaxwell chime in to wash over the post first by distraction "its been disabled".. yea ONLY FOR NEW NODES!!!
then he uses an demonstration of an alert. could have been grabbed anywhere any time. to not argue the word "obsolete" but to argue that the demonstration had gavins name involved.

i think gmaxwell totally missed the point and was trying to poke at the name "gavin" and ignore the topic word "obsolete"..

how boring gmaxwell. arguing about gavin when the topic was about an alert that even github proves says "obsolete" to the old nodes

THERE IS NO ALERT THERE.

The poster claims that I abusively sent an alert to try to cause node to upgrade. But I did not, I took no action, and what he is seeing is not an alert.

The message the person was posting about is the message (older) full nodes display when they detect that most of the hashpower is enforcing rules they don't know about.  It isn't an alert, it's a notice generated by the software itself. And not one I created: I showed the commit message where it was created in my response.

The tremendous irony is that you and other fudsters have spent untold hours fearmongering with claims that full nodes would some how be silently 'downgraded' by segwit, and ignored all prior points that full nodes can detect the new rules and will tell their users about them so they can choose their response.  (Current Bitcoin Core uses text which is much less obnoxious than Gavin's, but warns all the same).

[franky1]

flip flop

"its a notice"
lol!!!!

so now you are avoiding the word "obsolete" again, by distracting people by calling it a "notice".
oh and from your screenshot the guy never said you sent a "notice" he said that the "notice" wording mentions OBSOLETE

as for the rest of your post.
my mindset and others are proved right. you have made a change and tried to hide it by making new nodes not see alerts and by underplaying how old nodes will treat the change.
even now you want to downplay the ALERT by calling it "a notice". lol

how about be upfront from the start and just say old nodes wont be fully validating 100% so upgrade. instead of "old nodes are fine, its only a notice, your free to decide what to do".

after all <2000 are ready to validate sgwit. which is a BAD BAD thing for the other 3000+ to rely on other nodes. instead of the network independantly fully validating every bit of data it receives.

you should have done a NODE first. then bribe the miningpools with free party weekends.. not bribed pools first and downplay effect of the network nodes after

old nodes we both agree will be downgraded. the issue is that there is no node consensus to even give them the choice. nodes cannot veto out an option if they dont like it. you have simply skipped letting nodes choose. and went straight to bribing the pools
i think its been 4 little papering social events your employer has organised this year.

a couple of them were meant to be fully discussing possibilities of things like dymanic blocksize. but your employer said those couple events were just social, not intended to formally discuss scalability.

[achow101]

Since you don't want to be pedantic, you could call the notice an "alert". But that "alert" is something that is generated by the node itself warning that it thinks that it is obsolete. It is not an actual alert sent over the network.

An actual alert is actually a network message. There was an alert that was sent out warning that the alert system was deprecated. That alert also contained the "version is obsolete" message because the alert would override the notice generated by the node. Since it is known that the only nodes that would receive that alert are also ones that are already displaying the "version is obsolete" message, this was safe to do.

[franky1]

Since you don't want to be pedantic, you could call the notice an "alert". But that "alert" is something that is generated by the node itself warning that it thinks that it is obsolete. It is not an actual alert sent over the network.

An actual alert is actually a network message. There was an alert that was sent out warning that the alert system was deprecated. That alert also contained the "version is obsolete" message because the alert would override the notice generated by the node. Since it is known that the only nodes that would receive that alert are also ones that are already displaying the "version is obsolete" message, this was safe to do.

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

[RocketSingh]

Since you don't want to be pedantic, you could call the notice an "alert". But that "alert" is something that is generated by the node itself warning that it thinks that it is obsolete. It is not an actual alert sent over the network.

An actual alert is actually a network message. There was an alert that was sent out warning that the alert system was deprecated. That alert also contained the "version is obsolete" message because the alert would override the notice generated by the node. Since it is known that the only nodes that would receive that alert are also ones that are already displaying the "version is obsolete" message, this was safe to do.

