Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 09:18:03 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 ... 586 »
  Print  
Author Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s  (Read 875472 times)
paranoidx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 146


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:36:24 PM
 #10241

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.

What do you mean the chips aren't devaluating?? When's the last time the difficulty went down or stayed the same?  Difficulty will continue to rise and the chips will devalue.  Maybe not at 30% each 10 days like they were before, but difficulty is still rising at a considerable amount (est. 7% this time around).
1513502283
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513502283

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513502283
Reply with quote  #2

1513502283
Report to moderator
1513502283
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513502283

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513502283
Reply with quote  #2

1513502283
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Transisto
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1731



View Profile WWW
July 24, 2014, 11:36:32 PM
 #10242

I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.
...
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.
Are you for real ? Difficulty will continue to increase greatly I can guarantee you that. Your personal speculation on the price of bitcoin after the deal is done has no bearing on the value of the chips right now.
itod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


^ will code for bitcoins


View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:50:29 PM
 #10243

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 ...

I don't want to get involved into your's and Ray's argument if the LB offer is a good deal or not, since I don't have enough business knowledge to access it, but what you've written above is nonsense. There is a guarantee that chips will be worth less with time passing, in fact there is mathematical proof these chips will be worth 0 US$ in some point in the future. That point is called the "Price/Power cost equilibrium", and the only unknown is when will it happen, not if it will happen. HashFast chips are far from being most power-efficient chips on the market, and as they produce less and less BTC with every difficulty adjustment, at some point their BTC production will be less than electricity cost for their operation, while others more power efficient miners will continue to operate. This already happened a year ago with GPUs, and we have much less than a year for the same thing to happen to power non-efficient ASICs. Chips value is reducing every two weeks, make no mistake about it. If you have a plan what to do with these chips execute it fast, don't delude yourself thinking you have time to take it easy.

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
pmorici
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile WWW
July 24, 2014, 11:52:44 PM
 #10244

I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.
...
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.
Are you for real ? Difficulty will continue to increase greatly I can guarantee you that. Your personal speculation on the price of bitcoin after the deal is done has no bearing on the value of the chips right now.

That's the point, the price of Bitcoin has everything to do with the amount of money the creditors will receive under the terms of this deal.  If Bitcoin goes to zero the 6 million in debt and equity will be worthless and if Bitcoin goes to the moon the most the creditors will get is 6 million.  If you are uncomfortable speculating on the future price of Bitcoin then you should be very uncomfortable with this deal.  That's why I think this deal is garbage, it is forcing the creditor body to speculate on the future price of BTC with a capped upside and unlimited downside.  It's insane.

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: 1050



View Profile
July 24, 2014, 11:59:48 PM
 #10245

I asked LB to carve out the IP and the claims.
...
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.
Are you for real ? Difficulty will continue to increase greatly I can guarantee you that. Your personal speculation on the price of bitcoin after the deal is done has no bearing on the value of the chips right now.
Don't jump all over him.   He is correct.   Difficulty is only one of the variables on the value of the chips.
Creditor's claims are listed in US Dollars.  
If chips are worth X BTC and creditors would get Y% of their claim back from the sale today.
Please tell me the value of the chips if BTC is $1,000 a month from now and difficulty is 20% higher.

To dismiss his point as "personal speculation on the price of bitcoin" is the same as dismissing your point as "personal speculation on the increase in difficulty".
They are BOTH valid variables that affect the value of chips.

Think back to late October.    KNC could not even sell out of their Jupiters when bitcoin was $90.   Then they were sold out by November 12 when bitcoin went above $280.    Difficulty rose so why did the value of a Jupiter all of a sudden go up so much?    It is a perfectly valid counter point to your point.


There is a guarantee that chips will be worth less with time passing, in fact there is mathematical proof these chips will be worth 0 US$ in some point in the future. That point is called the "Price/Power cost equilibrium", and the only unknown is when will it happen, not if it will happen.
I understand what you are saying but you are wrong.   Look at the extreme.   Bitcoin is $1 Million.   Are these chips worthless?   The answer is, it depends.    You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.

Ray E. Gallo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:44:46 AM
 #10246

Folks:  Simon has hired Ori Katz, not Chris Sullivan. While there are many lawyers, the good ones are not so many. And the best ones fewer still.  This is true of humans in every profession.  Ori happens to be one of a small group of excellent bankruptcy lawyers who regularly practice before this Court.  Ori did pitch the committee, and he was a better choice (though Mr. Sullivan was my first choice).  Unlike Ms. McDow, Ori has far more experience representing creditors' committees.  But he has no confidential information from the committee or any creditor---he pitched based on the public record info. So Simon was free to hire him.   The conspiracy theories are a little thick in some places here.  Mr. Edgeworth has (foolishly) failed to listen to me in many respects.  You may all come out as well as can be hoped despite some of those mistakes.  But they have consumed time and significant amounts of money. Committee counsel is, ultimately, paid by the creditors as a group.  So you are all paying for Mr. Edgeworth's decisions.  I won't be closely following this forum, so if I miss an insult or falsity, I will trust you all to be duly skeptical.  And if anybody wants accurate information, he or she is free to email me directly at rgallo@gallo-law.com or through www.hfrefunds.com.
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:59:22 AM
 #10247

Folks:  Simon has hired Ori Katz, not Chris Sullivan. While there are many lawyers, the good ones are not so many. And the best ones fewer still.  This is true of humans in every profession.  Ori happens to be one of a small group of excellent bankruptcy lawyers who regularly practice before this Court.  Ori did pitch the committee, and he was a better choice (though Mr. Sullivan was my first choice).  Unlike Ms. McDow, Ori has far more experience representing creditors' committees.  But he has no confidential information from the committee or any creditor---he pitched based on the public record info. So Simon was free to hire him.   The conspiracy theories are a little thick in some places here.  Mr. Edgeworth has (foolishly) failed to listen to me in many respects.  You may all come out as well as can be hoped despite some of those mistakes.  But they have consumed time and significant amounts of money. Committee counsel is, ultimately, paid by the creditors as a group.  So you are all paying for Mr. Edgeworth's decisions.  I won't be closely following this forum, so if I miss an insult or falsity, I will trust you all to be duly skeptical.  And if anybody wants accurate information, he or she is free to email me directly at rgallo@gallo-law.com or through www.hfrefunds.com.
Give us some examples of mr edge worth's foolishness.   Otherwise you are just an idiot on the internet spouting off under a new name instead of armyofone.

Entropy-uc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 03:36:20 AM
 #10248

Folks:  Simon has hired Ori Katz, not Chris Sullivan. While there are many lawyers, the good ones are not so many. And the best ones fewer still.  This is true of humans in every profession.  Ori happens to be one of a small group of excellent bankruptcy lawyers who regularly practice before this Court.  Ori did pitch the committee, and he was a better choice (though Mr. Sullivan was my first choice).  Unlike Ms. McDow, Ori has far more experience representing creditors' committees.  But he has no confidential information from the committee or any creditor---he pitched based on the public record info. So Simon was free to hire him.   The conspiracy theories are a little thick in some places here.  Mr. Edgeworth has (foolishly) failed to listen to me in many respects.  You may all come out as well as can be hoped despite some of those mistakes.  But they have consumed time and significant amounts of money. Committee counsel is, ultimately, paid by the creditors as a group.  So you are all paying for Mr. Edgeworth's decisions.  I won't be closely following this forum, so if I miss an insult or falsity, I will trust you all to be duly skeptical.  And if anybody wants accurate information, he or she is free to email me directly at rgallo@gallo-law.com or through www.hfrefunds.com.

Firstly Ray, it's Dr. Edgeworth.  If you're going to feign some level of civility, at least address me by the proper honorific.

Secondly, I am not making any decisions.  The committee makes the decisions, and all of those decisions have been by a solid majority.

Thirdly, we have good reasons for not taking your advice. You have no experience in bankruptcy law, and it shows.  The committee selected excellent bankruptcy counsel who has been very successful both in court and behind the scenes.  The fact that you happen to hate her and have spent weeks on a vendetta against our selection is just another example of how your actions have been consistently against the best interests of creditors in the case.
Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2464


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 05:01:20 AM
 #10249

Please tell me the value of the chips if BTC is $1,000 a month from now and difficulty is 20% higher.
...
You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.

You forget the 3rd very important variable. Competitor chips. With Bitmain already shipping in bulk, and Spondoolies wrapping up their next gen, HF chips are increasingly non-competitive.

Buy & Hold
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 05:34:02 AM
 #10250

Please tell me the value of the chips if BTC is $1,000 a month from now and difficulty is 20% higher.
...
You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.

