Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 [510] 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 ... 586 »
  Print  
Author Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s  (Read 875472 times)
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
July 21, 2014, 11:43:39 PM
 #10181

I got it  Lips sealed

they will have about 27,000 chips. 
will transfer $10 million to the new company in cash

iCEBREAKER is a troll! He and cypherdoc helped HashFast scam 50 Million $ from its customers !
H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513631745
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513631745

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513631745
Reply with quote  #2

1513631745
Report to moderator
Scared
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 04:54:51 AM
 #10182

LBS: All of our payments were liquidated.  There was originally $1 million in an escrow account, but Hashfast claimed they needed that money to complete our order, and the funds were released from escrow.  Hashfast has received all of the payments we cite directly and in cash, nothing remained in escrow

If every payment was liquidated, why is your claim listed as unliquidated in the schedules?

LBS:  I think we are using the term “liquidated” in different contexts with accordingly different meanings.  Since you original question referred to escrow, I assumed that was the context/meaning you were using.  100% of the funds we cite were paid in liquid cash and fully released from escrow, and Hashfast took possession of that money.  If this is not your question, could you specifically identify the usage/citation you are referring to? We see a great deal of documents each day, and guessing or looking through them all would be impractical.  Once you give us the citation, we will reply with an answer.

LBS: So, short answer what guarantees you that we will build the boards is our own enlightened self-interest; building the  boards is the only way we get paid back, and not building them means we have just given away $7.3 million ($2 million in cash, $5.3 million in waived claims) and get nothing in exchange.

Maybe you think your claim to be worthless already and 2M is peanuts in respect to the value of having your engenieers studying the IP and using it for whatever purpose. So I'm sorry, but that explanation is inconcludent.

LBS:  Four points here: 1) Our claims are valid.  This point was vindicated in the arbitration hearing for the injunction/TRO (which we won).   2) As already mentioned their IP is not especially valuable, and other than in Simon’s imagination we cannot find anyone who has concrete reason to think otherwise.  3) As already mentioned the ownership of the IP is under dispute (the developer, claims he was never paid), and if we just wanted our engineers to study it, we could get that for a lot less than $2 million (the developer is already shopping the IP around). 4) Finally, and this should be conclusive, the Note/IOU is backed by all of the assets of the company, including any IP which we might develop from or after looking at Hashfast’s IP, so if we did as you suggest we would still get nothing.

LBS: This is already the case.  Specifically we are forming  a new company in which this venture will occur (sometimes called “NewCo” in the 363 sale terms), and Liquidbits cannot take any profits or dividends from this company until after the note/IOU and the stock/equity given to the creditors has been totally paid off.

You get to fund the llc only after having received the chips, with whatever amount you want. You should move the money first and move ahead with the judge after. I also need be sure that our interests will be covered. You will have the control of the administration of the company, so our interests must be protected. I dont know how, I dont know from what. I just dont like the idea of gifting a company the chips in exchange for a promise of doing something while not having any kind of control on the delivery of the promise at all.

LBS: Actually the funding will likely occur prior to us taking physical delivery of the chips.  Specifically, some still need to be cut from wafers into chips, and the $2 million will need to be paid instantly on closing (whereas the chips will need to ship after being processed).  The precise timing and other fine details are generally addressed within the final contracts which are agreed before the sale closes.
Given how much we are paying for these chips, we don’t believe it is fair to characterize them as a “gift.”  Beyond that point, however, you have a number of meaningful and robust protections, including anti-dilution, non-consensual changes to economic terms, rights to inspect the company’s records and books, the right to periodic financial reports, the fiduciary obligations of directors to minority equity holders (which are established by law), and a Note/IOU which specifies payment dates and payment rates which is backed by EVERYTHING the company owns, literally all of the assets.

LBS: this is why we are hosting the interactive phone session tomorrow, so that we can explain the terms document more clearly to people.

As you can see, forums are working great as well.

We are happy to reply in the forums as well, but some things will be better and more quickly handled in an interactive environment.



[/quote]
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 05:50:24 AM
 #10183

>Liquidated
I'm talking about the top 20 creditors list. Your claim is listed as unliquidated, in that context it should mean that funds are still in escrow.

>This point was vindicated in the arbitration hearing for the injunction/TRO (which we won)
The emergency arbitrator said that he enterered the order to protect against a mishandling of the resources, not because your claim was legitimate. He said you had 50-50, right? I'm not sure of why you are quoting your arbitration to prove that your claim is "legitimate". You certainly have one, I dont think that to be in discussion.

> As already mentioned their IP is not especially valuable, and other than in Simon’s imagination we cannot find anyone who has concrete reason to think otherwise.
I dont have any problem believing this, but I can't know for sure. The same goes for whatever other benefit you could have from a similar plan; since that I can't predict every occurrence, I need to be sure there to be enough incentives in place to cover creditors interests. Giving up to a 5M claim and spending 2M for the secured claims is one thing, spending 10M upfront locking them into the "NewCo" somehow is a completely different one.

> As already mentioned the ownership of the IP is under dispute (the developer, claims he was never paid), and if we just wanted our engineers to study it, we could get that for a lot less than $2 million (the developer is already shopping the IP around).
I'm incredibly curious. Are we talking about the first ASIC IP? Who is the engenieer? I was under the impression that it was only developed from Barber, Chad (and his team?).

>  Finally, and this should be conclusive, the Note/IOU is backed by all of the assets of the company, including any IP which we might develop from or after looking at Hashfast’s IP, so if we did as you suggest we would still get nothing.
Yes, but the company you are talking about is a purposely created LLC (where you have complete control of the management).

> Actually the funding will likely occur prior to us taking physical delivery of the chips.
If you could guarantee enough cash to be *locked* into the company to pay for the build of every chip, and you locked it upfront of the delivery of goods, you would basically have my support for this sale. I would have additional questions, things I would want to be sure of, but this is certainly the biggest point.

I'm naturally waiting for some of the committee members to raise problems that I was too blind to see.

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 07:37:55 AM
 #10184

The current terms call for the formation of a new company (sometimes called “NewCo” in the documents).  We are not taking over Hashfast, or its estate or anything else; we are forming an new company and it is buying some assets from Hashfast’s estate.

Once this new company (“NewCo”) is formed, Liquidbits/its investors will transfer $10 million to the new company in cash.  This cash will then be used by NewCo to pay $2 million to the Hashfast estate for administrative/priority expenses and to satisfy executory contracts (who by law would be paid ahead of you or us anyway), and $8 million to pay to convert the chips and wafers into usable mining rigs and get them hosted (which is how the money to pay everyone back will be generated).

I think from your question you may have been thinking we were going to do something like give $10 million to the estate, then take over the estate and immediately get our money back.  As you can see from the above explanation, this is simply not the case.
If that is the truth,  it does not correspond with what you filed with the court.  You have not filed with the court that you will fund the company with 10 million dollars of equity.  Your document does not say that.  It says 2 million.   You have obligated yourselves to nothing more in the court filed document.  So why are you on here stating 10 million will be put in newco immediately?
You also need to provide the math behind your claim that under liquidation we will only get 25 cents on the dollar since treat math does not add up to the sworn testimony that there are more than 8 million in inventory to be sold.   Then you have the IP that can be sold.  Those two alone get everyone over 80 cents on the dollar.    
Why don't you list the inventory that you claim is only worth 25 cents?

You did not answer my question about why your claims here do NOT match your court filed document.   
You also do not provide a list of the inventory that you are getting and your valuation of it to support your assertion to creditors that they will only get 25 cents on the dollar in liquidation and your deal of 0 cents to a maximum of 100 cents over two years is superior to that (both points are debatable).
Thought you wanted to clear things up?

digitalbrass
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 01:50:31 PM
 #10185

How about you take 2 million dollars Pay us all back in full, then do whatever it is you want. How about that. That sounds good to me. Surely out of that 10 million youll have enough to pay us back. or at least partial payment back then rest of it after you are up and running.

I dont want to hear about how this company is giving you money or more wafer and chip talk. Talk refunds. Give us our money back before you go about buying more wafers or else you will be in the same boat as simon barber. Believe that.
aasl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448

https://www.hashyun.com/?f=u86


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2014, 02:01:37 PM
 #10186

How about you take 2 million dollars Pay us all back in full, then do whatever it is you want. How about that. That sounds good to me. Surely out of that 10 million youll have enough to pay us back. or at least partial payment back then rest of it after you are up and running.