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

There is no need to upgrade for those against SegWit. That is why it is soft fork, i.e. "backward compatible". For 2mb Hard Fork, upgradation is mandatory, or else u'll be left behind.

[achow101]

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

There is no need to upgrade and no one is telling you to upgrade. The message that says you need to upgrade was included in Core for a very long time and has since been removed. The message is not showing because of segwit but rather because of previous soft forks. The CSV soft fork would have triggered this warning in all clients up to and including Bitcoin Core 0.12.0. The CLTV soft fork would have triggered the warning in everything up to and including 0.11.1. Because these have long since activated, anyone running any version of Bitcoin Core prior to 0.12.1 would have seen an alert displayed and generated by the node itself (i.e. no actual alert was sent) that said

Warning: This version is obsolete; upgrade required!

Using the word "obsolete" is a bit of poor word choice. Since you really don't have to upgrade for soft forks, "obsolete" is not exactly a good word to use here. However I imagine Gavin used that wording to also account for hard forks which use the same block version signalling mechanism. This wording has since been changed to "Unknown network rules have been activated" with versionbits now being used for signalling.

The alert that was sent did not use the word obsolete. It says

Warning: This is outdated and network-inconsistent software. Also, the alert system has been deprecated. Upgrade is strongly recommended. See https://bitcoin.org/alert-retirement

Notice how there is no change in meaning here, in fact the alert essentially downgrades the warning. Instead of saying that upgrade is required, it is only recommended. The other stuff (outdated and network-inconsistent) is all inferred from obsolete. The only new information in this alert is that the alert system has been deprecated.

[franky1]

There is no need to upgrade for those against SegWit. That is why it is soft fork, i.e. "backward compatible". For 2mb Hard Fork, upgradation is mandatory, or else u'll be left behind.

though you STORE the blocks.. old node not validating segwit wont be independantly testing and veryifying a tx within a block if the TX is segwit.
it just deems it as acceptable without even fully checking it.

its like having a wife. she goes to the supermarket and checks the fruit is ripe. you double check its ripe, but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong.

full nodes are like food connoisseurs/critics. and they want to be fully critical and checking everything for a reason. if they are not checking every part of the stuff they get. then they are not a full node..

in short they are now a trolley pusher not a fruit connoisseur
turning 5000 connoisseurs into 3000 trolley pushers. 2000 connoisseurs can cause problems for the meal(network) especially if those 2000 all have the same tastebuds (running one implementation from one source)

if they are not being critical about the data then they might aswell save the hard drive space and be relay nodes. because they cant independently trust what they have been handed.

find something your fussy about, whether its who cleans the house or who pays the bills. where you want to be in control. then hand it off to someone else.

[franky1]

but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.

There is no need to upgrade

no need??
you do know FULL NODES want to be FULL NODES for a reason right!!
a soft fork is not about keping full nodes as full nodes. its about bypassing opposition to push a change without a full node vetoing out a change.

much like avoiding an election by killing the president and having the senate vote in someone without the countries consent.
in the UK we never voted in Theresa may. and she already is causing grief and we have nothing to do to stop her.

seriously i know you love work arounds to not fix problems but just jump passed problems (you have displayed this many times). but full nodes want to be full nodes for a reason.

so saying that a full node will be downgraded but shouldnt care, and shouldnt need to worry because its not a problem.. is like saying you should go back to grade school and not worry about the world around you because your opinion doesnt count

[achow101]

--snip--

This is off topic for this thread. We have already been over this multiple times. Nothing that you say will change my mind and nothing that I say will change yours.

[gmaxwell]

The post was alleging that I, specifically, utilized a cryotgraphic key to perform some act that the author thought was improper.  This is simply a lie. I responded on reddit answering that lie and my post was deleted, and ultimately my account suspended over that factual correction.   It would be helpful if franky1 would acknowledge that. And as far as the subject of this thread goes-- that is about all that matters.

In terms of the notice,  It was written by Gavin, not I.  And it no longer exists in Bitcoin Core since it was removed a year ago for version 0.12-- it was replaced with the far more informative messages I linked above, which is not tainted by the authoritarian and centralized thinking that anything other than the very latest version is automatically obsolete.

