Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2017, 04:28:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 ... 586 »
  Print  
Author Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s  (Read 865478 times)
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 03:37:51 AM
 #10221

@LB. Do you have or have you ever had a relationship with Butterfly Labs?

 
1508732909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508732909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508732909
Reply with quote  #2

1508732909
Report to moderator
1508732909
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508732909

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508732909
Reply with quote  #2

1508732909
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 05:11:45 AM
 #10222

Secondly have you had communication with HF other then regarding the status of your orders before this case? If you come out with a 14 or 16 NM chip I will personally litigate you pro Bono till 2095 billed to my estate and written off as a tax deduction. I don't like being screwed twice.

Have you been in contact with executives or another Bfl employee in the past 90 days?

Lastly if you are in an agreement with Bfl so the Monarch can ship with this product or use their assembly and data facilities this is not a big gamble as you want everybody to believe.


   Edit: A former BFL employee has stated they have seen Hashfast and Liquidbits employees at the facility he worked at numerous times. I did not think much of Liquidbits other then another cloud mining firm at the time. 

LB who is paying your legal fees?
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 06:54:35 AM
 #10223

27,000 chips * 500Gh per chip * .35 == $4,725,000 USD

27,000 chips * 700Gh per chip * .35 == $6,615,000 USD, that sounds much better. You also get several metric tons of board components (long lead time components) for free since that HF (wisely, for once) made a stock of it. If I had to guess it, you also already have the PCBs in hand, so you paid them $5 each and not $150 each in expedite fees. So basically your per board cost is around or less than $200. Without considering the new super secret board design that halves the costs another time.

@LB. Do you have or have you ever had a relationship with Butterfly Labs?

Yes, Yes. And again YES. A hell of a relationship I would say.

Btw, I keep being incredibly confused. But the number of puppets in this thread is at a record high lately (and Greg isn't replying anymore!); that brings me to the only possible conclusion.

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
Scared
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:43:11 PM
 #10224

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.
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?

The short answer is that is says $10 million in the documents, but you may not be looking in the right place.  You will note that the filing or petition for the 363 sale was not made by Liquidbits but by the Hashfast estate (because they are the ones who must do that per court rules).  Accordingly, their filing only address the components which will directly interact with them such and cash, stock, and Notes/IOU’s they will be given and inventory and IP license that they will give.  As such it does not discuss the capitalization of NewCo because they are not directly part of it.  However, if you continue all the way to the end, you will see in exhibit A the Terms Sheet from Liquidbits which covers all the components we will be involved (which gives a more complete picture.  Under the heading of capitalization of the new company, it states quite clearly and specifically that we would provide $8 million to convert the boards which combined with the $2 million identified in the document under “consideration” (article 2) is the $10 million we have been referring to.

Regarding the inventory, the $8 million valuation in the testimony is a fantasy.  You will note that the attorneys specifically noted that the individual was not an expert appraiser and that this was just his opinion.  They could just as easily given “sworn testimony” that in their personal opinion the inventory was worth $25 million.  The fact that this statement is sworn does not provide it any extra credibility, as it would be functionally impossible to prosecute someone for perjury, or hold them civilly liable for offering a personal opinion about the value of something.

I would not ask you to simply trust us however.  Hashfast has been making limited sales of chips to keep the lights on and pay some bankruptcy expenses.  It is our understanding that they are having difficulty selling these chips at $125 each.  Given that there are 27,000 chips remaining for bulk liquidation or transfer to Liquidbits, a valuation of $8 million would equate to a price of just under $300 per chip.  In a bulk liquidation scenario, it is highly probable that the unit cost of the chips would be even lower than the current $125, as people/companies buy in bulk to get a lower unit cost, not a higher one.  Further the price which one might realistically expect to get for these chips is bounded by the competing chips/rigs in the marketplace.  Specifically the BitMain AntMiner S3 is sold in rig form for $0.75 per ghash/s and a power consumption of .77 watts at the wall.  When you factor in the cost of mounting HashFast chips, installing cooling units, and in some cases cutting the wafers into chips of about $400 per unit, what you find is that Hashfast’s estate would need to be selling the chips with a final cost of $100 to achieve a cost per ghash of $0.78 in order to compete with chips already in inventory and being sold. Even at this reduced price, they would still be a difficult sell as they have worse power consumption at 1.1 watt per ghash/s

So using a realistic price of $100 per chip, this equates to approximately $2.7 million in chip inventory.  The intellectual property consists of little more than plans for a 16nm chip, which would take months and millions of dollars to produce, and then would be at best equivalent to what is already coming out now, and likely much lower performance than what would be available then.  Consequently, it would be highly generous to assume a value of $2 million for the intellectual property.  In addition, about $1 million (beyond the debts for Hashfast) is owed on this IP, so that the net value would, using a generous value equate to about $1 million.