I dont want to hear about how this company is giving you money or more wafer and chip talk. Talk refunds. Give us our money back before you go about buying more wafers or else you will be in the same boat as simon barber. Believe that.

I agree that refund should be hashfast's top priority.

BTC: 1DREAMcn1ELY1cSnNwrjRazGqfW1NyvLJu    DigitalOcean Reg: https://www.digitalocean.com/?refcode=bd7f576a880a
Coinbase: http://bit.ly/1jc0dpQ
Cloud Hashing: https://www.hashyun.com/?f=u86
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 02:20:29 PM
 #10187

Everything should go out to the highest bidder. Everybody thought the Fed auctioned btc was going to be under market value. Lb can bid on it just like everybody else. Everything from desks, chairs and the damn chips to the shades on the windows. I want every penny on principle now.
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 02:39:49 PM
 #10188

How about you take 2 million dollars Pay us all back in full, then do whatever it is you want. How about that. That sounds good to me. Surely out of that 10 million youll have enough to pay us back. or at least partial payment back then rest of it after you are up and running.

I dont want to hear about how this company is giving you money or more wafer and chip talk. Talk refunds. Give us our money back before you go about buying more wafers or else you will be in the same boat as simon barber. Believe that.

I agree that refund should be hashfast's top priority.

What have you guys smoked? I mean, its a bankruptcy, right? Maybe Wikipedia could help?

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 03:00:33 PM
 #10189

How about you take 2 million dollars Pay us all back in full, then do whatever it is you want. How about that. That sounds good to me. Surely out of that 10 million youll have enough to pay us back. or at least partial payment back then rest of it after you are up and running.

I dont want to hear about how this company is giving you money or more wafer and chip talk. Talk refunds. Give us our money back before you go about buying more wafers or else you will be in the same boat as simon barber. Believe that.

I agree that refund should be hashfast's top priority.

What have you guys smoked? I mean, its a bankruptcy, right? Maybe Wikipedia could help?

I want the microwave from the employee break room. I should file an emergency motion for it.  10 bucks with 100 bucks credit to the estate in 90 days.
kikaha
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 03:20:16 PM
 #10190

Isn't it as simple as Liquid Bits is the only offer on the table other than chapter 7 liquidation, where you would probably get pennies on the dollar.  The lb proposal has the potential to get back a double digit percentage of your cash outlay.  Seems like a reasonable risk to a terrible alternative.  My bigger concern is that the longer this takes to get to conclusion the less that HF chips will be worth.


Why don't we just ask questions here so everyone can read them?   I have a lot of questions but so it is not confusing I will ask them one by one.  I will be upfront and tell you that I think your offer is terrible and puts the creditors at more risk than they have now for recovery.  
You have provided me details of your company's capitalization, yet you expect us all to invest in it.  The deal means creditors could get zero.   Just from hf's sworn testimony it looks like I will get minimum 50 to 75 percent back before the IP is even sold. 
First question,  please detail out how you feel lb is putting 10 million in cash in this business.   If you plan to take over the business and it's assets and from that 10 million will be realized you really are not providing the money, the estate is.  If you really plan to put real cash in this new business then why did you file with the court,  the words Up to 8 million?   That means you could put zero in after the two million (in claims not necessarily the amount you need to pay)  is resolved. If you are sincere,  please answer this first.

We still intend to host the telephone meeting because some things are just more quickly and effectively answered in an interactive setting. That said however, we are happy to answer your questions here as well as many of these questions seem to indicate large misunderstandings about what the 363 sale terms document says/means.

The current terms call for the formation of a new company (sometimes called “NewCo” in the documents).  We are not taking over Hashfast, or its estate or anything else; we are forming an new company and it is buying some assets from Hashfast’s estate.

Once this new company (“NewCo”) is formed, Liquidbits/its investors will transfer $10 million to the new company in cash.  This cash will then be used by NewCo to pay $2 million to the Hashfast estate for administrative/priority expenses and to satisfy executory contracts (who by law would be paid ahead of you or us anyway), and $8 million to pay to convert the chips and wafers into usable mining rigs and get them hosted (which is how the money to pay everyone back will be generated).

I think from your question you may have been thinking we were going to do something like give $10 million to the estate, then take over the estate and immediately get our money back.  As you can see from the above explanation, this is simply not the case.


digitalbrass
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 03:26:33 PM
 #10191

if they have so many chips and no money ill settle for 5 boards w/ chips, ill supply my own psu and water cooler. I am owed one babyjet but will settle for 5 boards.
kikaha
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
 #10192

I am pretty sure that "no money" means that they can't build boards.

if they have so many chips and no money ill settle for 5 boards w/ chips, ill supply my own psu and water cooler. I am owed one babyjet but will settle for 5 boards.
kikaha
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 05:11:33 PM
 #10193

Listening on the call happening now.  Amazed that only one person is asking questions.

“July 22 at 10AM PST/1PM EST, so that you can ask any questions or register any complaints directly with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Strategy Officer of Liquidbits.
(Conference #: (712) 432-1500, Participant Access Code: 700281#).”


Isn't it as simple as Liquid Bits is the only offer on the table other than chapter 7 liquidation, where you would probably get pennies on the dollar.  The lb proposal has the potential to get back a double digit percentage of your cash outlay.  Seems like a reasonable risk to a terrible alternative.  My bigger concern is that the longer this takes to get to conclusion the less that HF chips will be worth.


Why don't we just ask questions here so everyone can read them?   I have a lot of questions but so it is not confusing I will ask them one by one.  I will be upfront and tell you that I think your offer is terrible and puts the creditors at more risk than they have now for recovery.  
You have provided me details of your company's capitalization, yet you expect us all to invest in it.  The deal means creditors could get zero.   Just from hf's sworn testimony it looks like I will get minimum 50 to 75 percent back before the IP is even sold. 
First question,  please detail out how you feel lb is putting 10 million in cash in this business.   If you plan to take over the business and it's assets and from that 10 million will be realized you really are not providing the money, the estate is.  If you really plan to put real cash in this new business then why did you file with the court,  the words Up to 8 million?   That means you could put zero in after the two million (in claims not necessarily the amount you need to pay)  is resolved. If you are sincere,  please answer this first.

We still intend to host the telephone meeting because some things are just more quickly and effectively answered in an interactive setting. That said however, we are happy to answer your questions here as well as many of these questions seem to indicate large misunderstandings about what the 363 sale terms document says/means.

The current terms call for the formation of a new company (sometimes called “NewCo” in the documents).  We are not taking over Hashfast, or its estate or anything else; we are forming an new company and it is buying some assets from Hashfast’s estate.

Once this new company (“NewCo”) is formed, Liquidbits/its investors will transfer $10 million to the new company in cash.  This cash will then be used by NewCo to pay $2 million to the Hashfast estate for administrative/priority expenses and to satisfy executory contracts (who by law would be paid ahead of you or us anyway), and $8 million to pay to convert the chips and wafers into usable mining rigs and get them hosted (which is how the money to pay everyone back will be generated).

I think from your question you may have been thinking we were going to do something like give $10 million to the estate, then take over the estate and immediately get our money back.  As you can see from the above explanation, this is simply not the case.


cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 05:51:32 PM
 #10194

I missed the call, but I think that the questions left unanswered above still deserve some written reply.
Also, historically, selling hardware has been more profitable than mining with it. So why isn't LB proposal build hardware to resell it and host it in the unsold part?

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
Kipsy89
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


Relax!


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:01:55 PM
 #10195

I missed the call, but I think that the questions left unanswered above still deserve some written reply.
Also, historically, selling hardware has been more profitable than mining with it. So why isn't LB proposal build hardware to resell it and host it in the unsold part?

Tell that to all the people currently invested in ASICMiner's 3rd generation!

Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
 #10196

Listening on the call happening now.  Amazed that only one person is asking questions.

“July 22 at 10AM PST/1PM EST, so that you can ask any questions or register any complaints directly with the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Strategy Officer of Liquidbits.
(Conference #: (712) 432-1500, Participant Access Code: 700281#).”