If you don't like the content of the old text-- don't take it up with me, I didn't write it and I contributed to removing it.

If you don't like that something was displayed, don't take it up with me-- I had nothing at all to do with it.

On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork.  So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot?  I giggle at the enormity of that count.

but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong

And you're free to decide what to do-- accept it without a careful check, since it looks like a fruit and smells okay from where you stand-- or take action to verify it completely. It's your decision.   Sadly, with your hardfork mania you want to take away people's ability to decide by forcing changes onto them which they can't ignore even if they want to, and by driving up the resource costs of running a full node so that many were will exist, checking anything at all.

[thejaytiesto]

If you look at the facts it's clear that being banned from reddit because of that is absolute nonsense. This is obviously plotted so now they can circle jerk on /r/btc acknowledging each others bullshit without no one smarter than them that actually gets shit done and codes calling them out. I hope the reddit admins look at this case and restate their decision for a global ban, if you look at the facts it just doesn't make sense. In any case /r/btc will fall by itself because so many bs artists in the same place will make it collapse eventually.

[franky1]

On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork.  So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot?  I giggle at the enormity of that count.

gmaxwells mindset
national elections.. sorry folks citizens cant vote.. civil servants cant vote.
only the senators can vote.
but dont worry civil servants. YOU will notify yourself that you have been made obsolete. the day your obsolete..
but dont worry your still citizens. nothing wrong with being just a citizen. dont worry.
you can watch from a distance. its then upto you to reapply for a civil servants role under new contract. but dont worry. we done this in a way that you cant go on strike against it..
now all we have to do is bribe the senate with a few all-inclusive weekends

dont worry there nothing wrong with being downgraded to a citizen, dont worry

citizens =not full nodes
civil servants = full node
senate=pools

[iCEBREAKER]

/u/nullc is exposing HashFast cloud mining scammer

HashFast had nothing to do with "cloud mining."   Perhaps you should understand the subject matter thoroughly before parroting the hivemind's libelous, outdated, and provably counterfactual narrative (which was largely written and promulgated by GMAX).

GMAX isn't "exposing" anyone, he is continuing a campaign of online defamation and harassment against targets that according to the Bankruptcy Court have been cleared of the "scammer" accusation.

GMAX is still obsessed with getting a risk-free appreciated-BTC windfall refund for his ultra-risky ASIC preorder.  LOL.

GMAX was sent a refund check for 105% of the purchase price, but was too pure (IE stubborn) to cash it and thus admit the once-popular 'we-all-deserve-windfall-refunds' entitlement theory is flawed.

This is the only time I've seen him be wrong about something, so it's not surprising he doesn't know how to accept fault, change his mind, and move on. 

As Dr. Back says, 'if you find yourself disagreeing with GMAX about a technical matter, you're probably wrong.'  But this is a cluster of legal matters and the Dunning-Kruger effect prevents GMAX from reaching correct conclusions about scam vs bankrupt, doxing vs TOS, etc.

If you look at the facts it's clear that being banned from reddit because of that is absolute nonsense.

GMAX's libel and harassment eventually caused Cypherdoc to delete all his forum/social accounts, to the detriment of those who enjoyed his legendary GOLD COLLAPSING BITCOIN UP posts (and his silly Gavinista moaning/ranting as well).

Cypherdoc values his personal privacy/security and never intended for his handle to be connected to his True Name.  That connection only occurred as a result of the (disastrous/useless) bankruptcy lawsuit.

GMAX knows this, and likes to twist the knife as frequently as possible by mentioning cypher's True Name in connection with the (now debunked) scammer accusation.

It's very fitting that this illegal and obnoxious pattern of behavior brought down the Reddit admin BANHAMMER.  Cypherdoc is a man of means, and Conde Naste doesn't want to be held responsible should anything bad happen to Cypherdoc subsequent to his doxxing/defamation happening on their site.