This results in a total liquidation value of $3.7 million. From this there would need to be deducted the $2 million in priority/secured claims, which by law get paid before general unsecured creditors.  This then leaves $1.7 million to be split among $12 million in claims.  This would translate to a recovery of about 14% for each general unsecured creditor.  If these chips wind up selling for $80 per chip, or if the IP sells for $1.5 million instead of $2million (both entirely likely situations), then the recovery for each general unsecured creditor drops to 10%.  In the unlikely event that they are able to get $150 per chip, the recovery for general unsecured creditors would be approximately 25%.  This is how we arrived at the estimated recovery rates listed earlier.  We stand by these numbers, and think that anyone who thoroughly investigates this matter will arrive at the same conclusion.
nwfella
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


btc tips: 1NPQP9Z4Ju6rTnH4uR6986kGVnEkpyYFJZ


View Profile
July 23, 2014, 07:56:51 PM
 #10225

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.
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?

The short answer is that is says $10 million in the documents, but you may not be looking in the right place.  You will note that the filing or petition for the 363 sale was not made by Liquidbits but by the Hashfast estate (because they are the ones who must do that per court rules).  Accordingly, their filing only address the components which will directly interact with them such and cash, stock, and Notes/IOU’s they will be given and inventory and IP license that they will give.  As such it does not discuss the capitalization of NewCo because they are not directly part of it.  However, if you continue all the way to the end, you will see in exhibit A the Terms Sheet from Liquidbits which covers all the components we will be involved (which gives a more complete picture.  Under the heading of capitalization of the new company, it states quite clearly and specifically that we would provide $8 million to convert the boards which combined with the $2 million identified in the document under “consideration” (article 2) is the $10 million we have been referring to.

Regarding the inventory, the $8 million valuation in the testimony is a fantasy.  You will note that the attorneys specifically noted that the individual was not an expert appraiser and that this was just his opinion.  They could just as easily given “sworn testimony” that in their personal opinion the inventory was worth $25 million.  The fact that this statement is sworn does not provide it any extra credibility, as it would be functionally impossible to prosecute someone for perjury, or hold them civilly liable for offering a personal opinion about the value of something.

I would not ask you to simply trust us however.  Hashfast has been making limited sales of chips to keep the lights on and pay some bankruptcy expenses.  It is our understanding that they are having difficulty selling these chips at $125 each.  Given that there are 27,000 chips remaining for bulk liquidation or transfer to Liquidbits, a valuation of $8 million would equate to a price of just under $300 per chip.  In a bulk liquidation scenario, it is highly probable that the unit cost of the chips would be even lower than the current $125, as people/companies buy in bulk to get a lower unit cost, not a higher one.  Further the price which one might realistically expect to get for these chips is bounded by the competing chips/rigs in the marketplace.  Specifically the BitMain AntMiner S3 is sold in rig form for $0.75 per ghash/s and a power consumption of .77 watts at the wall.  When you factor in the cost of mounting HashFast chips, installing cooling units, and in some cases cutting the wafers into chips of about $400 per unit, what you find is that Hashfast’s estate would need to be selling the chips with a final cost of $100 to achieve a cost per ghash of $0.78 in order to compete with chips already in inventory and being sold. Even at this reduced price, they would still be a difficult sell as they have worse power consumption at 1.1 watt per ghash/s

So using a realistic price of $100 per chip, this equates to approximately $2.7 million in chip inventory.  The intellectual property consists of little more than plans for a 16nm chip, which would take months and millions of dollars to produce, and then would be at best equivalent to what is already coming out now, and likely much lower performance than what would be available then.  Consequently, it would be highly generous to assume a value of $2 million for the intellectual property.  In addition, about $1 million (beyond the debts for Hashfast) is owed on this IP, so that the net value would, using a generous value equate to about $1 million.

