Pages:
Author

Topic: Butterflylabs Huge SCAM - page 61. (Read 415663 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
July 31, 2013, 06:00:54 AM
Quote
Treble damages provisions are often designed to make prosecuting a private right of action more economically feasible,[2] to encourage private enforcement,[3] or to deter wrongdoers from violating the law.[4] However, some states impose “automatic” treble damages. While trebling a nominal damages award will still yield only nominal damages, there is some incentive for bringing an action where substantial actual damages are guaranteed to be trebled. Among those states with automatic treble damages, some require a showing of intent or willfulness on the defendant’s part, while others require only a statutory violation. Still other states have a mechanism for treble or multiple damages but leave the trebling of damages to the court’s discretion (albeit sometimes constrained by specific criteria).

No one would dare take on BFL they're untouchable and most people are weak and scared of courts. Not to mention pussies!!!

The problem isn't really getting a judgment in a case of blatant fraud like this, but collecting against a bunch of fucking bums.  Look at the principals of BFL.  Convicts, trolls, just a bunch of fucking losers.  What are the odds any of these clowns have assets to collect?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 31, 2013, 05:54:39 AM
Quote
Treble damages provisions are often designed to make prosecuting a private right of action more economically feasible,[2] to encourage private enforcement,[3] or to deter wrongdoers from violating the law.[4] However, some states impose “automatic” treble damages. While trebling a nominal damages award will still yield only nominal damages, there is some incentive for bringing an action where substantial actual damages are guaranteed to be trebled. Among those states with automatic treble damages, some require a showing of intent or willfulness on the defendant’s part, while others require only a statutory violation. Still other states have a mechanism for treble or multiple damages but leave the trebling of damages to the court’s discretion (albeit sometimes constrained by specific criteria).

No one would dare take on BFL they're untouchable and most people are weak and scared of courts. Not to mention pussies!!!
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
July 31, 2013, 05:45:48 AM
Contacting police should be a last resort. Contacting your credit card provider should be the first.
Although BFL continue to anger 99% of their own customers, it's amazing how little they've learnt by their mistakes. Treat people (customers) right and they wont get sued. Arent refunds a part of consumer law in the US?

There's three levels of laws about refunds.  There are federal consumer protection laws, generally pretty anemic.

Most of the effective laws are state laws.  All states have laws based on the Uniform Commercial Code.  Many states, though, have their own consumer protection and anti-fraud laws.  In some of these states, you can collect double or triple damages from fraudulent practices.

To the extent BFL has marketed their products to these states, they are probably subject to long-arm jurisdiction and can be sued in that state by anyone with the gumption to walk into their nearest county courthouse.

E.g., are you in New Jersey?  Are you being refused a refund?  Google New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  See that phrase "treble damages" showing up in the results?  That's lawyerspeak for triple.  You can fuck their shit up.
newbie
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
July 30, 2013, 09:36:48 PM
Contacting police should be a last resort. Contacting your credit card provider should be the first.
Although BFL continue to anger 99% of their own customers, it's amazing how little they've learnt by their mistakes. Treat people (customers) right and they wont get sued. Arent refunds a part of consumer law in the US?
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1005
July 29, 2013, 03:42:50 PM
Looks like an attempt at a one man sting operation to me.  Not that there's anything wrong with that per se but it doesn't make for a very sympathetic plaintiff if it comes down to that.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 29, 2013, 03:19:11 PM
Yes. But he appeared to have attempted to do some due diligence.
Yes. But it was done after he paid the money. He is not an exception. It is a common mistake for the average BFL sponsor (customer).

I guess it's an expensive lesson learned. If you're going to send $22k to a vendor, better to do your due diligence first rather than after. I know I did a couple hours checking them out, and that was just for a $150 purchase.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
July 29, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
Yes. But he appeared to have attempted to do some due diligence.
Yes. But it was done after he paid the money. He is not an exception. It is a common mistake for the average BFL sponsor (customer).
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 29, 2013, 02:30:11 PM
I'm sorry. It's a lot of money. But I don't understand why you parted with it in the first place, quite honestly.
Maybe he thought he's ordering an ASIC from BFL?

Yes. But he appeared to have attempted to do some due diligence. Having done that, why would he place and order in July 2013 and complain a couple weeks later when he already knew that people who ordered the same unit a full year earlier had yet to receive theirs? Especially when he said the site was quite clear it might be two months or more til they get to his order. It's like me ordering today and complaining next week that I didn't get my order. Sorry. It just doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense to call a detective rather than his credit card company when the vendor fails to refund his transaction.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
July 29, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
I'm sorry. It's a lot of money. But I don't understand why you parted with it in the first place, quite honestly.
Maybe he thought he's ordering an ASIC from BFL?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 29, 2013, 12:20:01 PM

OK, so you saved your money and placed an order in Early July 2013, knowing full well at that time that they had just started shipping orders from mid 2012 (for reference, my early Sept 2012 order was delivered July 2, 2013 - just a jalapeño). And now you're upset that it might take a while, even though, at the time you ordered it, it said plainly that you were looking at at least 2 months until they shipped (or longer). And you're upset that another non-affiliated website shows you the time to break even without calculating for the increase in difficulty that will occur by the time you receive, which is also an unknown number? And then, you demanded a refund, which they declined. So you posted on their forums a solicitation to find other people to team together to have them investigated? So you went to the detectives about it?

A) Why in the world did you order on July 2, 2013 when you were already fully aware of the delays they were facing?