You might think given how much GMAX complains about r/btc's similarly baseless and defamatory campaign of personal destruction against him, he would know better than to do the same thing to Cypherdoc, especially since the HashFast+Frap.doc scam accusation had 2 years of intense courtroom litigation to find proof of scam, yet went nowhere.

[franky1]

hang on.
lets get this right
so icebreaker. who was happy with gmaxwell R3cking hearn(r3) . for being paid by bankers.
now icebreaker seems less friendly towards gmaxwell because its now public knowledge gmaxwell is paid by bankers too.

sidenote:
gmaxwell hates gavin.
where gavin(Bloq) and gmax(blockstream) are both paid by the same guy coindesk(DCG) who is involved with hyperledger(bankers altcoin) where all three (r3) (Bloq) and (blockstream) are highlighted as involved with hyperledger directly (members).. plus indirectly via investors

so hearn, gavin and gmax all paid by bankers and all have direct AND indirect ties to hyperledger ..

and then we have gmaxwell trying to take the moral highground pretending to be 'all about the bitcoin dcentralization' and 'it will all be ok' and anyone not blockstream friendly must be an altcoiner and should F**k off.. and if you are blockstream friendly you should patent your code under blockstream DLP so that blockstream can charge you FRAND royalties if you want to revoke your blockstream owned licence from your software

while gmaxwell plays with hyperledger and monero.. oh and multimillions of banker FIAT..

[gmaxwell]

GMAX was sent a refund check for 105% of the purchase price, but was too pure (IE stubborn) to cash it and thus admit the once-popular 'we-all-deserve-windfall-refunds' entitlement theory is flawed.

I have a written contract from hashfast saying that if they failed to deliver I would receive a full refund of the amount of BTC paid. I directly reached out to Simon Barber to double check this fact, due to the frequent mining scams that had previously happened where there was no intention to create mining hardware but simply to refund "dollars" if Bitcoin appreciated, and Bitcoins if the market moved the other direction. Cypherdoc also confirmed hashfast's refund policies in public.  Without those assurances I never would have made a purchase, just as I never purchased from BFL, and the same is true for many other early hashfast buyers.

What you call a "windfall" was a significant loss (something like 80%? I don't recall) in fact, beyond what hashfast had promised. This isn't just me yapping-- a california court also held that there was significant evidence of fraudulent behavior on this point.

The questions are simple: Did hashfast promise early buyers that they were externally funded without need of customer funds to build goods, and that in the event of a failure to deliver they'd simply return the Bitcoin paid? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc get paid 3000 BTC (even of his agreement worth  _over three hundred of thousand dollars_) to make a couple dozen forum posts laying out his reputation vouching for the operation? Yes. Did people rely on Hashfast and its agents promises and send them funds instead of other oppturnities (such as sitting on them, or spending them with other mining operations)? Obviously. Did the operation substantially both fail to deliver and fail to return the payments to the customers it agreed to do that with? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc's removal of 3000 BTC from the organization make it physically impossible for them to return the Bitcoins-- it appears so.  Did Cypherdoc lie to myself and others about his level of involvement (claiming to have lost funds) until forced to tell the truth by a California court? Yes. Could Cyperdoc largely have recovered much of his reputation by voluntarily returning the funds he removed to the bankruptcy or the customers, minus an actually reasonable payment for a few hours of message posting-- quite likely.

It's very fitting that this illegal and obnoxious pattern of behavior brought down the Reddit

Cypherdoc has repeated posted my personal information gleamed from hashfast records, including my shipping address-- great fodder for the nutbags threatening my life, no doubt--  If he thought any of my behaviors were illegal he'd certainly be able to begin litigation.  Give me a break.

The guy traded his reputation for a huge windfall, he has nothing to cry about.  No one's reputation is worth anything if someone's reputation isn't trashed if they put it on the line to promote something and that thing turns out to be a major loss for all involved. That is what you paid him for, unless you want to argue that he was paid 3000 BTC for something _other_ than putting a valuable reputation on the line? (such as, say, tunneling funds out of the company?).   Besides, regardless of the shenanigans at hashfast, he directly lied to me-- claiming that he was just another customer paid by discounted units, which never shipped leaving him at a loss too-- to try to evade a reputational hit. On that basis alone I don't have any reservation in saying that he's a dishonest coward.  