This results in a total liquidation value of $3.7 million. From this there would need to be deducted the $2 million in priority/secured claims, which by law get paid before general unsecured creditors.  This then leaves $1.7 million to be split among $12 million in claims.  This would translate to a recovery of about 14% for each general unsecured creditor.  If these chips wind up selling for $80 per chip, or if the IP sells for $1.5 million instead of $2million (both entirely likely situations), then the recovery for each general unsecured creditor drops to 10%.  In the unlikely event that they are able to get $150 per chip, the recovery for general unsecured creditors would be approximately 25%.  This is how we arrived at the estimated recovery rates listed earlier.  We stand by these numbers, and think that anyone who thoroughly investigates this matter will arrive at the same conclusion.

Excuse me while I slash my wrists!  I'm going to assume it will be even worse than this by the time said chips are actually sold.  My guess is I'll be lucky to recover 0.08-0.12 on the dollar by the time it's all said and done :/

LTC: LcTpDxXjVKkjbSHqPkhDVGaqauiD81snhD
ZEC: t1Jd1615qcMq1FQeXPdm1zvjVvnEMAamLNC
ETC: 0xea55ce08f8558c87dc85d4f3c3ebdf2afebbbe32
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 08:03:59 PM
 #10226

You keep going around the issue while ignoring it.

No one is saying that $6M is a bad deal. Everyone is saying that there are too many reasons why $6M are not gonna happen.

1) You still have to define the cash injection in the company. How, when it would happen, etc.
2) How you will hold the $6M for us for two years, and who would be responsabile for it's possible loss/hacking, is still undefined.
3) How you will define $6M in BTC is also unclear. What happens if BTC spikes to 10k for 10 seconds? Will you say that you have fulfilled your terms?
4) No one assures us that you can't setup a recurring expense to one of your parent companies from the newco to move the money back to it, for example. Since that we have no control over the company, we have no control on how the money is spent. So you could pay 5 millions for a company copter for what I know.
5) Etc.

You can basically screw us all a second time and hide behind a chain of shell companies. I don't think to be alone not loving the idea.

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
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 23, 2014, 09:08:43 PM
 #10227

And don't worry guys, the recoveries will now be 0.0002 BTC bigger:
https://blockchain.info/address/1KFrqkEGy6Yq7X4SYCbYoj8HEwfbWVUDJ9

Your answer Greg?

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
pmorici
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2014, 10:12:14 PM
 #10228

I would not ask you to simply trust us however.  Hashfast has been making limited sales of chips to keep the lights on and pay some bankruptcy expenses.  It is our understanding that they are having difficulty selling these chips at $125 each.  Given that there are 27,000 chips remaining for bulk liquidation or transfer to Liquidbits, a valuation of $8 million would equate to a price of just under $300 per chip.  In a bulk liquidation scenario, it is highly probable that the unit cost of the chips would be even lower than the current $125, as people/companies buy in bulk to get a lower unit cost, not a higher one.  Further the price which one might realistically expect to get for these chips is bounded by the competing chips/rigs in the marketplace.  Specifically the BitMain AntMiner S3 is sold in rig form for $0.75 per ghash/s and a power consumption of .77 watts at the wall.  When you factor in the cost of mounting HashFast chips, installing cooling units, and in some cases cutting the wafers into chips of about $400 per unit, what you find is that Hashfast’s estate would need to be selling the chips with a final cost of $100 to achieve a cost per ghash of $0.78 in order to compete with chips already in inventory and being sold. Even at this reduced price, they would still be a difficult sell as they have worse power consumption at 1.1 watt per ghash/s

So using a realistic price of $100 per chip, this equates to approximately $2.7 million in chip inventory.  The intellectual property consists of little more than plans for a 16nm chip, which would take months and millions of dollars to produce, and then would be at best equivalent to what is already coming out now, and likely much lower performance than what would be available then.  Consequently, it would be highly generous to assume a value of $2 million for the intellectual property.  In addition, about $1 million (beyond the debts for Hashfast) is owed on this IP, so that the net value would, using a generous value equate to about $1 million.

This results in a total liquidation value of $3.7 million. From this there would need to be deducted the $2 million in priority/secured claims, which by law get paid before general unsecured creditors.  This then leaves $1.7 million to be split among $12 million in claims.  This would translate to a recovery of about 14% for each general unsecured creditor.  If these chips wind up selling for $80 per chip, or if the IP sells for $1.5 million instead of $2million (both entirely likely situations), then the recovery for each general unsecured creditor drops to 10%.  In the unlikely event that they are able to get $150 per chip, the recovery for general unsecured creditors would be approximately 25%.  This is how we arrived at the estimated recovery rates listed earlier.  We stand by these numbers, and think that anyone who thoroughly investigates this matter will arrive at the same conclusion.

