[TO THEYMOS AND MODS] BFL scammer tag?

[abbyd]

Because we don't give scammer tags based on popular vote. If we don't hear any more updates after the next few months, then we'll talk.

Theymos said that in early April.

Hopefully we don't repeat that in the next month as I will likely post about it again.

And true it shouldn't be based on popular vote, but you can not discount the community at large on this forum from being able to gauge what WE as a majority believe is true or not.

Actions speak louder, BFL's actions speak of scam. Pirate delayed on his payments and was given a scammer tag.

BFL promised a 1000 BTC charity donation if they didn't meet their power specs/hash speeds when they shipped. Which they did not. Yet they have not paid their bet. Even Josh has admitted that they do not view the bet (although was done in good faith on this forum publicly) as high priority.

My point being is I do not see ANY difference between the two scenarios described above, yet BFL gets away with whatever the fuck they want.

Just sayin...

Because we don't give scammer tags based on popular vote.

Because we don't give scammer tags based on popular vote to our highest paying advertiser.

FTFY

[1714997557]

1714997557

[1714997557]

1714997557

[1714997557]

1714997557

[1714997557]

1714997557

[1714997557]

1714997557

[pekv2]

That being said, although I am viewed as a troll on this forum, I do also out the truth on many topics.

People ignore me because of that. That is fine. But my point is, people should not discount what is blatantly obvious in front of their faces and that includes BFL getting a scammer tag for renigging on many different promises over the past 12 months.

That alone should get them a DUMBASS Scammer Tag or something special of that sort.

Very true. I noticed after I made and posted that bitcoin censored picture, about gavin making that decision to censor transactions, I seen that I was being ignored @ a rate of [ignores 7-12] from zero. Ignored for telling the truth.

Because we don't give scammer tags based on popular vote to our highest paying advertiser.

FTFY

This is how I see it. This is the reason why I block the ads here, I didn't want to say anything about it in the adblockplus meta thread as it would have been I think offtopic, I don't want to see scammer ads on my browser as much as equaling, accepting it and saying its ok which I am not ok with it. If bfl ads were removed, I will stop blocking ads here. It is very interesting to see different ads for certain opportunity's but the bfl one just takes it over the edge with me. And because of this statement, and above this quote, telling the truth, I will probably get ignored twice as much as I am now of being ignored.

[Xian01]

Because we don't give scammer tags based on popular vote to our highest paying advertiser.
FTFY

 I'm beginning to see the truth of this. Very unfortunate and transparent. Money talks indeed.

 I had hoped management of these forums would act as good shepherds of this community.

 One of the pitfalls of having - seemingly and ironically so - a Laissez-faire style of moderation.

[Maged]

I haven't followed the whole BFL scandal much, but didn't they deliver test units to some people?

[smoothie]

I haven't followed the whole BFL scandal much, but didn't they deliver test units to some people?

Yes they delivered enough units that I can only count on my finger and toes.

Most of which were sent to PR people and NOT customers.

They may have a half-baked product but all of the lies that have been perpetrated and promises broken over the last 11 months is unnerving even to me as a unbiased 3rd party in the scheme of things.

I would not have made the thread and worded my responses as such if I was not concerned that BFL is being given a free pass to scam and this introduces DOUBLE STANDARDs on this forum.

And to be honest, I do not think of you or Theymos or the other mods as such.

We all know...actions speak louder...

That goes for the mods and owner(s) of this forum. Just the truth.

[Maged]

It is hard to make hardware. As long as some progress is being made, there is no reason to give them a scammer tag.

[smoothie]

It is hard to make hardware. As long as some progress is being made, there is no reason to give them a scammer tag.

So how do you propose BFL settle their public 1000 BTC bet to be paid to a charity (not to mention Josh's 1000 BTC bet) that they would hit their power/speed requirements when they shipped, which they did not?

So far they have not made an effort in good faith to honor this. And this isn't even developing hardware...it is owning up to the mouthing off that BFL and Josh have done to hype their product.

That alone should deserve a scammer tag. It has been almost 2 months since they first announced their first "shipment".

[theymos]

It's unlikely that BFL will ever get scammer tags for the ASICs because it's not at all clear what a preorder actually entails. I doubt that the preorder agreement (if there is one) specifies exact deadlines or specifications. I think that they'd avoid a scammer tag if they delivered some somewhat-decent mining device or gave USD-denominated refunds within a year.

The bet is another matter. I haven't looked into it yet.

I said previously that I would consider not accepting their advertising if they didn't make much progress within a few weeks. They have made progress. Several people received devices.

[smoothie]

It's unlikely that BFL will ever get scammer tags for the ASICs because it's not at all clear what a preorder actually entails. I doubt that the preorder agreement (if there is one) specifies exact deadlines or specifications. I think that they'd avoid a scammer tag if they delivered some somewhat-decent mining device or gave USD-denominated refunds within a year.

The bet is another matter. I haven't looked into it yet.

I said previously that I would consider not accepting their advertising if they didn't make much progress within a few weeks. They have made progress. Several people received devices.

Thanks I look forward to your views on the bet(s) made by both Josh and BFL. 

