wow, i am really impressed. thank you iCE:
My comment about cypherdoc being a lieing piece of shit had nothing to do with the court system. It had everything to do with him whining and crying to Maxwell about being a loser who lost money in order to get him to retract his negative rating when in reality he was sitting on a cool 3000 BTC which used to be in Hashfast victims wallets.
As for the court, I guess I am more of a Libertarian than you at this point. I have close to zero confidence in them and by-n-large don't give a shit about what these corrupt asswipes say.
It is the case that I fund the justice system through my taxes and I would not shed a tear if they make cypherdoc squeal. The enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes. Same goes for other Libertarian scammers who didn't pay attention to the old adage "If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
I happen to agree with the court that it is inappropriate for what's left of Hashfast to attach cypherdoc's 3000 BTC at the present time. Again, if they rightly or wrongly do him much greater 'violence' in the future, well, golly gee wilikers...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Cypherdoc made no allowance for his being a clueless jackoff when he was shilling hard for Hashfast. Yes, those who didn't do their own due diligence on the guy (and the company and Bitcoin itself) and lost money (edit: or lost something) and they are primarily to blame, but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears if cypherdoc takes a hit for his own (very optional) role in the smoking crater that the endeavor very predictably became.
So you prefer to believe gmax's gossip rather than consult primary sources and form your own opinion? Good luck with that!This isn't the first time we've seen someone hypocritically selectively declare how little they care for courts' and judges' opinions, just because the court/judge in question failed to confirm their preexisting prejudgments. When you lose on the facts, pound the table and attack the venue, right?
Plenty of people (including myself and presumably gmax) did their due diligence before ordering from HF. But that is no guarantee of success when objective business conditions later become unfavorable to an insurmountable degree.
You are certainly not "more of a Libertarian" than I. A real Libertarian would not ignore court proceedings/findings/rulings simply because,
and only after, they failed to reinforced his preferred narrative. You seem to think that Libertarians are anarchists, who despise courts and judges. Big mistake, you amateur.
Libertarians don't believe simply doing your own due diligence guarantees you won't lose money on a venture (
especially an ultra-high-risk gamble involving a brand new, very ambitious BTC ASIC start-up). That's another big amateur mistake.
The broad problem of Deep Capture does not necessarily mean everything done by the courts (or police, etc.) is automatically wrong. EG, in the narrow example of Frap.doc's coins we saw the court reject its Capturer's (Katten Muchen Rosenman) demand to jam their blood funnel into the nearest thing that smells like money.
That's your third big amateur mistake. I suggest you read Anarcy, State, and Utopia and get a clue about what "libertarian" actually means.
"very predictably became?"Please, point out where you (psychically?) predicted HF would become a "smoking crater" or STFU about your asinine 20/20 hindsight and egregious Monday Morning Quarterbacking. You don't get to say 'I told you so' when you did not, in fact, tell us so.
If the bankruptcy was so very predictable, why did gmax and dozens of others of old time and expert Bitcoiners fail to notice?I swear to God...you people...with your retroactive, after-the-fact, so-called predictions...