    I'm curious how you know what Hashfast is or isn't selling at what prices?  Either this information you're sharing is total BS or you are violating confidentiality agreements with Hashfast and the court under which this information would have been provided to you.

Gigampz: Adapter Boards for Server Power Supplies 50% cheaper than ATX power supplies.  DPS-800GBA, DPS-1200FBA, Common Slot, CRPS, DPS-1200TBA, DPS-2000bb, Dell z750p
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


★ BitClave ICO: 08/11/17 ★


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 03:48:27 AM
 #10229

I am not "missing" the $10M in the court filed document.   It CONTRADICTS what you say.   
In court:  UP TO $10 Million  (that means zero to $10M)
In btctalk: Liquidbit's claims $12 Million is IMMEDIATELY put in.

This does not match.   I think I trust what is filed with the court.

In public Court:  ZERO INFORMATION on chip sales prices and zero public offering of chips.
In Btctalk:  Liqudbit's claims to have confidential information that was specifically requested to be kept out of the public record by HF attorney in court.

This does not match.  I think I trust the testimony in court.

Valuation:
In public Court:  7-9 Million for the chips.    Matches valuation arrived at compared other chips you can buy.    Also, since Spondoolies chip just failed to meet goals, the value just went up today.
In Btctalk:  Liquidbit's claims everything is worthless YET they really, really badly want to buy it all REALLY fast and do so with our money.

This does not match.   I think I trust the testimony in court and the market.

IP:
The IP that Liquidbit's tries to focus on is the next gen.   Other companies are still selling miners in stock at $2 GH/s.   The 28nm masks are ALSO worth a lot of money.

Supporters of Liquidbit's proposal publicly:  Not many.   GigaVPS (a guy that gave Josh Zerlan positive Trust) seemed to try but his valuation equates to 80 cents on the dollar for creditors so it supports an open auction process in SMALL lots.

I have been through several of these and have come out okay at getting the money back that people owe me.    I feel the same way about this one.   There is no need to sell to the first carpetbagger that comes along.   That just indicates the need for a PUBLIC sale.   None of these assets are even public yet, so what are we debating when Liquidbit's is obviously privy to a lot of information that creditors are not.

Also, left out of MANY of these conversations is the RECOVERIES.   When companies are UNDERCAPITALIZED, the shareholders can sometimes be personally liable.     There is that money.   Notice all the employees that were shareholders?   Plus, there is a good chance some of the money that was paid out can be recovered by the estate.    We know there was over $20 Million in revenue.
We know they delivered around $5 Million worth of machines.   Cost of those machines?   Maybe $4 Million if they REALLY screwed up badly.  Cost of IP, $2 Million.   Cost of Chips in stock: $500,000.    There is at least $12,000,000 somewhere.
What we do not know?   How many machines Liquidbits actually received.   We know they got some but how many?   Do they really have a claim still?    I do not know that and would like to see in October if they really are still a creditor.
Maybe that is why LB's is in such a rush?   So, that we do not see some more of the truth about where all this money went, and just what LB's role with HF really was?    How do they get all this confidential information that the rest of us do not?



                  ,'#██+:                 
              ,█████████████'             
            +██████████████████           
          ;██████████████████████         
         ███████:         .███████`       
        ██████               ;█████'      
      `█████                   #████#     
      ████+                     `████+    
     ████:                        ████,   
    ████:    .#              █     ████   
   ;███+     ██             ███     ████  
   ████     ███'            ███.    '███, 
  +███     #████           ,████     ████ 
  ████     █████ .+██████: █████+    `███.
 ,███     ███████████████████████     ████
 ████     ███████████████████████'    :███
 ███:    +████████████████████████     ███`
 ███     █████████████████████████`    ███+
,███     ██████████████████████████    #███
'███    '██████████████████████████    ;███
#███    ███████████████████████████    ,███
████    ███████████████████████████.   .███
████    ███████████████████████████'   .███
+███    ███████████████████████████+   :███
:███    ███████████████████████████'   +███
 ███    ███████████████████████████.   ███#
 ███.   #██████████████████████████    ███,
 ████    █████████████████████████+   `███
 '███    '████████████████████████    ████
  ███;    ███████████████████████     ███;
  ████     #████████████████████     ████ 
   ███#     .██████████████████     `███+ 
   ████`      ;██████████████       ████  
    ████         '███████#.        ████.  
    .████                         █████   
     '████                       █████    
      #████'                    █████     
       +█████`                ██████      
        ,██████:           `███████       
          ████████#;,..:+████████.        
           ,███████████████████+          
             .███████████████;            
                `+███████#,               
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


★ BitClave ICO: 08/11/17 ★


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 04:08:41 AM
 #10230

Last Questions:
You told me to look up who the "directors" and "owners" of liquid bits are and provided a link with some mediocre information on it.   Since you cited it, I assume as a creditor (and if you had your way, a CAPPED high risk investor in Liquidbits) that this is important information that I should use to base my judgement of your company.