Isn't it as simple as Liquid Bits is the only offer on the table other than chapter 7 liquidation, where you would probably get pennies on the dollar.  The lb proposal has the potential to get back a double digit percentage of your cash outlay.  Seems like a reasonable risk to a terrible alternative.  My bigger concern is that the longer this takes to get to conclusion the less that HF chips will be worth.
Had previously scheduled meetings and LB's did not answer even my simplest question here.   I guess because it is true their post here is deceptive and does not match what they filed in court.
Interesting, you have a brand new account and think it is a GREAT deal and that in liquidation we could only get "pennies on the dollar".   Why don't you share the math behind that statement.   LB refused to detail out their valuation of the the inventory, so where are you getting this BS from?
There are 29,000 chips plus A LOT MORE ASSETS.
There is likely $10,000,000 owed to creditors (many claims are likely overstated) and the $2,000,000 is already IN THE CREDITORS' CLAIMS. 
Just selling the inventory to bidders will net $7 to 9 Million.    That is 60 to 80 cents on the dollar (because lawyers etc. need to be paid).
Then every shareholder likely owes all the money they took from the company BACK to the estate.   This is substantially more than $2,000,000 which gets you to all of us being repaid fully.
This is before we sell the IP etc.

That sounds a LOT better, than maybe, perhaps, possibly getting somewhere between 0 cents and 100 cents from a company that is unknown to you and still lists their primary place of business as a residential condo worth $275,000 in a building that does not allow you to run a business out of it.

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:23:18 PM
 #10197

Possibly the most incredible thing of my day is that LB's strategy confused myself as well. They acted like they were trying to fix the self defined confusion, but they simply used the fog machine to their own interests. Lacking to reply to the last legitimate questions they left a cloud of confusion into undecided minds like mine. Now what should you believe? The terms and lb promises of spending $10M or the terms and a probable upcoming selfish interest from lb, where they try not to spend a dollar more than what they have to?

I've emailed him, just in case he is not reading the thread. Let's see his exhaustive answer.

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:40:18 PM
 #10198

Possibly the most incredible thing of my day is that LB's strategy confused myself as well. They acted like they were trying to fix the self defined confusion, but they simply used the fog machine to their own interests. Lacking to reply to the last legitimate questions they left a cloud of confusion into undecided minds like mine. Now what should you believe? The terms and lb promises of spending $10M or the terms and a probable upcoming selfish interest from lb, where they try not to spend a dollar more than what they have to?

I've emailed him, just in case he is not reading the thread. Let's see his exhaustive answer.

It really doesn't matter if they are investing $10M or $100M.  The most the creditors every see is $6M, in 2 years.  In exchange we give them $9M of inventory and IP rights.

There really isn't any justification for the creditors to finance LB for the next 2 years for less than we could recover selling everything today.
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:54:46 PM
 #10199

It really doesn't matter if they are investing $10M or $100M.  The most the creditors every see is $6M, in 2 years.  In exchange we give them $9M of inventory and IP rights.
The problem is that you don't know if the assets are really worth $9M, do you? I have to prefer $6M "guaranteed" (if they spent $10M into the mine they would probably be "guaranteed") rather than 3-9M maybe.

My anger against what is wrong in the Bitcoin community is productive:
Bitcointa.lk - Replace "Bitcointalk.org" with "Bitcointa.lk" in this url to see how this page looks like on a proper forum (Announcement Thread)
Hashfast.org - Wiki for screwed customers
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
July 22, 2014, 06:58:49 PM
 #10200

It really doesn't matter if they are investing $10M or $100M.  The most the creditors every see is $6M, in 2 years.  In exchange we give them $9M of inventory and IP rights.
The problem is that you don't know if the assets are really worth $9M, do you? I have to prefer $6M "guaranteed" (if they spent $10M into the mine they would probably be "guaranteed") rather than 3-9M maybe.

If it was $6M today, I would agree.  But it's a promise of $6M in a couple years, and possibly nothing if something goes wrong in that time frame.
Pages: « 1 ... 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 [510] 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 ... 586 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!