Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 05:27:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 ... 586 »
  Print  
Author Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s  (Read 875472 times)
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 06:21:14 PM
 #10261

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.
Not that I have.   It is frustrating because when you listen to the court hearings and read the filings it is obvious that there is tons of information that we do not see.   
If I had to guess from looking at the committee, my guess would be will from ID or maybe the person from South America?   I do not know though.   We can eliminate the suppliers and LB so it narrows it down.   

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513618020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513618020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513618020
Reply with quote  #2

1513618020
Report to moderator
1513618020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513618020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513618020
Reply with quote  #2

1513618020
Report to moderator
1513618020
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513618020

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513618020
Reply with quote  #2

1513618020
Report to moderator
stan258
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440



View Profile
July 25, 2014, 06:55:01 PM
 #10262

"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?


Uniquify, Signetics and Liquidbits can be leveraged to reduce their claim to avoid litigation.

The company saying it’s a great deal is in breach of contract. LB took preferential delivery so many of the regular orders didn’t get shipped on time or at all. COOL! You pay up now.

I am interested in who is paying LB legal fees.  I guess they can put that condo up for collateral.

Nice Monica and Greg are on a personal level in a formal setting page 11 line 28.  
 
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 26, 2014, 06:55:25 AM
 #10263

Details of the franchising program:

http://hashfast.org/14-30725.161.6.pdf

Now don't tell me that the bottleneck is the committee. It's Barber. It's raining here Barber, hope the same for London or wherever you are.

Points I would change of the program:

1) If I wanted to buy 5 boards, I need to be able to do so. I need to be able to have someone reputable (believe it or not, like HF) to produce the boards for me. I can't talk to a contract manufacturer for 5 boards. But I want them. And I want them cheap. Remember that a big crunch of the market buy only a few units.
2) If I wanted to invest into the franchasing program, but didn't want to see a single board or PSU or broken cooling system, I need to be able to do so. I hate the word "cloud", but that's what you have to offer. I put the money in, you care about everything else. "You" must be very trustworthy.
3) The PCBs have a long lead time. Order them now.
4) Is that pricing taking into account the v.3 board design?

The need for a trustworthy entity makes me think that you really need a trustee.

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 26, 2014, 04:37:52 PM
 #10264

Details of the franchising program:
http://hashfast.org/14-30725.161.6.pdf
Interesting.   I wonder when the committee proposed this?  It does not have a date on it.
BUT, it has a VERY interesting piece of information.   On Page 5, it has a chart showing how much money was lost by Hashfast sitting around doing nothing.
One of the bars shows how much Liquidbits should have produced from the 8,000 bitcoins.   That means they owe hashfast (the estate, creditors) over 2,000 bitcoins.

Ray Gallo gets all the committee stuff that the rest of us do not.  He has been pushing this Liquidbits deal and demanding it get approved quickly (and telling us that the committee members are stupid for not listening to Ray Gallo).   Since Ray had this presentation before we have see it, that means HE KNEW Liquidbits had liabilities to the estate and did not tell any of us that this "great deal Ray Gallo negotiated" was with someone that OWES the rest of the creditors money.

If this guy is your lawyer, I would really love to hear how you think he is representing you and your interests if he does not even disclose something as serious as this.   Or did he tell all of you guys and just the rest of us creditors were left in the dark?

TLDR:   There are more indications that liquidbits owes money into the estate from their PARTNERSHIP agreement with Hashfast,   They were not a simple customer but were in a joint venture with Hashfast that required Liquidbits to build a mine and share proceeds (25% of revenue) with Hashfast.    They did not make these payments.   That means Liquidbits likely owes the estate money that can be pursued.

cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 26, 2014, 05:01:46 PM
 #10265

Unsurprisingly LB's position is that they were never able to put the chips they received at work (and that's the same reason why they were pushing that much to receive the remaining 20k or so (I mean, before the bankruptcy), because they were unable to make the first 2k work, makes sense).

It must be a really weak defence given how they were pushing their deal.

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 26, 2014, 05:09:03 PM
 #10266

Unsurprisingly LB's position is that they were never able to put the chips they received at work (and that's the same reason why they were pushing that much to receive the remaining 20k or so (I mean, before the bankruptcy), because they were unable to make the first 2k work, makes sense).
It must be a really weak defence given how they were pushing their deal.
That is not a great defense when in the agreement it says the LB is the expert miner and responsible for operating the mine.  I am really curious when the money gets split up, how much the trustee is going to determine that Liquidbits is actually owed if anything.     
But it really makes Monday's hearing on their "emergency" buy out kind of silly.   Ray was pushing someone that has had 1,500 TH/s of mining capacity for MONTHS and has done NOTHING with it, as someone the needs to "URGENTLY" get their hands on 22,000 TH/s of chips to save us all?  LB has been pushing the urgency of RUSHING to mine yet just sat on those chips and did nothing?   Or did they make the chips mine and actually KEPT all the money.    Either way, not looking good as someone that is expected to expedite a mine AND pay us a percentage when they did not pay HF their percentage.
What a joke.   

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

Activity: 686


View Profile
July 26, 2014, 10:41:46 PM
 #10267



U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from Montali, Dennis entered on 7/26/2014 at 3:34 PM PDT and filed on 7/26/2014
Case Name:    Hashfast Technologies LLC
Case Number:    14-30725
Document Number:    

Docket Text:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER (no separate order issued:) The court has read the sale and assumption motion (Dkt. No. 134) and the opposition by the Committee (Dkt. No. 159). Even before considering the opposition, the court identified numerous problems with the motions; the opposition confirms most of those problems and identifies some the court did not. The debtors filed an Asset Purchase Agreement FIVE minutes before the Committee filed its opposition, but even if the APA cures some of the defects presented by the motions and the term sheet, the Committee and other parties cannot be expected to review and respond to a document filed less than one business day before the hearing. Unless the Committee has a complete change of heart before July 28, 2104, at 2:00 and decides to withdraw its opposition and support the motions, the court intends to deny them. And even if there is a withdrawal, debtors should not assume the motions will be granted. Assuming no change of position by the Committee, its counsel and debtors counsel should meet and confer before the July 28 hearing and attempt to agree on a schedule for matters including the motion to consolidate, any renewed motion to sell and assume, and any other motions either party expects to file in the near future. (Montali, Dennis)
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 26, 2014, 11:13:07 PM
 #10268

U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of California
Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from Montali, Dennis entered on 7/26/2014 at 3:34 PM PDT and filed on 7/26/2014
Case Name:    Hashfast Technologies LLC
Case Number:    14-30725
Document Number:    

Docket Text:
DOCKET TEXT ORDER (no separate order issued:) The court has read the sale and assumption motion (Dkt. No. 134) and the opposition by the Committee (Dkt. No. 159). Even before considering the opposition, the court identified numerous problems with the motions; the opposition confirms most of those problems and identifies some the court did not. The debtors filed an Asset Purchase Agreement FIVE minutes before the Committee filed its opposition, but even if the APA cures some of the defects presented by the motions and the term sheet, the Committee and other parties cannot be expected to review and respond to a document filed less than one business day before the hearing. Unless the Committee has a complete change of heart before July 28, 2104, at 2:00 and decides to withdraw its opposition and support the motions, the court intends to deny them. And even if there is a withdrawal, debtors should not assume the motions will be granted. Assuming no change of position by the Committee, its counsel and debtors counsel should meet and confer before the July 28 hearing and attempt to agree on a schedule for matters including the motion to consolidate, any renewed motion to sell and assume, and any other motions either party expects to file in the near future. (Montali, Dennis)

Let me translate this for you.   The "expert" lawyers that Hashfast hired (and are getting paid with money that would go to us creditors) did not even know how to properly follow procedure for filing motions in the case.    But besides that point, a judge on a Saturday, can read through the offer and see that it is a complete joke and does not even need to hear more arguments about it to waste his time on Monday.
Maybe now everyone can focus on something realistic to get us our money back.   I hope the lawyers do not get paid for all the hours they spent making a motion that was full of errors (and did not disclose the relationships between HF and LB).

scr3u.ucr3trs
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
July 27, 2014, 06:32:53 AM
 #10269

"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?


"Someone" on the committee proposed a deal that has no up front cash to creditors, right? They all have to pay in more money to the company they don't trust, and from what I hear the idea was conceived by Eduardo and his Venuzealn partner so we are supposed to believe it is better than Liquid Bits putting money up front into a new company?  And in the supposed non-HashFast "franchise" model, the company gives away the assets so the creditors get a return later? How does that help us?  It isn't at all the same as LiquidBits since there isn't any capitalization.  If there was money from all the creditors to get paid in to build out multiple mines why haven't they done so yet? How many of them have bought over the past few months since the company was forced to bankruptcy?  Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it?  And not Liquid Bits?  So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
cedivad
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 27, 2014, 06:58:47 AM
 #10270

So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
Next time that you want to be a puppet, try to write something that makes sense to read.

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 27, 2014, 07:35:03 AM
 #10271

  Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it?  And not Liquid Bits?  So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?
Interesting that you keep needing to create new accounts to ask questions and referring to Ray Gallo all the time.    Scared of posting as who you really are?
Why don't you answer some questions about why a lawyer would withhold all the kind of information about "a great deal" from his clients?  Who are you representing?   So some hotshot lawyer cannot even put together a deal in months that even justifies a hearing?  Wow, harvard is very proud right now.

pmorici
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2014, 02:27:15 PM
 #10272

"Someone" on the committee proposed a deal that has no up front cash to creditors, right? They all have to pay in more money to the company they don't trust, and from what I hear the idea was conceived by Eduardo and his Venuzealn partner so we are supposed to believe it is better than Liquid Bits putting money up front into a new company?  And in the supposed non-HashFast "franchise" model, the company gives away the assets so the creditors get a return later? How does that help us?  It isn't at all the same as LiquidBits since there isn't any capitalization.  If there was money from all the creditors to get paid in to build out multiple mines why haven't they done so yet? How many of them have bought over the past few months since the company was forced to bankruptcy?  Its not Ray Gallos clients who are going to back all these franchises is it?  And not Liquid Bits?  So is is another Committee collusion with the brothers, or with Simon and Eduardo and their out of country partner, trying to trick creditors again?

Just because one member of the committee may have proposed something doesn't mean a majority of the committee supports it.  That document was filed with the court to show that despite Hashfast's assertion that the LB deal is the only option there are alternatives.

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
digitalbrass
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
July 27, 2014, 03:27:09 PM
 #10273

ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
scr3u.ucr3trs
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
July 27, 2014, 03:38:23 PM
 #10274

Just because one member of the committee may have proposed something doesn't mean a majority of the committee supports it.  That document was filed with the court to show that despite Hashfast's assertion that the LB deal is the only option there are alternatives."

HashFast assertion is that there is only a LB deal after months of exploring other alternatives, and numbers of them. And there are some chips not sold to LB in order to satisfy the few trickles of interest left in HF chips.  The creditors who would have to invest in the franchise have had months to buy and invest and haven't put a dime in, so now, in partnership with Eduardo, and a foreign entity, those same creditors are going to put their money in and save all the rest of the creditors with future mining income? The deal proposed that the creditors committee posted in court is according to the previously posted words " similar to the LB deal", but you don't support the LB deal, and now instead support one that was created by Eduardo who you say screwed you out of your money?  so that deal is better as an alternative to a real one with money behind it that another independent Hashfast employee negotiated?  This is game over for the creditors given that logic.
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 27, 2014, 03:56:23 PM
 #10275

ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim.   I will buy it.  PM me.   What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?

Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 27, 2014, 04:03:12 PM
 #10276

so now, in partnership with Eduardo, and a foreign entity, those same creditors are going to put their money in and save all the rest of the creditors with future mining income? The deal proposed that the creditors committee posted in court is according to the previously posted words " similar to the LB deal", but you don't support the LB deal, and now instead support one that was created by Eduardo who you say screwed you out of your money?  so that deal is better as an alternative to a real one with money behind it that another independent Hashfast employee negotiated?  This is game over for the creditors given that logic.
Man up and post with your real account coward.
You really are dense aren't you?   This is an EXAMPLE of other things that can be done.   I am sure they have many more iterations after this one.   Any deal where we get some of our money back SOON, is a better deal than the LB deal (which was a terrible deal).   It was so bad and so out of line with reality that it does not even MERIT ARGUMENTS IN THE HEARING TO EXPLAIN IT.    Chew on that.   It was drafted by morons that thought they could steal the show and supported by one terrible lawyer on the creditor side that does not even seem to understand bankruptcy law.  I do not know how someone could take fees from others for representing them and not even disclose the HUGE problems with the deal as offered.   I guess that is why lawyers have such a poor reputation in the USA.

scr3u.ucr3trs
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
July 27, 2014, 06:17:57 PM
 #10277

Man up and post with your real account?

And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through?  Man up?
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 27, 2014, 06:33:11 PM
 #10278

Man up and post with your real account?
And you?? Brother to committee chair who has everything to lose if a deal goes through?  Man up?
How is the weather in Marin today?
Yes, I am known because I manned up and sued them and posted when we did so. I spent my OWN money to stop this scam, my name is on the court documents that you have such a hard time reading and understanding.  
I always thought Yale was overrated.
You really need to explain your statement above about what I lose if a deal goes through though.   I lose nothing, I am going to get 100% of my money back from HF and so is every other creditor.  That is my goal.   Why?   Because that is what happens when you actually try and get money back for creditors instead of trying to rip creditors off.   Hopefully the judge will see that enough time has been wasted and we can move on to something productive instead of all this delaying.

I am sure my brother will hate having to give up his non paid full time job when this is all settled.

You need to be more clear when you are trying to be tough because you come across foolish.  I used to think it was funny how you posted legal advice that completely contradicted the law as armyofone.  Was that intentional or did you just not understand that law but were too proud to admit it?


nwfella
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


btc tips: 1NPQP9Z4Ju6rTnH4uR6986kGVnEkpyYFJZ


View Profile
July 27, 2014, 07:44:17 PM
 #10279

ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim.   I will buy it.  PM me.   What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?
How does one file their claim?  I have an order in for upgraded BabyJet that I would like to get something back on.  I have already gone through the refund process at Hashfast, is there a bankruptcy specific filing that I now need to make?

LTC: LcTpDxXjVKkjbSHqPkhDVGaqauiD81snhD
ZEC: t1Jd1615qcMq1FQeXPdm1zvjVvnEMAamLNC
ETC: 0xea55ce08f8558c87dc85d4f3c3ebdf2afebbbe32
Minor Miner
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 27, 2014, 07:52:28 PM
 #10280

ok after reading nothing but nonsense, I give up on ever seeing a dime of my money back. This is nothing but a soup sandwhich. Goodbye 2k$ I spent. Simon barber I hope you rot in hell.
If this is true, and you have filed your claim, you can transfer your claim.   I will buy it.  PM me.   What did you buy for $2,000 from them though?
How does one file their claim?  I have an order in for upgraded BabyJet that I would like to get something back on.  I have already gone through the refund process at Hashfast, is there a bankruptcy specific filing that I now need to make?
A few pages back someone posted how to do this.   It has been posted several times in the pages.    Just start looking backwards and you will find it.  It is simple and can be done on-line.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 ... 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!