No. Among many other things, undercapitalisation is a reason to pierce the corporate veil; iow, hold the people directly and personally responsible for the company's liabilities.
And that must have something to do with the people claiming to be broken, not to have enough to pay for the expenses of his family, and at the same time taking a month long vacation at the opposite side of the world. 
Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 33. (Read 880527 times)
Is the law that permissive?
No. Among many other things, undercapitalisation is a reason to pierce the corporate veil; iow, hold the people directly and personally responsible for the company's liabilities.
You guys are getting to aggressive. They weren't that incompetent. They managed to increase the salaries of the whole management multiple times while not having enough cash to ship more than a couple of miners a day. That must be a valuable skill in this business. They managed to not only completely ignore their customers, but to pay people to troll them, while bragging around conferences about their new EVO board, while they should have spent the travel, marketing, personal, etc, costs to ship miners. A valuable skill. As is negotiating deals that would have returned something only to the people negotiating them - that also must be a valuable skill.
HashFast was full of people with valuable skills. Hell, they that marketing guy even did a spinoff of this scam. You are just not looking it from the right prospective.
HashFast was full of people with valuable skills. Hell, they that marketing guy even did a spinoff of this scam. You are just not looking it from the right prospective.
So the US law lets companies that can't ship stuff to customers to increase the salaries of the whole management without a reason? If that's the case then what's holding companies to issue a $1M or $10M wage per month for the management? Give that wages and in 2 months you declare bankruptcy. Is the law that permissive?
You guys are getting to aggressive. They weren't that incompetent. They managed to increase the salaries of the whole management multiple times while not having enough cash to ship more than a couple of miners a day. That must be a valuable skill in this business. They managed to not only completely ignore their customers, but to pay people to troll them, while bragging around conferences about their new EVO board, while they should have spent the travel, marketing, personal, etc, costs to ship miners. A valuable skill. As is negotiating deals that would have returned something only to the people negotiating them - that also must be a valuable skill.
HashFast was full of people with valuable skills. Hell, they that marketing guy even did a spinoff of this scam. You are just not looking it from the right prospective.
HashFast was full of people with valuable skills. Hell, they that marketing guy even did a spinoff of this scam. You are just not looking it from the right prospective.
I don't believe for a second that piles of the fastest 28nm Bitcoin ASIC ever made sat around collecting dust until they're worthless.
Believe it or not, that's exactly what happened and is still happening, thanks to the monumentally ill-advised and self-defeating move of getting courts and lawyers involved. Some chips are being held hostage by Uniquify/Signetics, with many still in wafers.
As many predicted, the creditor committee has been about as effective as a car with five steering wheels.
What about the monumentally retardness inside the HashFast team who only delivered one single batch of miners until May and no MPP? Chips were sitting on shelves collecting dust long before any bankruptcy started. What about that? Why are you only blaming the move the the courts and not blaming the team that got into this situation? Please tell me more abut the super-duper team and about their efforts to NOT let chips sit on shelves. What exactly did the HF team do to avoid getting into this situation? By the looks they did absolutely nothing or they failed on their every attempt.
I don't believe for a second that piles of the fastest 28nm Bitcoin ASIC ever made sat around collecting dust until they're worthless.
Believe it or not, that's exactly what happened and is still happening, thanks to the monumentally ill-advised and self-defeating move of getting courts and lawyers involved. Some chips are being held hostage by Uniquify/Signetics, with many still in wafers.
As many predicted, the creditor committee has been about as effective as a car with five steering wheels.
We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot. Look at the η-factor for other 28nm designs.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/process-invariant-hardware-metric-hash-meters-per-second-factor-119668
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/process-invariant-hardware-metric-hash-meters-per-second-factor-119668
The η-factor thing is total nonsense for ASICs if they're thermally limited.
Also, KnC is using a standard cell design, not an eASIC 'easycopy' or whatever. eASIC is just one of the companies they work with.
For a 400 GH/s ASIC, we are talking about:
200 cores @ 2 GHz -> 100 mm2 die (probably to high supply voltage required to meet power constraints)
400 cores @ 1 GHz -> 200 mm2 die (most feasible solution)
800 cores @ 500 MHz -> 400 mm2 die (would be the complete reticle size)
I don't say, that such an implementation is impossible. But it's is extremely risky and the thermal and power issue will be the hell. And based on what they have shown so far, I would say they are far away from tape-out.
The only thing which confuses me a bit is that Uniquify LOI. Why should Uniquify risk its reputation with false statements?
But maybe they just don't care about it, because the Bitcoin ASIC business always will be low volume and not that important for them.
I don't believe for a second that piles of the fastest 28nm Bitcoin ASIC ever made sat around collecting dust until they're worthless.
The company that got the "fastest" chip went bankrupt faster than any other company, didn't deliver one full batch of miners and managed to spend all the money from 4 batches of miners on chips and tricks. Did I miss something?
Nope. That sums it up nicely.
Quote
You have no remorse and no consideration for the fact that your company has exploited hundreds of people.
People lost their savings or got into debt. Many people lost their accomodation, because they couldn't pay up the rent.
People lost their savings or got into debt. Many people lost their accomodation, because they couldn't pay up the rent.
I've been desperately following this thread and searching the internet for more information about my my losses to HF, this line is so far the most truthful thing I have read so far, I know that I have lost my money and I accept that, what hurts me more is the fact I talked my wife in letting me borrow against our home loan to purchase it and now I feel I have let her down.
How do you feel about HF's assets being auctioned off ASAP as I suggested months ago, when they still had some value?
Do you think you can win in a bidding war, given the resources Simon and Eduardo have available to buy the severely depreciated assets?
https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/120713/
^^^ I like the part where Gallo says "I told you so" about the failed Liquidbits deal.
I have little doubt I could outbid them. The winner of an auction will be the one that values the assets higher than the people they are bidding against. And you are presuming I would even be a bidder at this point in time.
Gallo is the one that was pushing the LBs deal that never would have settled and wasted everyone's time and chance of getting their money back. A deal that wasted around 10M in auction value during the negotiation with a "company" that had not proven they had the clean capital to honor the deal.
The only thing which confuses me a bit is that Uniquify LOI. Why should Uniquify risk its reputation with false statements?
Which part is false? We believe one previously announced effort at 28nm is using eASIC, so their cores are *much* bigger than they have to be. Of course their startup costs are much lower too, but it impacts the performance a lot. Look at the η-factor for other 28nm designs.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/process-invariant-hardware-metric-hash-meters-per-second-factor-119668
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/process-invariant-hardware-metric-hash-meters-per-second-factor-119668
The η-factor thing is total nonsense for ASICs if they're thermally limited.
Also, KnC is using a standard cell design, not an eASIC 'easycopy' or whatever. eASIC is just one of the companies they work with.
For a 400 GH/s ASIC, we are talking about:
200 cores @ 2 GHz -> 100 mm2 die (probably to high supply voltage required to meet power constraints)
400 cores @ 1 GHz -> 200 mm2 die (most feasible solution)
800 cores @ 500 MHz -> 400 mm2 die (would be the complete reticle size)
I don't say, that such an implementation is impossible. But it's is extremely risky and the thermal and power issue will be the hell. And based on what they have shown so far, I would say they are far away from tape-out.
The only thing which confuses me a bit is that Uniquify LOI. Why should Uniquify risk its reputation with false statements?
But maybe they just don't care about it, because the Bitcoin ASIC business always will be low volume and not that important for them.
That is a relief. I was worried that it originated with promoting that ICEDRILL illegal issuance that the SEC is now sending out letters about asking people who the "promoters" of these deals were. That is why I found it strange that you kept typing it, almost like you were taunting the SEC. Which I found surprising (not from people like Josh) since most people slowing walk away from a hornet's nest that is hanging precariously instead of poking it.
I choose my handle years before ID existed. But let's get back on topic.
How do you feel about HF's assets being auctioned off ASAP as I suggested months ago, when they still had some value?
Do you think you can win in a bidding war, given the resources Simon and Eduardo have available to buy the severely depreciated assets?
https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/120713/
^^^ I like the part where Gallo says "I told you so" about the failed Liquidbits deal.
When did HF finished delivering Batch 1? What do you mean by "HF didn't anticipate having to spend "all the money" on PCB reworks plus other expenses (and later, refunds)"? Didn't they hire two or three PCB contractors? Why did they spend all the money on PCB reworks since they hired two or three companies to do the PCB job? I don't understand. Why did they have to pay extra for something they paid in the first place? Please explain.
The answers to your questions are in this thread and/or available in the public documentation.
Have you been under a rock for the last year? Most of us saw all of this happen as it occurred and don't need a recap...
Ok.
HashFail!
When did HF finished delivering Batch 1? What do you mean by "HF didn't anticipate having to spend "all the money" on PCB reworks plus other expenses (and later, refunds)"? Didn't they hire two or three PCB contractors? Why did they spend all the money on PCB reworks since they hired two or three companies to do the PCB job? I don't understand. Why did they have to pay extra for something they paid in the first place? Please explain.
The answers to your questions are in this thread and/or available in the public documentation.
Have you been under a rock for the last year? Most of us saw all of this happen as it occurred and don't need a recap...
If HF spent all the money on chips and on PCB with what money were they supposed to build the MPP?
Since you will not answer me to that let me ask you another question: Care to elaborate on HashFast back-up plan if they were unable to fully deliver their first batch of miners? What was HF doing until May when the bankruptcy started and why didn't they deliver their MPP for batch 1?
Since you will not answer me to that let me ask you another question: Care to elaborate on HashFast back-up plan if they were unable to fully deliver their first batch of miners? What was HF doing until May when the bankruptcy started and why didn't they deliver their MPP for batch 1?
HF didn't anticipate having to spend "all the money" on PCB reworks plus other expenses (and later, refunds).
AFAIK, HF did "fully deliver their first batch of miners" or refund the orders.
HF was dealing with the PCB reworks, chip testing, cash flow, quality control, and other constraints until May.
Obviously Batch 2+ had priority over MPP and only so many boards could be made at a time.
Have you been under a rock for the last year? Most of us saw all of this happen as it occurred and don't need a recap...
When did HF finished delivering Batch 1? What do you mean by "HF didn't anticipate having to spend "all the money" on PCB reworks plus other expenses (and later, refunds)"? Didn't they hire two or three PCB contractors? Why did they spend all the money on PCB reworks since they hired two or three companies to do the PCB job? I don't understand. Why did they have to pay extra for something they paid in the first place? Please explain.
What is the origin of "always bet on ice"?
It was a silly joke that caught on for some strange reason. People love to hate it! What is the origin of "always bet on ice"?
It was a silly joke that caught on for some strange reason. People love to hate it!
Have you been under a rock for the last year? Most of us saw all of this happen as it occurred and don't need a recap...
What is the origin of "always bet on ice"? Jump to: