Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 121. (Read 880461 times)

Yes, at the Bitcoin Conference in Amsterdam.

Amsterdam?  Or is that industry slang for some sort of meeting or other location?  

If he's in Amsterdam, is he running?  I say that quasi-seriously, for fear that some financial assets have been offshored.

Ding! to Solarion's observation that if you push people to the point that they have nothing to lose by suing, well, that's how I made my decision.  I'm very interested in the truth too, and I see a possible bankruptcy process as being our best shot at getting it.

The petition must have pissed you off for real to be so desperate. It's a good sign.

1. Assumptions are made to be proved, yes... you should have finished reading that sentence... maybe you would begin to understand... you should never go on assumptions going after a company... thats the most asinine dumbass thing you could do, hence why i am against the petition, and thanks for proving my point about it.
2. Yes you do start with the lies, prove them lies, and crush their soul. you cannot prove but a handful of things... so you failed there..
3. see, saying something like "this is the only thing that could be done" shows just how little you know... when you are literally that stupid, there isn't much that can be done for you. Once again, going over the "be smarter than you enemy" thing, yeah... making them just do something for shits and giggles isn't smart, its dumb and eliminates chances that were available, that could of been seen if you actually paid attention.
4.Hey.. like you said, there is alot of things that were off the books right? here's your sign.
5.refer to 4.
6. if you are so blind to think that action doesn't remove possiblities... you need help, every choice, every action changes outcomes of situations. I can count 9 possibilities that were nuked because the petition... the fact you can't think of ONE... shows you shouldn't even be talking here... sadly you misunderstood, They burn the assets KNOWING there will be "legal shit" to come... once again "You can't milk those" fits... when you go after the CEO and others, when they have nothing to take, then what?
7. Please refer to 6, about burning assets.  Hashfast has screwed alot of people... do you seriously think they are magically done? with DeCastro's background?  that must just blow your mind...

Anyway, Barber has been spotted @ AMS. He must be really worried for the future of the company he tried so hard to kill.

> i don't like working off assumptions
That's why assumptions are there to be proved.

> especially when it comes to legal action
What should people start with? With the lies they told us, assuming them to be the true truth?

> this petition did nothing but put a dying dog into super protective mode
This petition was the only thing that could be done and while you will define it an assumption, it's also the only thing that finally made HashLabs move their ass and do something, after months of trolling and ignoring. What they always and continuously underestimate is the amount of legal shit that properly motivated customers will throw at them for screwing everyone so badly. If they think that will simply get away with "our core competence was focused on the asic that we taped out months before" or "actually, it was focused on another asic that we financed with out customers money without them knowing", well, they will have another thought coming.

> vanished
Sure, the hardware, maybe. Maybe resold to VMC and to their customers. Maybe I've one here in the other room and I've a video of me opening it and looking at the revision stickers, that will be related to the manufacturing line. Maybe. Maybe thrown at the sea. Doesn't really matter. You live in an era where your government kills people basing on metadatas.

> they are going to probably sell the stock to someone for pennies
Only to have the transaction reversed one month later by the judge. You know they can't do that.

> but this doors are closed now
Nothing closed without HashLabs deciding to close it. If HashLabs thinks that they can keep burning customers's assets without any additional future "legal shit", well, they are very welcome in doing so. It's gonna be a long ride, but it's gonna be worth it.

> or are "liquidating" under their own terms...
That again, they are not legally entitled to do (at least, if they are not solvent).

How do you "outthink" scamfast into delivering products or refunds? They have the money, they have the gear, they have the information. This is a product that rapidly deteriorates in value. The sh1tbags pushed people to the point where they have nothing left to lose by litigating and unsurprisingly people litigated.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

forcing someones hand... indirectly caused it, the direct cause was shitbags to begin with, ill agree there, but sometimes its better to outthink the shitbag.


We will see about that one... do you seriously think edwwwwaaaaardddooooo is beyond that? seriously?

So...

HashFast no longer has a pulse?

Is Amy going to get a job at BFL now?

Did the attorneys hit HashFast where it mattered or is it too soon to call them a poorly run scam?

They were doing that anyway. They've been selling the same gear twice for some time. Months late on shipping products to their original victims and they're sending stupid scam offers to "upgrade" their victims to the back of the line on their latest vaporware(bring your own PSU please). The involuntary bankruptcy petition isn't the cause of the fraudulent behavior, scamfast's crooked sh1tbag management is.

It would probably benefit you to read up on the bankruptcy laws for both 7 and 11.   Money does not "disappear" and assets cannot be "sold for pennies".   This type of behavior is not accepted by the court.

and thats part of the problem, i don't like working off assumptions, especially when it comes to legal action... at this point im fairly certain this petition did nothing but put a dying dog into super protective mode, those "assets that aren't on the books" aren't there anymore, meaning they are gone, vanished... they are going to probably sell the stock to someone for pennies on the dollar and be like, "this is all we have now, a few thousand dollars, here you go" all bitcoins transferred and this LLC becomes nothing more than a shell trying to pay off refunds, which it fails at.
I truly don't see any outcome at this point that will benefit anyone, there was at least a few chances going other routes, but this doors are closed now. With amy being shitcanned, thats a pretty clear signal that they are either heading for chap 11, or are "liquidating" under their own terms...