B) All they're selling you is hashing power. Whatever the network hash rate is, difficulty is, or value of bitcoin is at the time you receive it is nothing to do with the unit they're selling you.

C) So they declined to give you a refund. You're within a month of purchase, just call the credit card company and cancel that way. If you didn't use a credit card, paid by bankwire or worse, bitcoin, well, why did you do that knowing point A?

D) and of course they're not going to want their forums to be used to enlist people to try to get them in trouble.

I'm sorry. It's a lot of money. But I don't understand why you parted with it in the first place, quite honestly.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 29, 2013, 11:46:06 AM


http://angelitominer.atwebpages.com/
Quote
I asked for a refund which BFL denied. After they denied my refund I made a public post on the BFL forums asking everyone to write their experience with BFL and help me get together a bunch of unhappy customers so we can all explain to the detective in Kansas that we believe BFL really is playing dirty and operating in an unfair matter that no legit business should operate. So, what happened to my post? After 3-10 minutes of the post being posted the moderator and representative by the name of ‘Josh’ deleted and banned my IP address from the forums FOREVER. I have proof of this.

Looks like the shit is splattering all over the room after it hit the fan.
donator
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
July 29, 2013, 10:13:56 AM
It's beginning to look really ugly for anyone holding onto their BFL order that is not in the first month of orders. Jalapenos seem to be shipping at a decent clip but those who ordered singles/little singles/minirigs are being left in the dust.

BTC ROI for the little single I ordered (first week preorders were available) is now at the 6 month mark from my calculations.

we've discussed this at length. use USD roi calculation. if you get it today your USD break even point is roughly 2 weeks.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
July 29, 2013, 10:13:25 AM

I'm really sorry for your experience. I've compiled a manual for people like you on this forum half year ago.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/purchasing-bitcoin-asics-the-manual-136615

What method of payment did you use to pay BFL $22,484 USD?
newbie
Activity: 2
Merit: 0
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
July 29, 2013, 09:29:07 AM
BFL is the best company to learn a life lesson from. Understand it and most of all study it.

Learn something from this.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
July 29, 2013, 03:16:04 AM
It seems like now even Josh is starting to play himself as a victim.
Nothing new under the sun.



Charles Ponzi in 1920

Quote
Ponzi's rapid rise naturally drew suspicion. When a Boston financial writer suggested there was no way Ponzi could legally deliver such high returns in a short period of time, Ponzi sued for libel and won $500,000 in damages. As libel law in those days placed the burden of proof on the writer and the paper, this effectively neutralized any serious probes into his dealings for some time.

Quote
On July 24, 1920, the Boston Post printed a favorable article on Ponzi and his scheme that brought in investors faster than ever. At that time, Ponzi was making $250,000 a day. Ponzi's good fortune was increased by the fact that just below this favorable article, which seemed to imply that Ponzi was indeed returning 50% return on investment after only 45 days, was a bank advertisement that stated that the bank was paying 5% returns annually. The next business day after this article was published, Ponzi arrived at his office to find thousands of Bostonians waiting to give him their money.

Quote
The stories caused a panic run on the Securities Exchange Company. Ponzi paid out $2 million in three days to a wild crowd outside his office. He canvassed the crowd, passed out coffee and donuts, and cheerfully told them they had nothing to worry about. Many changed their minds and left their money with him. However, this attracted the attention of Daniel Gallagher, the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. Gallagher commissioned Edwin Pride to audit the Securities Exchange Company's books—an effort made difficult by the fact his bookkeeping system consisted merely of index cards with investors' names.

Quote
On August 11, it all came crashing down for Ponzi. First, the Post came out with a front-page story about his activities in Montreal 13 years earlier—including his forgery conviction and his role at Zarossi's scandal-ridden bank.

Read more!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi#Collapse_of_the_scheme
newbie
Activity: 9
Merit: 0
July 29, 2013, 02:57:12 AM
BFL has rotten.
legendary
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
July 29, 2013, 01:00:51 AM
BFL Not a scam in the true sense of the definition

Not true.

Are you saying that every BTC related scam is not a scam in the true sense of the definition because BTC is not money in the true sense of the definition? Is stealing BTC not a theft in the true sense of the definition because BTC is not money in the true sense of the definition? May be you forget that the "business" of Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi, (March 3, 1882 – January 18, 1949) was not a scam in the true sense of the definition (by that time)? However, since then the word "ponzi" became a synonym for finance related scam. In the same way the word "butterfly" will become a synonym for BTC related scam!

...

The definition:

Quote
Scam - A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle

BFL is a scam from day one of its existence. It is more than obvious now that it was planned to be a scam from the very beginning.
newbie
Activity: 55
Merit: 0
July 28, 2013, 09:59:45 PM
BFL Not a scam in the true sense of the definition, but a massive disappointment to anyone dealing with this company.

When I finally receive my 4x60GH/s, I dont think I will have a return on the investment. Not while 1 BTC = $100 USD and increasing difficulty.
Will anyone here still continue to mine even if the return is negative? (ie, hoping for prices to increase enough in future to make up for it?)
member
Activity: 117
Merit: 10
July 28, 2013, 09:47:21 PM
That was redundant, but unfortunately also is BFL's strategies.  It seems like now even Josh is starting to play himself as a victim.  Whether or no the has financial incentive to do so, he is a superstar.  Congratulations to him for at least superseding Hollywood, not that it is much of a compliment in terms of efficiency.
Pages:
Jump to: