Bitcoin Forum
June 25, 2017, 10:28:47 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19  (Read 90120 times)
BadBitcoin (James Sutton)
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 451



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
 #681

I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses.  This is a business, it has failed.  When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything.   I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can.  If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.  

Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".

Your account name should be HashDragQueen.
why are you here? what are you trying to do?

and you?  what's your plans?

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me  Sad

Take a look at my  machine learning/economics/engineering blog!
www.learningann.wordpress.com
1498386527
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498386527

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498386527
Reply with quote  #2

1498386527
Report to moderator
1498386527
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498386527

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498386527
Reply with quote  #2

1498386527
Report to moderator
1498386527
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1498386527

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1498386527
Reply with quote  #2

1498386527
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
heatstroke
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 04:45:12 PM
 #682

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me  Sad

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.
BadBitcoin (James Sutton)
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 451



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 04:51:46 PM
 #683

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me  Sad

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.

now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.

Take a look at my  machine learning/economics/engineering blog!
www.learningann.wordpress.com
heatstroke
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 05:09:23 PM
 #684

First off, I asked first, and to someone else.

Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.

PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me  Sad

Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents.  However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms.  Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.

The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank.  If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound.  If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.

With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.

now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.

Of course not, 'insured' to hashking meant "yeah dude, your money's safe, I'm good for it."  Which is probably the same insurance policy that numerous other 'banks' have.

All I'm saying is that to someone who was looking to invest, they probably saw that hashking advertised himself as "insured" and presumed it was just like the FDIC.  Ignorance of basic financial terminology is not a valid excuse.  Which is why a 15 year old should not be running an investment fund or bank or whatever this is.

In an Ideal economy, the bitcoin SEC would be cleaning hashking out to ensure those 'insured' deposits get paid back, but that's the beauty of an unregulated free market, isn't it?  The only thing guaranteed is laughter.
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 05:48:37 PM
 #685

he has no contractual obligation in paying,

 Huh
What makes you say that?
coinft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 187



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 06:03:46 PM
 #686


Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...

First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.

Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 06:43:22 PM
 #687

I signed and agreed to the terms when I signed the bitcoin transaction to him with my private keys.

heatstroke
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:04:19 PM
 #688


Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...

First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.



Actually I understand contract law pretty well which is why I doubt that any of hashking's 'contracts' are enforceable.  A couple of emails or forum posts back and forth are barely more credible than an unwitnessed oral contract.  Hashking also claims to be 15, which makes contracts nonbinding on his end, since under-18 year olds don't have agency in the eyes of most courts anyway.
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:15:10 PM
 #689

Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying

You mean, he has no prosecutable/enforceable obligations, so lenders can't do anything if he doesn't follow his contract and pay his real debt in a pseudonymous currency. I agree though, he will prove that he's a big man if he pays back, and his lies can be forgiven at that point.

Your perspective also seems to conflict with the ethic of reciprocity. I would like to live in a world where promises matter, and so do you.

In addition to that, if you don't have a contractual obligation to me when you publicly promise something, then when is there a contractual obligation ever in the Bitcoin world? The highest extent we "sign" documents is clicking a checkbox, and even that is rare.
hashking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:32:22 PM
 #690

It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse.  I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again.  I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet.  Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer.  I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now.  My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can. 
BadBitcoin (James Sutton)
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 451



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 08:48:43 PM
 #691

It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse.  I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again.  I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet.  Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer.  I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now.  My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can. 

+1, even if all these blowhards who think they own the forums say otherwise, you have my support hash.

Take a look at my  machine learning/economics/engineering blog!
www.learningann.wordpress.com
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 09:05:58 PM
 #692

It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse.  I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again.  I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet.  Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer.  I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now.  My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can.  

While I may disagree with:

1) What you did with the deposits
2) The method you use for paying back
3) Your refusal to communicate

I am happy you are going to at least pay me back Smiley

The scammer disucssion is total futile as I said before. Who cares whether he has a tag on an online forum? Just drop it (and especially non-account holders, please stop gloating and gtfo).
crosby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 366


#RIP freemoney


View Profile WWW
September 19, 2012, 09:14:20 PM
 #693

Hashking,

Thanks for being there when I needed you


Get your BTC and LTC at www.betcoinpartners.com/c/2/374 with FREEROLLS + Daily & Weekly Bonuses + Satellites + ON DEMAND tournaments + Instant Deposit + Instant Withdrawals + RING games + GTD Tournament + On Demand Satellite, + LIVE DEALER CASINO + SPORTSBOOK + 100% WELCOME BONUS www.betcoinpartners.com/c/2/374  150 btc ($100,000) gtd monthly, 75 btc ($50,000) gtd weekly and 10 BIG daily gtd ranging 0.5 btc to up to 20 btc
heatstroke
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 44


View Profile
September 19, 2012, 09:24:42 PM
 #694

Hashking also claims to be 15, which makes contracts nonbinding on his end, since under-18 year olds don't have agency in the eyes of most courts anyway.

Hint: He was sarcasming all over your face.

Well that I did not know.  And it's not like 'teenage financial genius (who is probably running some kind of scam)' is a unique thing on these forums.
wachtwoord
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 19, 2012, 09:35:02 PM
 #695

It would have been clear if you had read the few posts following the post.
hashking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
September 20, 2012, 01:31:04 AM
 #696

Payments sent out. 
CecilNiosaki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
September 20, 2012, 01:45:53 AM
 #697


Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...

First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.



Actually I understand contract law pretty well which is why I doubt that any of hashking's 'contracts' are enforceable.  A couple of emails or forum posts back and forth are barely more credible than an unwitnessed oral contract.  Hashking also claims to be 15, which makes contracts nonbinding on his end, since under-18 year olds don't have agency in the eyes of most courts anyway.

A single email with a response is actually an enforceable contract.
IveBeenBit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448



View Profile
September 20, 2012, 02:29:19 AM
 #698

It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse.  I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again.  I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet.  Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer.  I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now.  My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can. 

The problem is that you admittedly lied in the past about the nature of your operation and then provided ZERO information the the people who you defrauded about specifics of you payback plan. I see you are making daily payments to your creditors. This doesn't make you honorable; it makes you the least bad of the scammers. Congratulations. There are people like me, who had a significant amount of money in your "guaranteed insured" plan. When you openly defaulted I had to ask myself:

1) Will he attempt to pay me back (it appears that you are, so far)
2) WHEN will he pay me back
3) What percentage will be returned to me

I had to make a decision to either trust you (didn't work out so well the 1st time) or sell your debt for pennies on the dollar. Recall that Pirate's debt sold for 70% and dropped to under 20% within a week, so delaying a decision could be very costly.

So now you have all these people in limbo that you have stolen money from and you want to whine about them "beating a dead horse" and picking on you.

The fact is that you are a thief and your claims of "trying to do the right thing" ring hollow as long as you continue to ignore the needs of your creditors. They need information that you can easily provide to them for them to manage their assets. Instead, you give them the finger when they ask such presumptuous questions like "I know you are slowly paying back. When will you get to me?"

I also see a bunch of people that were lied to and stolen from, who now have to grovel and kiss the ass of the guy who ripped them off in the feeble hope that debasing themselves thusly will win them favorable treatment. It happened with Pirate, NCKrazze and now with you, and it's fucking pathetic and a sad spectacle to watch.
chungenhung
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134


View Profile
September 23, 2012, 02:45:50 AM
 #699

Don't see hashking posting here for 2 days. Anyone got any payments from him?

Trading MtGox USD for Dwolla/ACH deposit/Chase cash deposit
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90115.0
Buy/Sell Call/Put Bitcoin options https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99853.0
hashking
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
September 23, 2012, 12:46:37 PM
 #700

More payments sent out.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 »
  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!