Principle Place of business:https://www.google.com/maps/place/3800+S+Ocean+Dr+%23242,+Hollywood,+FL+33019/@25.989049,-80.120058,716m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x88d9ab5fd3162e83:0x1a3fb261ee43352e

A 200k mediocre condo/office project in Hollywood Florida?    Does the building HOA allow condos there to be PRINCIPAL PLACES OF BUSINESS or is suite 242 one of the offices?   I assume you rent suite 242 from Hallmark but do not find you registered with the local muni tax department.   Perhaps, you can help me.    Want to check up a bit on the business that you have run for the last few years.   I also do not see filings on where your $5 Million came from with which you base your claim with HF on.   That does not seem to be registered at the state or federal level, can you help me here because that is kind of confusing.    If you did an offering, it does not appear to be registered either.
Let me know where to look because, I will not become a shareholder (even the BS kind of shareholder you are proposing which is really just a RISK holder that is providing liquidity (a sucker is a better term) in any venture that is not registered and legitimate.    If you do not answer this to my satisfaction tomorrow I will ask in open court as I am not willing to be part of any new venture that might have been funded improperly and may be open to investor lawsuits or federal action against it.

Let me know.   Since it is does not inspire confidence that the people claiming to need two years to repay me my money do business from a location they are not allowed to.   Can you post their business license with the municipality also for me?

I want to make sure this company with 10s of millions of dollars is on the up and up and I can trust them.

I assume they do not have 29MW of power and 8MW of cooling in that small condo, or am I wrong?   Hard to take them as credible when YOU TELL US to "go look for ourselves" and instead of a large data center built out as their place of business, we find a cheap condo?

Gee, I am not sure why this does not seem like a joke of a company.    Please let me know the answers.   Would really like to know if your clients either 1.  do not follow local laws and regulations or 2.  are hiding a massive data center in a tier two condo or 3. really do not have the resources to do what they claim yet will after they get all of HF's assets for NOTHING down or 4. are not being open and upfront with the people that will be financing the business they are starting for some REALLY good reason?


                  ,'#██+:                 
              ,█████████████'             
            +██████████████████           
          ;██████████████████████         
         ███████:         .███████`       
        ██████               ;█████'      
      `█████                   #████#     
      ████+                     `████+    
     ████:                        ████,   
    ████:    .#              █     ████   
   ;███+     ██             ███     ████  
   ████     ███'            ███.    '███, 
  +███     #████           ,████     ████ 
  ████     █████ .+██████: █████+    `███.
 ,███     ███████████████████████     ████
 ████     ███████████████████████'    :███
 ███:    +████████████████████████     ███`
 ███     █████████████████████████`    ███+
,███     ██████████████████████████    #███
'███    '██████████████████████████    ;███
#███    ███████████████████████████    ,███
████    ███████████████████████████.   .███
████    ███████████████████████████'   .███
+███    ███████████████████████████+   :███
:███    ███████████████████████████'   +███
 ███    ███████████████████████████.   ███#
 ███.   #██████████████████████████    ███,
 ████    █████████████████████████+   `███
 '███    '████████████████████████    ████
  ███;    ███████████████████████     ███;
  ████     #████████████████████     ████ 
   ███#     .██████████████████     `███+ 
   ████`      ;██████████████       ████  
    ████         '███████#.        ████.  
    .████                         █████   
     '████                       █████    
      #████'                    █████     
       +█████`                ██████      
        ,██████:           `███████       
          ████████#;,..:+████████.        
           ,███████████████████+          
             .███████████████;            
                `+███████#,               
Flying Hellfish
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 846



View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:34:23 AM
 #10231

Also, left out of MANY of these conversations is the RECOVERIES.   When companies are UNDERCAPITALIZED, the shareholders can sometimes be personally liable.     There is that money.   Notice all the employees that were shareholders?   Plus, there is a good chance some of the money that was paid out can be recovered by the estate.   