It's the assets the LLC (and the directors) don't have on the books we will have to go after. What do you think they did since January while they didn't gave a shit about us? Statistically, what do those mining companies do instead of shipping to their customers? I don't care about how smart they are, they must have done some mistakes.

I meant new management as in court-appointed management.

If in the face of the Chapter 7 "forced" filing they are firing, as other people noted, the only person trying to make a difference, and she says the company "couldn't stay afloat", I'm assuming that means a Ch. 11 bankruptcy filing from HF is coming soon, although I suppose Eddie's perfidy has no known bounds.  

Like, maybe, he'll say all those bitcoins burned up in the fire?  :p

How kind of you to summarize all of your posts into one word for us.

yawn...

You should definitely do some research bro.  Here's a little light reading for you.  Take a look at the bold its only one of the many reasons HF principals could be fucked.  This entire forum has no idea how the REAL business world works.  The very act of using CUSTOMER pre-order money for product development and general overhead expenses (salary, rent etc etc) will allow a lawyer to easily prove the LLC was under cap'd.  That will pierce the corporate veil and could very easily leave the principals on the hook personally.

United States[edit]
See also: US corporate law
In the United States, corporate veil piercing is the most litigated issue in corporate law.[24] Although courts are reluctant to hold an active shareholder liable for actions that are legally the responsibility of the corporation, even if the corporation has a single shareholder, they will often do so if the corporation was markedly noncompliant, or if holding only the corporation liable would be singularly unfair to the plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, no bright-line rule exists and the ruling is based on common law precedents. In the United States, different theories, most important "alter ego" or "instrumentality rule", attempted to create a piercing standard. Mostly, they rest upon three basic prongs—namely "unity of interest and ownership", "wrongful conduct" and "proximate cause". However, the theories failed to articulate a real-world approach which courts could directly apply to their cases. Thus, courts struggle with the proof of each prong and rather analyze all given factors. This is known as "totality of circumstances".[25]

There is also the matter of what jurisdiction the corporation is incorporated in if the corporation is authorized to do business in more than one state. All corporations have one specific state (their "home" state) to which they are incorporated as a "domestic" corporation, and if they operate in other states, they would apply for authority to do business in those other states as a "foreign" corporation. In determining whether or not the corporate veil may be pierced, the courts are required to use the laws of the corporation's home state. This issue can be significant, for example, the rules for allowing a corporate veil to be pierced are much more liberal in California than they are in Nevada, thus, the owner(s) of a corporation operating in California would be subject to different potential for the corporation's veil to be pierced if the corporation was to be sued, depending on whether the corporation was a California domestic corporation or was a Nevada foreign corporation operating in California.

Generally, the plaintiff has to prove that the incorporation was merely a formality and that the corporation neglected corporate formalities and protocols, such as voting to approve major corporate actions in the context of a duly authorized corporate meeting. This is quite often the case when a corporation facing legal liability transfers its assets and business to another corporation with the same management and shareholders. It also happens with single person corporations that are managed in a haphazard manner. As such, the veil can be pierced in both civil cases and where regulatory proceedings are taken against a shell corporation.

Factors for courts to consider[edit]
Absence or inaccuracy of corporate records;
Concealment or misrepresentation of members;
Failure to maintain arm's length relationships with related entities;
Failure to observe corporate formalities in terms of behavior and documentation;
Failure to pay dividends;
Intermingling of assets of the corporation and of the shareholder;
Manipulation of assets or liabilities to concentrate the assets or liabilities;
Non-functioning corporate officers and/or directors;
Significant undercapitalization of the business entity (capitalization requirements vary based on industry, location, and specific company circumstances);
Siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant shareholder(s);
Treatment by an individual of the assets of corporation as his/her own;
Was the corporation being used as a "façade" for dominant shareholder(s) personal dealings; alter ego theory;
It is important to note that not all of these factors need to be met in order for the court to pierce the corporate veil. Further, some courts might find that one factor is so compelling in a particular case that it will find the shareholders personally liable.

Here's another interesting piece,
A simple example would be where a businessman has left his job as a director and has signed a contract to not compete with the company he has just left for a period of time. If he sets up a company which competed with his former company, technically it would be the company and not the person competing. But it is likely a court would say that the new company was just a "sham", a "fraud" or some other phrase,[1] and would still allow the old company to sue the man for breach of contract. A court would look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation.

Come on people when are you all going to learn to understand the real business world.  A company simply cannot take millions of dollars of customer money, fail to develop a product and go bankrupt and tell the customers sorry we tried but to bad...  Even if it was all honest mistakes, that isn't how it works, if they don't pay everyone back the lawyers will pierce the corporate veil and go after these clowns.  An LLC isn't an instant "I WIN" button for the share holders.

This is a premium company.

Scamfast consistently fuks their own customers(creditors), so their customers(creditors) attempt to wrest control of the company away from crooked management. In response scamfast crooked management retaliates with more screw jobs.

+1

I was scheduled to have a call with amy this afternoon and last minintue I had requested to push it back 3-4 hours and then 45 mins before the call she sends me a message saying that she was just laid off.

Just typical: HashFast's response to the Chapter 7 Petition was the fire the one person that was making any kind of difference to the customers.