You forget the 3rd very important variable. Competitor chips. With Bitmain already shipping in bulk, and Spondoolies wrapping up their next gen, HF chips are increasingly non-competitive.
Correct but you are complicating things since we were at the point just trying to explain to people there is MORE than ONE variable.
But definitely supply comes into it.   And the fact that you cannot buy any of these products right now AND that spondoolies missed (by how much we have not been told) would add value to the chips that are readily available.   They need to auction these things and lay off all of the management that is doing nothing and then let the lawyers go.

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 06:56:28 AM
 #10251

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 ask perfectly legitimate questions about the obscure points of the deal and I get personal attacks. Right. It's interesting to say the least.

I understand what you are saying but you are wrong.   Look at the extreme.   Bitcoin is $1 Million.   Are these chips worthless?   The answer is, it depends.    You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.
Let's try to remember the per GH cost of the 100TH mine... What was it, $5? And when was it? 1 year ago? So the difficulty went up a thousand times and the price per GH went down only 5 times? What a nonsense.

I want to know the details of the new board design, damn. If it's $200/chip to bring it online and it doesn't require liquid cooling for some reasons, (I don't know, they splitted the chips into 4 separate ones with a sawboard), that would be a hell of a competitive product. Do I have to pay a lawyer to have that informations?

You speak of Ray in the same third person way that armyofone used to.
I noticed that as well. Just like Berlusconi. I wonder what the relationships between the two are. No, wait, I think I know it.



"Brief" (20+pages) of opposition to the sale from the committee:

http://hashfast.org/14-30725.156.pdf

Quote
I. INTRODUCTION
A theme has developed in this case. Hashfast Technologies, LLC (“HFT”) and Hashfast,
LLC (“HF”) (collectively, the “Debtors”) present half-cocked ideas and, once teed-up on
shortened time or an emergency basis, attempt to conceal or explain-away the absence of
evidence or a logical justification due to the purported exigency. With this may warrant quick
action in some instances, proclaiming that “the sky is falling” does not excuse the unconscionable
sale proposed by the Debtors to their insider/joint venturor Liquidbits, Corp. (“LB”)—a sale
negotiated on behalf of the Debtors by an individual poised to lead the purchaser after the sale is
consummated.
Essentially, and making every effort to avoid hyperbole, Debtors propose selling
substantially all of their tangible assets, granting an irrevocable and transferrable license
(including the right to create derivative works), and 33% of the net recovery from any avoidance
actions or suits against insiders to LB—items of substantial, quantifiable value—without any

I love creative legalese.

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
kikaha
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 02:46:04 PM
 #10252

Why is the creditor's committee taking so long to reach a decision on how to proceed forward?  In Bitcoin time, it is forever.  Meanwhile the attorneys (on all sides) continue to make money at the creditor's expense.  The longer the chip inventory sits, the less it will mine once turned into boards and mining systems.

Please tell me the value of the chips if BTC is $1,000 a month from now and difficulty is 20% higher.
...
You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.

You forget the 3rd very important variable. Competitor chips. With Bitmain already shipping in bulk, and Spondoolies wrapping up their next gen, HF chips are increasingly non-competitive.
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 03:51:51 PM
 #10253

Why is the creditor's committee taking so long to reach a decision on how to proceed forward?  In Bitcoin time, it is forever.  Meanwhile the attorneys (on all sides) continue to make money at the creditor's expense.  The longer the chip inventory sits, the less it will mine once turned into boards and mining systems.
Please tell me the value of the chips if BTC is $1,000 a month from now and difficulty is 20% higher.
...
You cannot have mathematical proof by looking at one variable when there are two variables.
You forget the 3rd very important variable. Competitor chips. With Bitmain already shipping in bulk, and Spondoolies wrapping up their next gen, HF chips are increasingly non-competitive.
The creditor's committee does not set how fast things happen NOR what does happen.   HF management and lawyers do.   I think Ray Gallo has posted some things that may lead people to think that the committee is running the company, that is completely incorrect.    HF management is running the company and delaying things constantly.   You should listen to the hearings.
Simon went on vacation for a month.   And got a personal lawyer to slow things down.   
I think a good thing would be if the judge saw through these tactics and put the trustee in charge of the company.   Then we would get somewhere.

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 03:54:43 PM
 #10254

The committee should move to have a trustee, not the judge (if I'm not mistaking). They said they wanted to almost a month ago and then changed idea, I'm sure for a good reason.

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 25, 2014, 03:57:50 PM
 #10255

The committee should move to have a trustee, not the judge (if I'm not mistaking). They said they wanted to almost a month ago and then changed idea, I'm sure for a good reason.
My preference would be for them to move for a trustee and then a liquidation.    Broken into tons of small lots that would allow a lot of people to bid on them like the peppermining people and others that might pop up.    maybe we could have 5-10 smaller manufacturers of solid hashing boards to supply hobbyists.    If the big players want to bid, they can buy all the lots but it will get us the maximize price and will get us CASH, not some promise that forces us to take huge risk.

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 04:02:01 PM
 #10256

If the big players want to bid, they can buy all the lots but it will get us the maximize price and will get us CASH, not some promise that forces us to take huge risk.
I would say that the document posted yesterday by the committee proves that LB is a fraud, not only a possible mistake.

The problem of splicing HF into 100 lots is that you need coordination to build boards. It's not banal.

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 25, 2014, 05:12:45 PM
 #10257

"Brief" (20+pages) of opposition to the sale from the committee:

http://hashfast.org/14-30725.156.pdf

People need to read this document.
Ray Gallo, you seem to have left out a few details on this "great" deal you negotiated.   What is your angle in this?   You do not seem to represent people wanting to get their money back.
1.  Liquidbits and HF were partners in the past so it is likely that LB may not even be a creditor like the rest of us.   They were obligated to give HF part of their mining revenue.   That means their claim is likely going to be contested and is not as simple as a claim where a customer bought, paid and did not receive.   They started a business with Hashfast, that business did not work out.   Not sure they are owed their money back if that money as LB's equity investment in this new venture with HF and HF's equity was a below sale price and shipping them before ALL of us that financed the company.
2.  Liquidbits has taken delivery of many of these units AND HAS NOT GOT THEM HASHING or has not paid HF money they owe them if they did get them hashing.    So, how are they going to get 20 PH/s hashing for us when they didn't even do that in the last six months with less than what Icedrill got up and running?    Does anyone have these attachments that they cite to show just how many TH/s (and when) LB received?   
3.  Back to 1., LB may owe Hashfast money.   If you look at this partnership that started emerging now, LB OWES Hashfast part of the revenue they get from mining.   Whether they started mining or not, when they were priority delivered the means to mine, they had an obligation to start mining and START paying part of the revenue to the ESTATE (which belongs to us creditors).   VERY INTERESTING.    Maybe this is why there is such a rush to get this NO BID deal done and hidden as fast as possible.
3A.  LB has demanded to be released from all claims the estate has against it.   Do you think the estate may have a large claim against them?   25% of all the bitcoins mined since they received products before everyone and they agreed to build this mine in October (you read that right it says OCTOBER).   Maybe the $2M LB proposing to "invest" in NewCo is actually money we are owed anyway?   There is a line in there saying that LB owes Hashfast $400,000 plus whatever damages HF incurred when LB failed to produce bitcoins and pay HF.
4.  HF management has been OFFERED JOBS at this NEWCO.    So, LB is proposing to use all our money to get all the assets for free and then they are going to pay and employ the same people that lied, and stole from us in the first place.    I would like to know what Ray gets out of this too since now I know why some of the employees are all for it.
5.  Two supplers are ILLEGALLY holding inventory hostage demanding to be paid before other creditors.   Hashfast has done NOTHING to enforce the law and get these assets even though they claim these chips are losing TONS of value daily.   Because this is against the law, the estate could actually sue these two creditors (I think that is what it means) for damages BUT more importantly is was SIMPLE to get these released and HF did NOTHING to do so.   
6.   Point 5. further means that the "millions" needed to pay to get inventory released is not true.   Inventory would be simple to get released as it there are laws about this.
7.  Hashfast and their lawyers have not even done the research to see if LB could even perform on their term sheet.   No confirmation of money, facilities or even if they have staff that can perform on the proposal.   NOTHING SUBMITTED by HF nor LB.
8.  Someone on the committee has proposed a "franchise model" that is very similar to LBs proposal except we would have ownership instead of being an unsecured creditor.

I wish we had the information that Ray has but I find it interesting that he did not feel any of these points are relevant to point out to us.   Unless he is representing LB (ie. his clients are all LB shareholders), I do not see how this would benefit "the huge group of creditor's he represents",   Anyone have thoughts on this?