I'm actually quite surprised no one is talking more about this.  I mentioned undercap as a reason to pierce the corporate veil MONTHS ago (and have talked about it in a lot of different manufactures threads as all the pre-order schemes seem to have undercap'd their start ups.)

Has HF surrendered their books to the court?  Has an independent auditor looked at them yet?  Has this request been made by the creditors, is that type of request even an option?  There seems to be a lot of unaccounted for monies, I am curious why more people are not actively asking WHERE THE FUCK did the money go and how much of it can the estate get back.  Seems to me something that should be done early on.

What public assets do the owners have, anyone do any digging on that yet?

Does the LB proposal let Simon and Edaurdo "off the hook" in terms of liabilities?  If it does then why are they willing to do this?
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


★ BitClave ICO: 08/11/17 ★


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 03:55:11 PM
 #10232

Excuse me while I slash my wrists!  I'm going to assume it will be even worse than this by the time said chips are actually sold.  My guess is I'll be lucky to recover 0.08-0.12 on the dollar by the time it's all said and done :/
If you have a LEGITIMATE claim and you have filed with the court, there is a simple form that you can download and transfer (sell) your claim to someone else.
If your claim is CLEAN, I will buy it from you for that price.
By CLEAN, I mean a simple order that was not delivered.


                  ,'#██+:                 
              ,█████████████'             
            +██████████████████           
          ;██████████████████████         
         ███████:         .███████`       
        ██████               ;█████'      
      `█████                   #████#     
      ████+                     `████+    
     ████:                        ████,   
    ████:    .#              █     ████   
   ;███+     ██             ███     ████  
   ████     ███'            ███.    '███, 
  +███     #████           ,████     ████ 
  ████     █████ .+██████: █████+    `███.
 ,███     ███████████████████████     ████
 ████     ███████████████████████'    :███
 ███:    +████████████████████████     ███`
 ███     █████████████████████████`    ███+
,███     ██████████████████████████    #███
'███    '██████████████████████████    ;███
#███    ███████████████████████████    ,███
████    ███████████████████████████.   .███
████    ███████████████████████████'   .███
+███    ███████████████████████████+   :███
:███    ███████████████████████████'   +███
 ███    ███████████████████████████.   ███#
 ███.   #██████████████████████████    ███,
 ████    █████████████████████████+   `███
 '███    '████████████████████████    ████
  ███;    ███████████████████████     ███;
  ████     #████████████████████     ████ 
   ███#     .██████████████████     `███+ 
   ████`      ;██████████████       ████  
    ████         '███████#.        ████.  
    .████                         █████   
     '████                       █████    
      #████'                    █████     
       +█████`                ██████      
        ,██████:           `███████       
          ████████#;,..:+████████.        
           ,███████████████████+          
             .███████████████;            
                `+███████#,               
Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 04:24:10 PM
 #10233

Also, left out of MANY of these conversations is the RECOVERIES.   When companies are UNDERCAPITALIZED, the shareholders can sometimes be personally liable.     There is that money.   Notice all the employees that were shareholders?   Plus, there is a good chance some of the money that was paid out can be recovered by the estate.   

I'm actually quite surprised no one is talking more about this.  I mentioned undercap as a reason to pierce the corporate veil MONTHS ago (and have talked about it in a lot of different manufactures threads as all the pre-order schemes seem to have undercap'd their start ups.)

Has HF surrendered their books to the court?  Has an independent auditor looked at them yet?  Has this request been made by the creditors, is that type of request even an option?  There seems to be a lot of unaccounted for monies, I am curious why more people are not actively asking WHERE THE FUCK did the money go and how much of it can the estate get back.  Seems to me something that should be done early on.

What public assets do the owners have, anyone do any digging on that yet?

Does the LB proposal let Simon and Edaurdo "off the hook" in terms of liabilities?  If it does then why are they willing to do this?

The committee has hired a forensic accounting firm to do exactly what you are talking about.
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 24, 2014, 07:21:32 PM
 #10234

So they basically agreed on giving us the IP hold by HashFast LLC:

http://hashfast.org/14-30725.148.pdf

The committee has hired a forensic accounting firm to do exactly what you are talking about.

Will we (individuals) have a chance at reviewing their books (and every related bitcoin transaction)?