And bringing it back on-topic-- AFAICT, there is NO post on Reddit where I disclose any personal information about him. And the reddit administration already confirmed that the issue in question was the gavinandresen@gmail.com email address.

[iCEBREAKER]

GMAX was sent a refund check for 105% of the purchase price, but was too pure (IE stubborn) to cash it and thus admit the once-popular 'we-all-deserve-windfall-refunds' entitlement theory is flawed.

I have a written contract from hashfast saying that if they failed to deliver I would receive a full refund of the amount of BTC paid. I directly reached out to Simon Barber to double check this fact, due to the frequent mining scams that had previously happened where there was no intention to create mining hardware but simply to refund "dollars" if Bitcoin appreciated, and Bitcoins if the market moved the other direction. Marc Lowe also confirmed hashfast's refund policies in public.  Without those assurances I never would have made a purchase, just as I never purchased from BFL, and the same is true for many other early hashfast buyers.

Yes, I previously noted your resolute fact-be-damned insistence on remaining committed to the formerly popular windfall-providing interpretation of HF's TOS.

But believing in your personal interpretation as hard as you can and stomping your feet won't change the fact windfalls are precluded by common law notions of equity.  That's why PMorici's fraud case went nowhere, and after spinning his wheels for a while he finally moved to dismiss his own case!  That outcome has been obvious since Ettinger's devastating initial Response to Morici's Complaint.  I told you so, over and over.

Any lawyer (who isn't incompetent outside of the narrow domain of IP law) will confirm windfalls are frowned upon by the legal system.  "Full refund provided in BTC" means you get back via BTC the purchase price, which was denominated in USD.

This isn't hard.  You don't get to reasonably expect all your Bitcoins back 'No Matter What Even If They Are Worth 10 Million Dollars.'

I was disabused of that faulty notion by a bright young law student in about 30 seconds and felt silly for ever having subscribed to such an unbalanced, impossible, self-serving idea.  It's been two years and you are still bitterly clinging.  What's your excuse?  Don't want the lawyer who told you to settle for nothing less than a windfall to be mad at you, for fear of the p-whip?  

It's very fitting that this illegal and obnoxious pattern of behavior brought down the Reddit

Marc has repeated posted my personal information gleamed from hashfast records, including my shipping address-- great fodder for the nutbags threatening my life, no doubt--  If he thought any of my behaviors were illegal he'd certainly be able to begin litigation.  Give me a break.

The guy traded his reputation for a huge windfall, he has nothing to cry about.  No one's reputation is worth anything if someone's reputation isn't trashed if they put it on the line to promote something and that thing turns out to be a major loss for all involved. That is what you paid him for, unless you want to argue that he was paid 3000 BTC for something _other_ than putting a valuable reputation on the line? (such as, say, tunneling funds out of the company?).   Besides, regardless of the shenanigans at hashfast, he directly lied to me-- claiming that he was just another customer paid by discounted units, which never shipped leaving him at a loss too-- to try to evade a reputational hit. On that basis alone I don't have any reservation in saying that he's a dishonest coward.  

And bringing it back on-topic-- AFAICT, there is NO post on Reddit where I disclose any personal information about him. And the reddit administration already confirmed that the issue in question was the gavinandresen@gmail.com email address.

Cypherdoc was always transparent; he fully disclosed his compensated endorser status at the very top of his Hashfast Endorsement Thread OP.

Asking a potential scammer "are you a scammer?" is not due diligence.  Hashfast obviously wasn't a fly-by-night based on the fact its founders had a previously successful start up, physical location in California, contracts with Uniquify/TSCM, etc.

As I already said, Frap.doc desired privacy and is not a public figure, so your frequent mentions of his True Name and associated scam accusations disclosed personal information about him.  Of course Reddit will not allow their platform to be used for your witch hunt (and neither should Theymos, who is likewise sensitive about being doxed).

