Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 5. (Read 880447 times)

Hi Icetard and Armyof1Idiot!

I just dropped by to say that this original petitioner remains happy he petitioned!  Sorry your panties are still twirled up about it all.

Now I want to go check out that Cockmeier thread.

Perezoso

There's an entire thread dedicated to this guy!

Hook-nosed people are evil
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hook-nosed-people-are-evil-1104953

Looks like Cockmeier has a new gig: https://www.linkedin.com/in/abramkottmeier

They had the preorders long before the chip.

Get the order right.

The case number is 15-03011 in US Bankruptcy Court Northern California.  Check out document #1 toward the bottom of the page.  The case is against cypherdoc aka Marc A. Lowe an eye doctor in California.

Can you find us an excerpt or passage discussing this? I had a look but there are 100s of pages it could be hiding in.

and another one.

just querying resetting the clock, i just wanted to close some tickets by myself from some supposed mining industry from scamming verisign to knc knowing that relativity is more precious than philosophy or a simple poor Husky...

You'd think, but I've never seen his feathers so rustled so quickly.  Perhaps he didn't quite dot all those 'i's and cross those 't's.

If Ralph made an extraordinarily ridiculous creditor claim (as poster pmorici claimed earlier on this board) and IF he also tied that claim to some function of his employment compnesation at Hashfast, then the poster would have had to have reported income and paid income tax on the amount in order to become a creditor.   IF that is the case, then yes, CA and the IRS would be interested in that fact.   It would either mean his claim was fraudulent (and submitted to a court) or he committed tax evasion.

I doubt Ralph would be that stupid so I would expect his claim that is filed with the court, is based on his AFTER tax purchase of equipment.

Yeah, cypherdoc wasn't a victim in any sense of the word.  He made a spectacular sum of money off this fraud and unlike most customers got a full refund.  Even though Hashfast's narrative was that "refunds bankrupted the company" in reality they refunded a very small percentage of customers totaling a low six figure number in USD terms and cypherdoc was one of them.

I just found out about this and it blew me away.  When the crap hit the fan and hashfast refused to make good on their promises to early customers I'd down-rated cypherdoc-- after all, he traded on his reputation to convince others to buy and when it didn't go as he presented if his reputation didn't take a hit, what good is reputation as a signal?   Subsequently he convinced me that in spite of his paid shilling he was mostly just another victim of this mess and convinced me to remove the rating; the shilling was crappy, but everyone makes mistakes and his "losses" in hashfast surely were enough punishment.

Today I read that litigation and discovered that he actually received 3000 BTC for his shilling services plus other considerations (and even a refund on an order), and walked with it while so many of the rest of us got squat. What the ?!?! So much for just another victim!  I've gone and restored my negative rating, damn.

The most recent hearing was interesting.  A former Hashfast employee showed up and told the judge he handled inputting customer orders into Salesforce and that he thinks that money was siphoned from the company based on the totals he saw when he worked there.

I think they wanted to protect their preorder money, and didn't consider they could do a Spondoolies and part refund. Maybe there is something else we're not privvy to that pushed them down this path, as as we've all concluded no sane person (with hindsight at least) would have replicated what they did.

If I remember correctly I think the chip could do a minimum of 0.8W/GH (I may be wrong). If it went out in Octomber (as it was promised) then yes they would have killed it. Even in December a 0.8W/Gh was very good.

But trying tons of board/substrate revisions just to get the maximum speed is utterly idiotic instead of delivering lower speed miners.

no just a select few geniuses that THOUGHT it was in their OWN best interest to do the petition, it was quite obvious to most that they were wrong.

Sure, how much do you think was put into each board? from factory i'd guesstimate around 1000-1200 a board(including the chip) someone please correct me if i am wrong but they had to make minimums to order, i think the minimum was 5k to 8k? so lets take the low cost... $5,000,000 wasted per revision, Total income about 45 mil or something? 4 bad revisions? 20 mil literally thrown away/recycled...in time and everything including R&D... can you see why i may just be a little mad at the substrate designer and management?

Let me first start with the premise that i thought everyone was made clear of... hashfast was a scam from very conception of the company according to alot of the "special" people in this forum... The fact that they created something that did function goes against the grain of those "intellectuals"
"Exit scam" is entirely different from it being a scam from the get go, unfortunately that is how this whole ordeal started, people called it a scam with knowing 0 facts... except for two things, they haven't received their equipment, and hashfast was quiet.
Tell me, if you were determined to do something, even if you were a complete dumbass, would you still attempt?
Thats exactly what happened when they were forced to act by the petitioners... in the talks i and others made it completely and absolutely clear that they would fight it and this petition would cause nothing but a downward spiral making sure NOBODY gets anything except for the lawyers if the goal was recovery of funds... This was back in January of last year when talks with gallo literally just started. (well, kinda... i think october was the first bit of communication about other alternatives)

I will have to say i hold some form of responsibility to the petitioners, they were made fully aware of what their actions would do... and it happened EXACTLY how they were told... The initial blunders were on hashfast, the attempted recovery blunder was on the petitioners.
if they would have listened to a fairly large group of individuals, they would have had full refunds right now, and there would have been new management and for the love of God, a new board designer...
If memory serves, the signing petitioners are going to be paying a hefty price of fees that will not be provided them from liquidation... This is a small bit of justice for the creditors, but not much.

What Hashfast did isn't called "exit scam". The proper name is "tunneling".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_(fraud)

Wow, that is literally a description of BFL. They had the chip, they had money, they had preorders and still managed to throw it.

You seem to be implying it's the customers fault that this whole thing went south.

Can you explain what exactly happened to the millions of dollars? I've tried asking Icebreaker, but his best excuse is "adverse market conditions ate the money".

HF collected $15/gh AFTER most of the hardware development was complete and paid for. It should have cost less than $0.5/gh to produce the hardware. Where did the money go?

IMO the lawsuit wasn't the reason HF failed, it was just the straw that broke the camels back. If there was no lawsuit, there would have been another straw. The cause of failure was pretty clearly the repeated negligence/incompetence of management. (and the disappearance of millions of dollars)


This isn't really sound logic at all. What if they started out legit, but because of the repeated fuckups, shooting themselves in the foot, and legal issues, they decided to pull an exit scam via bankruptcy fraud?

PS: to everyone quoting Icebreaker, please do what 99% of everyone on this forum has done and just click the ignore button next to his name. Regardless of the topic, arguing with him will immediately degrade the debate into a shit slinging contest where he will declare himself the victor 100% of the time.

I don't remember exactly when it was off the top of my head, but wouldn't the HashFast chip have been really competitive if it went out immediately, even underclocked? HashFast could have been one of the original big 3.