Jutarul
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 05:50:39 PM
 #10258

"Brief" (20+pages) of opposition to the sale from the committee:

http://hashfast.org/14-30725.156.pdf

People need to read this document.
Ray Gallo, you seem to have left out a few details on this "great" deal you negotiated.   What is your angle in this?   You do not seem to represent people wanting to get their money back.
1.  Liquidbits and HF were partners in the past so it is likely that LB may not even be a creditor like the rest of us.   They were obligated to give HF part of their mining revenue.   That means their claim is likely going to be contested and is not as simple as a claim where a customer bought, paid and did not receive.   They started a business with Hashfast, that business did not work out.   Not sure they are owed their money back if that money as LB's equity investment in this new venture with HF and HF's equity was a below sale price and shipping them before ALL of us that financed the company.
2.  Liquidbits has taken delivery of many of these units AND HAS NOT GOT THEM HASHING or has not paid HF money they owe them if they did get them hashing.    So, how are they going to get 20 PH/s hashing for us when they didn't even do that in the last six months with less than what Icedrill got up and running?    Does anyone have these attachments that they cite to show just how many TH/s (and when) LB received?   
3.  Back to 1., LB may owe Hashfast money.   If you look at this partnership that started emerging now, LB OWES Hashfast part of the revenue they get from mining.   Whether they started mining or not, when they were priority delivered the means to mine, they had an obligation to start mining and START paying part of the revenue to the ESTATE (which belongs to us creditors).   VERY INTERESTING.    Maybe this is why there is such a rush to get this NO BID deal done and hidden as fast as possible.
3A.  LB has demanded to be released from all claims the estate has against it.   Do you think the estate may have a large claim against them?   25% of all the bitcoins mined since they received products before everyone and they agreed to build this mine in October (you read that right it says OCTOBER).   Maybe the $2M LB proposing to "invest" in NewCo is actually money we are owed anyway?   There is a line in there saying that LB owes Hashfast $400,000 plus whatever damages HF incurred when LB failed to produce bitcoins and pay HF.
4.  HF management has been OFFERED JOBS at this NEWCO.    So, LB is proposing to use all our money to get all the assets for free and then they are going to pay and employ the same people that lied, and stole from us in the first place.    I would like to know what Ray gets out of this too since now I know why some of the employees are all for it.
5.  Two supplers are ILLEGALLY holding inventory hostage demanding to be paid before other creditors.   Hashfast has done NOTHING to enforce the law and get these assets even though they claim these chips are losing TONS of value daily.   Because this is against the law, the estate could actually sue these two creditors (I think that is what it means) for damages BUT more importantly is was SIMPLE to get these released and HF did NOTHING to do so.   
6.   Point 5. further means that the "millions" needed to pay to get inventory released is not true.   Inventory would be simple to get released as it there are laws about this.
7.  Hashfast and their lawyers have not even done the research to see if LB could even perform on their term sheet.   No confirmation of money, facilities or even if they have staff that can perform on the proposal.   NOTHING SUBMITTED by HF nor LB.
8.  Someone on the committee has proposed a "franchise model" that is very similar to LBs proposal except we would have ownership instead of being an unsecured creditor.

I wish we had the information that Ray has but I find it interesting that he did not feel any of these points are relevant to point out to us.   Unless he is representing LB (ie. his clients are all LB shareholders), I do not see how this would benefit "the huge group of creditor's he represents",   Anyone have thoughts on this?

Thank you for your continued effort to translate and communicate the state of affairs to the layman.

Regarding Ray Gallo, I doubt that Ray has any deep insight into the mechanics of the industry or the subtle ways by which the value of the assets can be transferred. He's a lawyer on contingency and that means optimize the revenue/effort ratio. So why spent 6 months getting 2 million when you can spend 1 month to get 1 million?

The ASICMINER Project https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.0
"The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.", Milton Friedman
minternj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 05:51:11 PM
 #10259

Very nice summary Minor.

Warning about Nitrogensports.eu
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709114.0
kikaha
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 31


View Profile
July 25, 2014, 06:09:28 PM
 #10260

Is there any more info on "8.  Someone on the committee has proposed a "franchise model" that is very similar to LBs proposal except we would have ownership instead of being an unsecured creditor."?  Seems intriguing.

Very nice summary Minor.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 ... 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!