I won't defend Frap.doc doxxing you, that was obviously wrong, although I will note the only reason everyone including dangerous nutbags knows your shipping address is the mass doxxing accomplished by the spectacularly ill-advised and monumentally useless bankruptcy lawsuit.  Heck of a job, Brownie!

The hivemind's "tunnling" accusation has been made for over two years and went nowhere in court.  Repeating an Officially refuted accusation of a criminal act like tunneling is called defamation.  When it's written on the internet, that's called libel.  When you post it in a way that encourages mob justice, that's called harassment at best and incitement at worst.

It's not reasonable to believe Frap.doc and Hashfast knew in advance Bitcoin would enjoy a 10-fold price increase and thus conspired to tunnel assets out.  9% is a bog standard normal industry rate for independent sales contractors.

Your claim of tunneling has been demonstrated to be false.  It was rubbish all along, just like the 'secret mine' and 'secret escrow' and all the other debunked HF conspiracy theories.

We all though HF had a great shot at success and they came close despite the target moving rapidly away towards the end.

Let's see what cypherdoc actually said, as primary sources are superior to interpretation (unless the interpreter is Peter Wuille).

The fact that HashFast itself is composed of Simon Barber and his team of 4 scientists makes them a force unto themselves from the development perspective.  The fact that HashFast has direct access to the team of 28nm world renowned scientists from Uniquify to design the physical layout of the chip makes them a combined force to be feared.  Simon is an academic from Cambridge University and has been involved in the Bitcoin community from the beginning. How many ASIC mining companies have an engineer employed at PARC? He has written a seminal paper on Bitcoin theory and economics which has contributed greatly to our understanding of just what is Bitcoin.  He has been working on his proprietary version of an ASIC chip for almost 2 years.  I believe this form of long term involvement with Bitcoin, such as I have demonstrated, is critical to understanding how to design a properly functioning chip that will be fast and efficient and deliver to small and industrial miners the return on investment that they deserve.  

Eduardo de Castro is their CEO and visionary.  He has an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin.  As I have worked with him closely over the last 2 weeks, I have come to believe that Eduardo is a man with integrity, driven by the goals and beliefs of a true Bitcoiner, i.e., a belief in transparency, openness, honesty, and hard work. He believes in free markets.  I believe that Eduardo's goals are noble and that you will believe this also once he announces publicly his plan for buyer refunds and the Miner Protection Plan.  

These two principals are guiding the company's vision to be the best in industry.  I happen to think they have a great chance at achieving that.

The HashFast "BabyJet” ASIC mining machine will be a first-of-its-kind technology (400GH/s per ASIC chip, significantly less than 1 Watt per GH/s) slated for delivery by late October. Speeds greater than 400GH/s are being achieved on extensive industry-standard testing with 28nm ASIC physical design leader Uniquify.  Under 350W power draw.  Their goal is to under promise and pleasantly surprise.  The extensive testing being done has been consistent, repeatable, and surprisingly improving to extraordinary levels just in the last two weeks alone.  And let me not forget one other significant thing; this unit has water cooling.  NO MORE NOISE.  There is a God!

I have had the opportunity to look into the eyes of the principals involved as well as shake their hands.  I have worked with them closely for the past two weeks.  

I believe that these people will make a full faith effort to deliver on their promises. Whether or not they are actually able to deliver working units by November, I can’t absolutely guarantee.

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

[gmaxwell]

Any lawyer (who isn't incompetent outside of the narrow domain of IP law) will confirm windfalls are frowned upon by the legal system.  "Full refund provided in BTC" means you get back via BTC the purchase price, which was denominated in USD.

Dude. Explicit agreement. Without it I would not have bought. This is a clear reliance.  And-- it's also not a "windfall", as hashfast claimed they would put the assets aside. (And apparently did so, since they had no problem paying Cypherdoc 3000 BTC) -- strange to see you argue this here, while not arguing that cypherdoc was entitled to "only" three hundred grand rather than the much larger "windfall" he was actually paid. It was also equally explicit that if the Bitcoin price dropped to $1 or whatever, I'd still just be getting back the Bitcoins I paid.

