HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[Syke]

The offer for refunds was made at the end of a long period of ~$100 price stability.  The spike to $1000+ was unexpected and unfortunately timed for those of us who had just used BTC to purchase ASIC pre-orders.  Sorry you didn't get the 'windfalls are not legally actionable claims' memo months ago, like the rest of us (who wish they were not).

This isn't some politician promising to end poverty and failing to accomplish that promise. This was a crucial term of sale. HF had no right to break that term of sale simply because it was "inconvenient" for them.

[iCEBREAKER]

The offer for refunds was made at the end of a long period of ~$100 price stability.  The spike to $1000+ was unexpected and unfortunately timed for those of us who had just used BTC to purchase ASIC pre-orders.  Sorry you didn't get the 'windfalls are not legally actionable claims' memo months ago, like the rest of us (who wish they were not).

This isn't some politician promising to end poverty and failing to accomplish that promise. This was a crucial term of sale. HF had no right to break that term of sale simply because it was "inconvenient" for them.

Our wishful thinking aside, it's a matter of possible vs impossible.  They simply didn't have the money to pay out tenfold windfalls after spending millions to build chips/boards/systems.

No lawyer would ever take a case demanding a tenfold windfall.  Do you know why? 

Hint: everyone else on the thread found out the answer months ago!

[Syke]

Our wishful thinking aside, it's a matter of possible vs impossible.  They simply didn't have the money to pay out tenfold windfalls after spending millions to build chips/boards/systems.

What do you call it when a company can't meet its obligations? We call that "bankruptcy"! When that happens, lawyers get involved. Shocker!

[iCEBREAKER]

Our wishful thinking aside, it's a matter of possible vs impossible.  They simply didn't have the money to pay out tenfold windfalls after spending millions to build chips/boards/systems.

What do you call it when a company can't meet its obligations? We call that "bankruptcy"! When that happens, lawyers get involved. Shocker!

Bankruptcy is one course of action, recapitalization is another.  The latter is preferable, unless you want to ensure the lawyers get everything.

BTW, very wise of you to drop the tenfold windfall demand.  It was making you appear foolish.   

[Syke]

Bankruptcy is one course of action, recapitalization is another.  The latter is preferable, unless you want to ensure the lawyers get everything.

Recapitalization would require people to trust HF. Nobody trusts them, thus creditors take matters into their own hands.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bankruptcy is one course of action, recapitalization is another.  The latter is preferable, unless you want to ensure the lawyers get everything.

Recapitalization would require people to trust HF. Nobody trusts them, thus creditors take matters into their own hands.

HF was in negotiation for recap funds with several sources.  It's in the court docs, which you could listen to if you'd like to get a clue.

Not many people in the adult world subscribe to such a childish Bad Guy Scammer caricature of HF.

You apparently believe that
1) HF owes you a fivefold windfall, even if that's not a legal cause for action nor within their financial capacity
and
2) we have a decent chance of recovering some of our windfalls/MPP/backorders after spending HF's few remaining resources on lawyers

Bro, if you believe those two things while sober, we've got to get together and party sometime.  I can't wait to hear what other crazy crap you'll say after a few shots!   

[Minor Miner]

Bankruptcy is one course of action, recapitalization is another.  The latter is preferable, unless you want to ensure the lawyers get everything.

Recapitalization would require people to trust HF. Nobody trusts them, thus creditors take matters into their own hands.

HF was in negotiation for recap funds with several sources.  It's in the court docs, which you could listen to if you'd like to get a clue.
Not many people in the adult world subscribe to such a childish Bad Guy Scammer caricature of HF.
You apparently believe that
1) HF owes you a fivefold windfall, even if that's not a legal cause for action nor within their financial capacity
and
2) we have a decent chance of recovering some of our windfalls/MPP/backorders after spending HF's few remaining resources on lawyers

Bro, if you believe those two things while sober, we've got to get together and party sometime.  I can't wait to hear what other crazy crap you'll say after a few shots!   

To be fair, iCEBREAKER, if you want to post here you should let everyone know that your name is ralph and you used to work for Hashfast.    You got laid off as you were not adding any value to the estate and were taking its resources at a time it was severely undercapitalized taking money that could have been returned to creditors.    In fact, if everything was sold off and EVERYONE was fired when you were, the creditors likely would have recovered all their money.   The math is not that complicated. 

Just be fair to the others would do not know your full history. 

And the "offers" that hashfast was "so diligently" working on were with companies that never paid for the products they agreed to by when it came time to settle.    Yes, the deals are in the docs.   So is the failure to pay.    Read them all.   Not just the first act and the cole's notes.

[iCEBREAKER]

if everything was sold off and EVERYONE was fired when you were, the creditors likely would have recovered all their money.   The math is not that complicated. 

You sure are great at Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  HashFash should have made you CFO and avoided all this unpleasantness thanks to your prodigious acumen.   

If you find that personalizing the discussion is productive, please disclose your own identity and relationship to the matter.

Hint for those playing along at home: MM still has far more to do with the HF imbroglio than I ever did.

All slap fighting aside, it's nice to see the HF thread competing for 'Best ASIC Drama' once again.  AMT and BlackArrow aren't half as entertaining IMO.   

[vipgelsi]

thread turned very bad since last time i was here.

[Minor Miner]

if everything was sold off and EVERYONE was fired when you were, the creditors likely would have recovered all their money.   The math is not that complicated. 

You sure are great at Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  HashFash should have made you CFO and avoided all this unpleasantness thanks to your prodigious acumen.   
If you find that personalizing the discussion is productive, please disclose your own identity and relationship to the matter.
Hint for those playing along at home: MM still has far more to do with the HF imbroglio than I ever did.
All slap fighting aside, it's nice to see the HF thread competing for 'Best ASIC Drama' once again.  AMT and BlackArrow aren't half as entertaining IMO.   

Some large words Ralphie.   I guess I should feel happy that my tax dollars did not get completely wasted on your education (although it would have been preferably for that investment the taxpayers made in you actually enabled you to pay some tax back into the system).   I always thought that commie school was overrated.   But who am I to talk, my alma mater has its own baggage.

Anyone following this drama knows who I am.   I actively told them.   My signature is on the chapter 7 filing.   Which, if was accepted, would have led to the liquidation of the assets immediately instead of allowing a bunch of incompetent people to continue to waste creditors' money.

You, however, are not being that honest with the people that you are trolling.   It is fine to have an opinion but do not push the BS too far or I will let the people you are harassing know enough about you that they will understand why you need to troll them in order to make yourself feel better about yourself.    Have fun, have an opinion, share your thoughts but be helpful and kind.   

[iCEBREAKER]

thread turned very bad since last time i was here.

We'll go back on topic after tomorrow's hearing.

The battle to combine the MD and CA LLCs should prove interesting.

But the real climax will be the tug of war over the IP.

Funny that a so-called "scam" has IP worth fighting over, isn't it?   

[Airwhale]

Even if they agreed with you, where was HF supposed to get the money to pay out 10x their orders, after spending millions to build an amazing chip and some less than amazing boards?  It was a start-up, not IBM.

One would think that they would perform some sort of hedging,  such as buying special situation insurance, futures, or options.  That is what companies do that deal in multiple currencies,  anyway.  If they could not do this,  they should not have made that promise.

[RoadStress]

Even if they agreed with you, where was HF supposed to get the money to pay out 10x their orders, after spending millions to build an amazing chip and some less than amazing boards?  It was a start-up, not IBM.

In the free and volatile market of bitcoin you don't start promising full BTC refunds just to get surprised by a sudden increase in exchange rate. I think that HF should've taken everything into account before lying to get more money from customers. They should've taken into consideration both increase and decrease in value especially when with just 5-6 month before we saw an new ATH from ~33$ to $260.

Promising full BTC refunds was a straight lie from the start just to get more pre-order money and you and cypherdoc supported it!

The offer for refunds was made at the end of a long period of ~$100 price stability.  The spike to $1000+ was unexpected and unfortunately timed for those of us who had just used BTC to purchase ASIC pre-orders.  Sorry you didn't get the 'windfalls are not legally actionable claims' memo months ago, like the rest of us (who wish they were not).

Not sure if it's pure retardness or simply lies. You define as a long period in a free and volatile market a few months? The spike was unexpected despite hitting an ATH with just a few months before? ORLY? Please say more.

[iCEBREAKER]

Even if they agreed with you, where was HF supposed to get the money to pay out 10x their orders, after spending millions to build an amazing chip and some less than amazing boards?  It was a start-up, not IBM.

One would think that they would perform some sort of hedging,  such as buying special situation insurance, futures, or options.  That is what companies do that deal in multiple currencies,  anyway.  If they could not do this,  they should not have made that promise.

Oh good, more Monday Morning Quarterbacking.     Nobody expected $100 BTC to suddenly spike past $1000, even if such hypothetical "hedging services" were available and legal for HF to use.

The only reasonable interpretation is that the "refund in BTC" clause always meant "USD purchase price equivalent in BTC."  Ask any attorney with even a vague notion of contract law.

But thanks to the lawsuits, HF was required to use USD, AKA 'legal tender.'

This issue was put to bed months ago, why are you dredging it up at this late date, when it doesn't matter at all? 

Do please try to keep up with the rest of the class, so we don't have to waste time reviewing.   

And RoadStress, if you really think that your lulzy infinite liability creating interpretation is anything but trolling, please give your money to the nearest lawyer so he can explain the facts of common law to you.  Ask about the "Equity For Dummies" tutorial.   

[RoadStress]

And RoadStress, if you really think that your lulzy infinite liability creating interpretation is anything but trolling, please give your money to the nearest lawyer so he can explain the facts of common law to you.  Ask about the "Equity For Dummies" tutorial.   

It seems like you didn't get it. Let me repeat it

In the free and volatile market of bitcoin you don't start promising full BTC refunds just to get surprised by a sudden increase in exchange rate.

Blaming someone else or some outside event is always easier than being a man and taking responsibility for your facts!

[iCEBREAKER]

And RoadStress, if you really think that your lulzy infinite liability creating interpretation is anything but trolling, please give your money to the nearest lawyer so he can explain the facts of common law to you.  Ask about the "Equity For Dummies" tutorial.   

It seems like you didn't get it. Let me repeat it

In the free and volatile market of bitcoin you don't start promising full BTC refunds just to get surprised by a sudden increase in exchange rate.

Blaming someone else or some outside event is always easier than being a man and taking responsibility for your facts!

RS, what part of

The offer for refunds was made at the end of a long period of ~$100 price stability.  The spike to $1000+ was unexpected and unfortunately timed for those of us who had just used BTC to purchase ASIC pre-orders. 

did you not understand?

[RoadStress]

RS, what part of

The offer for refunds was made at the end of a long period of ~$100 price stability.  The spike to $1000+ was unexpected and unfortunately timed for those of us who had just used BTC to purchase ASIC pre-orders. 

did you not understand?

Please state the actual number of months of "stability". Was it more than 5 months?

[Syke]

The only reasonable interpretation is that the "refund in BTC" clause always meant "USD purchase price equivalent in BTC."  Ask any attorney with even a vague notion of contract law.

You have a very active imagination. Let's look at the actual wording.

The answer is if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid.

There is no way you can construe that to mean USD-equivalent. None. That is 100% clear. Full BTC refund.

[iCEBREAKER]

The only reasonable interpretation is that the "refund in BTC" clause always meant "USD purchase price equivalent in BTC."  Ask any attorney with even a vague notion of contract law.

You have a very active imagination. Let's look at the actual wording.

The answer is if you buy Baby Jet for 51 BitCoins today and it does not ship, you will be refunded the 51 BitCoins you paid.

There is no way you can construe that to mean USD-equivalent. None. That is 100% clear. Full BTC refund.

That's merely a post on an internet forum, not binding "actual wording" from the relevant TOS. 

It also assumed BTC would remain in the ~$100 trading band, not spike to $1000.  What if BTC had fallen to $1 or risen to $1,000,000?  Now do you see how silly the argument you are making is?  Of course you don't, because that would require setting aside your greed and being rational for a change.   

The first clue that your interpretation is absurd is when we find it leading to ridiculous demands for outrageous windfalls, or (in the case that BTC had went down) justifying refunds of less than the purchase price.

This issue was argued to death months ago.  Why are you bringing it up again now, when it is meaningless wailing and gnashing of teeth?

I guess you've never heard the phrase "DYODD."  The law w/r/t mail order refunds is clear and settled.  Do you just like to whinge about stuff you can do nothing about?   

[cedivad]

Why are you guys losing time with a blind idiot?