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
Ray E. Gallo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 08:28:01 PM
 #10235

Putting HF in bankruptcy was the right thing.  Now we need to put HF's inventory of chips to work.  They have depreciated massively during this bankruptcy, while the committee has done little or nothing to facilitate a deal.  If anybody knows anybody who'll make a better offer than Liquidbits', by all means let's have that bidder speak up.  We all want the best deal.  But for those of you who don't know, LB's offer puts $2 Million cash into the bankruptcy to cover up to that much of the bankruptcy costs, on top of the hopefully $6M the creditors will net from the sale.   I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.  We got most of these changes made.  Most of that remains in the estate.   If there is a better deal, by all means let's hear it and make it. If not, let's do the deal there is and get the chips mining before they lose more value.  And then maybe we'll get lucky and the IP will be worth something.  By the way, those who think LB doesn't have the cash to perform:  HF's bankrutpcy lawyers thought of that, and asked for due diligence.  Plus, it's $2M up front, right?  If LB blows it, Rob can try and sell the chips to someone else and we keep the $2M.  Maybe, just maybe, Ray has a point.  We need to see the formal papers, which will be done shortly.  But if the deal is as I understand it, and there are no other buyers, this is a no brainer.  A bird in hand . . . .
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 24, 2014, 09:04:07 PM
 #10236

Hi Ray,

They have depreciated massively during this bankruptcy, while the committee has done little or nothing to facilitate a deal.
I would say that the problem is the debtor that did nothing to facilitate the "deal". They are the ones that kept it devaluating for 6 months from 50M to 0.5M or something.

If there is a better deal, by all means let's hear it and make it. If not, let's do the deal there is and get the chips mining before they lose more value.
Doing nothing is probably a better deal than gifting everything to someone that can steal what's left from you.

HF's bankrutpcy lawyers thought of that, and asked for due diligence.
Having something doesn't mean using it.

We need to see the formal papers, which will be done shortly.
When? I would say that they are running a little bit late.

But if the deal is as I understand it, and there are no other buyers, this is a no brainer.
Same fallacy.

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
Transisto
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2014, 10:17:13 PM
 #10237

Doing nothing is probably a better deal than gifting everything to someone that can steal what's left from you.
By your reasoning nothing would ever happen because, thieves.

Miners don't simply disappear from multiple data-centers, LBs could also escrows parts of the mined coins.

What happens if BTC spikes to 10k for 10 seconds? Will you say that you have fulfilled your terms?

I'm sure you could easily devise of a simple valuation mechanism which protect BTC payments from your so problematic but unrealistic price spikes.

You're offering no path of solution whatsoever... Good lord, lately it's to wonder if you're not hired by the competition to hinder any progress.
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


★ BitClave ICO: 08/11/17 ★


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 10:39:50 PM
 #10238

You're offering no path of solution whatsoever... Good lord, lately it's to wonder if you're not hired by the competition to hinder any progress.
I think the problem is that we have people saying there has been a huge public "auction" process for the assets, yet no one outside of management and the few people that Eduardo handpicked to show have really been told the whole situation and the list of assets.   So, should I trust that Eduardo actually did this?   I did not see them.   I could buy this company easily and obviously am interested in mining.    Do you think it is possible that others that may be interested were not called either?  
I have not see them.    Maybe they should be sold off to more than one person?   Perhaps, LB will be the highest bidder in this auction.    Perhaps, someone will actually bid cash at this auction.   That would make them a higher bid than liquidbit's current bid.
Without visibility, we just do not know.    I wish I had access to all the information that LB and Ray Gallo seem to get.  


                  ,'#██+:                 
              ,█████████████'             
            +██████████████████           
          ;██████████████████████         
         ███████:         .███████`       
        ██████               ;█████'      
      `█████                   #████#     
      ████+                     `████+    
     ████:                        ████,   
    ████:    .#              █     ████   
   ;███+     ██             ███     ████  
   ████     ███'            ███.    '███, 
  +███     #████           ,████     ████ 
  ████     █████ .+██████: █████+    `███.
 ,███     ███████████████████████     ████
 ████     ███████████████████████'    :███
 ███:    +████████████████████████     ███`
 ███     █████████████████████████`    ███+
,███     ██████████████████████████    #███
'███    '██████████████████████████    ;███
#███    ███████████████████████████    ,███
████    ███████████████████████████.   .███
████    ███████████████████████████'   .███
+███    ███████████████████████████+   :███
:███    ███████████████████████████'   +███
 ███    ███████████████████████████.   ███#
 ███.   #██████████████████████████    ███,
 ████    █████████████████████████+   `███
 '███    '████████████████████████    ████
  ███;    ███████████████████████     ███;
  ████     #████████████████████     ████ 
   ███#     .██████████████████     `███+ 
   ████`      ;██████████████       ████  
    ████         '███████#.        ████.  
    .████                         █████   
     '████                       █████    
      #████'                    █████     
       +█████`                ██████      
        ,██████:           `███████       
          ████████#;,..:+████████.        
           ,███████████████████+          
             .███████████████;            
                `+███████#,               
pmorici
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2014, 11:16:05 PM
 #10239

I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.