Consider: You own 10,000 tons of steel and expect the price of steel to go up a lot but aren't doing much of anything with your steel right now.  Someone offers to sell you a machine that will, given time and inexpensive feedstocks return something between 5000 and 25000 tons of steel, likely 15000 tons... but only if delivered on time.  They offer to sell it for your 10,000 tons of steel... but you're concerned that they'll just do nothing and hand you the market price of the steel at the time of the sale back if the steel price goes up since that has been a common scam pattern. So they agree that they'll have third party investors pay for the production, and if they fail to deliver on spec they'll return your payment.   Absent fraud this is a good trade... the risk that the machine might end up producing less is acceptable to you, and they sweetened it even further by offering that if it significantly under-produces they'll give you an additional machine later (most of their costs are NRE-- machines are marginally cheap to produce).  The seller get a good deal because-- assuming he can deliver-- he gets a guaranteed return instead of a machine with an uncertain income an a bunch of operating requirements. So you go for it.

Later, they don't deliver and try to cut you a check for the market prices at the time of the sale. The very situation you were concerned about and which you sought and obtained multiple copies in writing, explicit agreement otherwise.-- and made it very clear that you would not buy without this agreement.

This is hogwash, and if people can get away with it the result is a trivially repeatable scam pattern:   Collect Bitcoin for mining pre-orders at prices almost too good to be true, later when the bitcoin price goes up: "refund" the market value of the coins at the time of the "sale"; otherwise if the Bitcoin price goes down-- "refund" the exact Bitcoins paid. Heads I win, tails you lose.  Yes, in HF's case they did actually attempt to build hardware, but that doesn't change the general pattern.

To call that a "windfall" is to make a mockery of contract. If this hadn't been explicitly agreed in advance as a condition of the sale then maybe there would be an argument, but here it was clearly agreed. The only limit on the enforceability of the agreement is insolvency of the entity that made it, which was sadly the case here (esp with Cypherdoc walking off with so much of the Bitcoins).

Cypherdoc was always transparent; he fully disclosed his compensated endorser status at the very top of his Hashfast Endorsement Thread OP.

After it went sour and I negatively rated him, he contacted me directly and said his only compensation was discounts for hardware which he never received and that he was just as much of a victim as me, he plead at my sense of justice and I fell for it. So, indeed, I was not amused when I read the court documents and found out that he got 3000 BTC and full price refunds for the "discounted hardware". So much for "transparency" unless you mean transparently dishonest.

and is not a public figure,

He argued before a California court that he was the "LeBron James of Bitcoin"; and that on this basis the payment of 3000 BTC (10% of gross income) was more than justified.  Are you saying he perjured himself?

Of course Reddit will not allow their platform to be used

Except... it isn't there.

I won't defend Frap.doc doxxing you, that was obviously wrong, although I will not the only reason everyone including dangerous nutbags knows your shipping address is the mass doxxing accomplished by the spectacularly ill-advised and monumentally useless bankruptcy lawsuit.

My information cannot be found in the public bankruptcy proceedings. I specifically did not participate to keep that information out of them; because the at most few thousand I could have conceivably gotten out of the defunct entity was far less than the cost of security precautions necessitated by the publication of the information-- better the funds go to people who need them more.

Repeating an Officially refuted accusation of a criminal act like tunneling is called defamation.  When it's written on the internet, that's called libel.  When you post it in a way that encourages mob justice, that's called harassment at best and incitement at worst.

Bullshit.  But feel free to file a lawsuit. Otherwise pound sand.  You're the one arguing that you paid Cypherdoc hundreds of thousands of dollars for effectively nothing. I wasn't even specifically arguing that tunneling was engaged in here: only that you bought and paid for his reputation (and thus he shouldn't be surprised that it's trashed when hashfast failed to make good on its agreements) or that he was paid an astronomical amount of funds for some other reason.  E.g. If it wasn't buying the reputation of a public figure ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") to endorse the product, -- then what was it?

Let me make this completely clear here:  There was clear dishonestly here and it is unambiguous, while the this and that details may not rise to the level of criminal conviction and the successfully dispersed funds make civil action a waste of time, no one involved has any right to demand the affection or respect of others.  You can sit here impotently threatening with bullshit litigation on behalf of your buddy, but I won't be cowed by it.  All doing so does is piss me off and encourage me to make it more clear what a ripoff I believe the whole operation was.


But you know all this, quoting you from elsewhere on Bitcointalk:

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.

We agree-- that if an agreement was X bitcoin, it should be honored as that for better or worse-- and that cypherdoc was granted a windfall in exchange for his reputation, so why do you seem to have forgotten your prior position?

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

We agree-- that if an agreement was X bitcoin, it should be honored as that for better or worse-- and that cypherdoc was granted a windfall in exchange for his reputation, so why do you seem to have forgotten your prior position?

Yes, it sucks for us customers that HF made a stupid, ruinous mistake by gambling with that much exposure to BTC price changes and then losing the bet.  It would have been nice for Frap.doc to have loaned the windfall back to them, for the sake of his fellow customers, but that's his decision.

I said the reputation damage was an externality.  Your framing makes it seem like that unintended consequence was a premeditated central part of the (supposedly devious criminal) contract between Frap.doc and HF.

The court and dozens of hungry lawyers have dissected the famous contract between Frap.doc and HF; they found nothing untoward.  Get over it.  This HF Derangement Syndrome is bad for you and bad for Bitcoin.

The 9% sales commission BTC payment was made for the trouble he took to meet up with them and write up/discuss his endorsement on the forum.  That helped get Batch 1 sold out ASAP, a huge help in making ROI.  That wasn't being "paid for essentially nothing".  I simply noted the fact the payment became a windfall helps compensate for the collateral reputation damage.

Frap.doc's contract with HF is not the same as your sales agreement, unless you somehow got a customized one from Simon.

Perhaps since BTC had been stable around $100 at the time Simon made the statement under the assumption that stability would continue.

Did you ask him how he planned to keep your BTC in the Secret HF Stash, w/r/t opsec?  You'd normally be very interested in that sort of thing.

Why not suggest some multisig, or 3rd party escrow?  You know those are best practices from being here so long.  

These questions suggest your narrative's internal logic is faulty.

I see zero evidence Simon or anyone else guaranteed to refund all your BTC no matter what, even if they went to a million USD or whatever.

Offering refunds to be paid in BTC was done as a courtesy so customers getting refunds wouldn't have to turn the refund fiat back into BTC again.

Where did I "threaten legal action?"  I don't believe I did, in fact I was first among the many cautioning the deranged litigious windfall-seekers against getting lawyers involved with HF.

I'm certainly not trying to cow you with threats of litigation, just pointing out that doxxing, libel, and harassment are illegal in California/America.  However, I will continue to cow you with facts and logic.  

I'm not Frap.doc's "buddy" for taking his side on this any more than I'm your buddy for siding with you against him in the Grand Schism.

I've never met Frap.doc, but the one time you and I interacted IRL was when you paid me a compliment for some insight.  I was so happy to get an atta-boy from the CTO of Bitcoin!  I wish we could get past the HF toxicity and be buddies since we both plan to be in Bitcoin for the duration of the experiment.  


We need you on Reddit fighting the good fight.  It's ridiculous you're handing the r/btc turds ammo.

We were both HF customers but at some point our POVs diverged.  Everything I predicted came true.  Nothing you predicted came to pass.

It's not scientific to reject results because they dispute your preconceived ideas.  Two separate court cases now indicate your anti-Hashfast ideas may require recalibration.

That's why risking your Reddit account/reputation just to die on the Frap.doc-owes-me-a-windfall-so-he's-a-public-figure hill of error propagation is so disappointing.

As I already explained, "Cypherdoc values his personal privacy/security and never intended for his handle to be connected to his True Name."  So please stop making him the white whale for your Captain Ahab.

[spartacusrex]

FFS.. silly nonsense.

Hang in there GMAX.