[Syke]

The bet is another matter. I haven't looked into it yet.

Why not? There have been numerous threads detailing the lost bet.

I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.

7 months later and still no donation. Why doesn't Inaba have a scammer tag?

[BadBear]

The bet is another matter. I haven't looked into it yet.

Why not? There have been numerous threads detailing the lost bet.

I'm offering 1000 BTC on behalf of BFL regardless of what Tom does.

7 months later and still no donation. Why doesn't Inaba have a scammer tag?

Wait, so there was no counterparty?

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

Nah, it was a donation to charity. People did buy BFL devices because of their bet through. Not much different from MNW's bet which caused people to buy PPT bonds to hedge against it.

[smoothie]

Nah, it was a donation to charity. People did buy BFL devices because of their bet through. Not much different from MNW's bet which caused people to buy PPT bonds to hedge against it.

Yup I see little difference in what MNW did and what BFL/JOSH did.

They made promises they did not meet nor care to meet. Even Josh said himself that paying those bets are not priority right now. Which is bullshit.

[Zaih]

I think some sort of warning to people is just. I nearly fell into the trap of investing my money into them, but luckily I did a bit of research beforehand.

Whilst I can't say they're direct scammers, their business is definitely not fully transparent and this should undoubtedly be pointed out. You have my support despite the fact I don't see anything happening as a result of this topic.

[Nightowlace]

BFL gets away with whatever the fuck they want.

Just sayin...

Yup

[TECSHARE]

The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.

[BadBear]

The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.

Don't be dumb, if people want their money back from BFL all they have to do is ask for a refund. The complaints (as far as I can tell) are that they are taking too long to get the orders out, and they don't meet expectations, not that people can't get their money back.

[Nightowlace]

The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.

Don't be dumb, if people want their money back from BFL all they have to do is ask for a refund. The complaints (as far as I can tell) are that they are taking too long to get the orders out, and they don't meet expectations, not that people can't get their money back.

People CAN get their money back as long as new customers are still placing pre-orders. Once EVERYONE realizes that BFL is a big scam and they all stop ordering then their will be zero refunds because all of the funds will be gone. That is classic Ponzi Scheme, use the new money to pay the old money but sooner or later all the money dries up and you go to federal prison. Just sayin.

[Nightowlace]

The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.

Don't be dumb, if people want their money back from BFL all they have to do is ask for a refund. The complaints (as far as I can tell) are that they are taking too long to get the orders out, and they don't meet expectations, not that people can't get their money back.

People CAN get their money back as long as new customers are still placing pre-orders. Once EVERYONE realizes that BFL is a big scam and they all stop ordering then their will be zero refunds because all of the funds will be gone. That is classic Ponzi Scheme, use the new money to pay the old money but sooner or later all the money dries up and you go to federal prison. Just sayin.

So you honestly believe they haven't used up every bit of that preorder money on research, development, advertising, employee payroll, etc. etc. If you think they just put that in a nice interest bearing savings account you need to lay off the Kool-Aid

[TECSHARE]

The conflict of interest here is disgusting. I am calling on the forum to pay back defrauded customers out of Bitcointalk advertising funds, up to and including the total amount paid by BFL. Considering they are profits from illicit activities (fraud), that their primary customer base was forum users here, the fact that Bitcointalk refuses to act to mitigate this damage makes me conclude that is is an equitable response given the additional fact that they are currently ACTIVELY COMPLICIT IN FRAUD. Have you ever considered that the forum might share legal liability in this? Chew on that for a couple of minutes.

Don't be dumb, if people want their money back from BFL all they have to do is ask for a refund. The complaints (as far as I can tell) are that they are taking too long to get the orders out, and they don't meet expectations, not that people can't get their money back.

You can dismiss it as "dumb" all you like, but there is very clearly legal liability being created by the forum continuing to host paid advertisement for what is legally defined as fraud in the United States. The FTC has very specific restrictions for pre-orders and BFL does not meet them. This forum is putting itself in legal jeopardy by continuing to knowingly assist them in fraud in exchange for a portion of the illicitly gained funds.

As far as "refunds" you know very well they are offering a fraction of the original value of the Bitcoins, to be paid in USD - not what was actually tendered (that is not a refund that is theft). You guys are losing serious credibility in this community by continuing to defend fraud, and you will regret it. Unfortunately the entire community might have to pay for your complicity.


Some related reading:
http://kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/statute/050_000_0000_chapter/050_006_0000_article/050_006_0027_section/050_006_0027_k/

http://business.ftc.gov/documents/alt051-selling-internet-prompt-delivery-rules

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v08/08HarvJLTech001.pdf

"Newbridge Network Securities Litigation, 225 part of the plaintiffs'
complaint related to the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
omissions about problems with product quality. Regarding the scienter
issue, the court held that where multiple individual defendants are sued,
"the complaint must apprise each defendant of his or her participation in
the fraud."226 Plaintiffs met that burden because their complaint specified
the statements alleged to be misleading, adequately detailed when, where,
and by whom they were made, and identified facts indicating conscious
behavior by the individual defendants. 227"