No you didn't Ray.  You were ready to accept the original deal as is until the committee voiced their concerns on those deal points among others which weren't changed.  All I've seen you do is harass the committee with your petty grievances and waste everyone's time.  You've stated in court repeatedly that you don't know anything about Bitcoin so what basis do you continue to parrot the line that the chips are devaluing quickly?

The fact of the matter is that there are two components to the value of the chips, the mining difficulty, and the Bitcoin exchange rate.  There is no guarantee that they will be worth less in the future than they are now and accepting a deal with dubious terms that essentially caps the chips' value at the current level while continuing to expose the creditors to 100% of the current down side exchange rate risk is plainly stupid.

Gigampz: Adapter Boards for Server Power Supplies 50% cheaper than ATX power supplies.  DPS-800GBA, DPS-1200FBA, Common Slot, CRPS, DPS-1200TBA, DPS-2000bb, Dell z750p
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994


★ BitClave ICO: 08/11/17 ★


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:33:23 PM
 #10240

Putting HF in bankruptcy was the right thing.  Now we need to put HF's inventory of chips to work.  They have depreciated massively during this bankruptcy, while the committee has done little or nothing to facilitate a deal.  If anybody knows anybody who'll make a better offer than Liquidbits', by all means let's have that bidder speak up.  We all want the best deal.  But for those of you who don't know, LB's offer puts $2 Million cash into the bankruptcy to cover up to that much of the bankruptcy costs, on top of the hopefully $6M the creditors will net from the sale.   I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.  We got most of these changes made.  Most of that remains in the estate.   If there is a better deal, by all means let's hear it and make it. If not, let's do the deal there is and get the chips mining before they lose more value.  And then maybe we'll get lucky and the IP will be worth something.  By the way, those who think LB doesn't have the cash to perform:  HF's bankrutpcy lawyers thought of that, and asked for due diligence.  Plus, it's $2M up front, right?  If LB blows it, Rob can try and sell the chips to someone else and we keep the $2M.  Maybe, just maybe, Ray has a point.  We need to see the formal papers, which will be done shortly.  But if the deal is as I understand it, and there are no other buyers, this is a no brainer.  A bird in hand . . . .
Hi Ray;
You speak of Ray in the same third person way that armyofone used to.   I miss that guy.
I think a better deal would be liquidation.   Has that been discussed?   That gets cash up front.   Not promises up front.


                  ,'#██+:                 
              ,█████████████'             
            +██████████████████           
          ;██████████████████████         
         ███████:         .███████`       
        ██████               ;█████'      
      `█████                   #████#     
      ████+                     `████+    
     ████:                        ████,   
    ████:    .#              █     ████   
   ;███+     ██             ███     ████  
   ████     ███'            ███.    '███, 
  +███     #████           ,████     ████ 
  ████     █████ .+██████: █████+    `███.
 ,███     ███████████████████████     ████
 ████     ███████████████████████'    :███
 ███:    +████████████████████████     ███`
 ███     █████████████████████████`    ███+
,███     ██████████████████████████    #███
'███    '██████████████████████████    ;███
#███    ███████████████████████████    ,███
████    ███████████████████████████.   .███
████    ███████████████████████████'   .███
+███    ███████████████████████████+   :███
:███    ███████████████████████████'   +███
 ███    ███████████████████████████.   ███#
 ███.   #██████████████████████████    ███,
 ████    █████████████████████████+   `███
 '███    '████████████████████████    ████
  ███;    ███████████████████████     ███;
  ████     #████████████████████     ████ 
   ███#     .██████████████████     `███+ 
   ████`      ;██████████████       ████  
    ████         '███████#.        ████.  
    .████                         █████   
     '████                       █████    
      #████'                    █████     
       +█████`                ██████      
        ,██████:           `███████       
          ████████#;,..:+████████.        
           ,███████████████████+          
             .███████████████;            
                `+███████#,               
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 ... 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!