Topic: HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s - page 52. (Read 880726 times)

Yes, I was deluded by glittering visions of risk-free windfalls, which I should have realized were an economic impossibility.  Greed + confirmation bias is a PITA.   

Thanks for the quote from November 2013.  Here's one from today you seem to have accidentally overlooked on purpose:


As I said w/r/t the actual scams BASIC and COGNITIVE, "live and learn."   

You may disregard relevant details, such as the capacity and authority of the respondent, all you like.  But a judge won't, as your due diligence lawyer should have advised you.

Make all the noise you want, it will never change the fact that your expectation for a windfall No Matter What^TM was unreasonable (based on common sense and common law), impossible (based on financial reality), and harmful (because it led people to lose their chance at 105% refunds by gambling on legally unsound wishful thinking).

Many people tried their best to explain this before it was too late, but we were drowned out by the shrieking of trolls like yourself and the rest of your Free Stuff Army.   

I can easily prove that such was the case with the following as proof:


Regardless what capacity Cara had over at HashFast at the time, the truth of the matter is that once such was published on this forum and elsewhere, NOBODY at HashFast disputed the claim(s) until it was convenient for them to do such, in spite of HashFast's main principals addressing every other issue under the sun at their earliest possible convenience to further ensure garnering more sales.

Fuck, a Shakespearean janitor could've pen the email prose, but HashFast was well aware of its existence, yet never commented on it till shit really started hitting the fan and the fictive janitor was let go, possibly seeking employment over at Bliss Devices.

sorry to put salt on old wounds but lying is rarely legally actionable.  If someone lies to you and it is obvious to a reasonable person then you can't rely on that lie and claim damages.  The very fact that the TOS was directly oposite of those BTC refund marketing statements should've been a big red flag.

I'm curious as to what capacity you're still playing at HashFast, for I've yet to determine your last name, R.... .

Prove it. Show the statement from HF stating such a restriction. PROVE IT OR YOU ARE LYING.

The 51 BTC statement assumed the exchange rate would remain stable, not spike 5-10 times and set new records.

YODD involves more than getting an email (from a non-executive no less) telling you want you want to hear.

YODD requires you and your attorney critically evaluate the firm's ability to deliver on their statements and your possible recourse if they fail.

In this case, it was obvious that the start-up had absolutely no ability to give you back your BTC 'No Matter What^TM.'

Any lawyer you asked would have informed you such a claim may not be interpreted to provide windfalls in the case of substantial BTC/USD appreciation.

We all knew the BTC were converted to fiat and spent to get the chips/boards/machines built.  We all knew the BTC weren't sitting in escrow.

It took a student still in law school about 45 seconds to disabuse me of the delusion that such windfalls were reasonable, much less actionable.   

Granted, I have a strong background in legal studies, but the entire concept chain from common law to equity to 'No Windfalls Allowed' has been explained in detail ad nauseum.

Even the slow learners like cedivad should be able to understand that a tiny new firm is obviously not going to be able to pay out windfalls.

As for the hilarious MMQ about 'hurr-durr they should have bought futures and hedged.'  Those services, even if available somewhere at the the time, were not yet legal in the US.  The first one was just approved yesterday: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/12/us-usa-bitcoin-cftc-idUSKBN0H71FU20140912?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews

Sorry you were never offered a refund.  That sucks, but there is hope we may be compensated to some degree as a result of the HF IP auction in Oct.

How do you feel about those who got 105% refunds, but refused to take them because they felt so entitled to windfalls at impossible expense to HF?

How do you feel about the BTCT Internet Lawyers who created their impossible windfall expectations, and then advised others against taking their 105% refunds when they had the chance?

Ironically, it's actually good for us they refused their 105% refunds because that left more money to pay the 15 lawyers now feasting off HF's corpse, which in turn means we may gain an addition one percent or two on our claims.   

Is this what you're looking for?: http://hashfast.org/071514.2.pdf


Also, something you once linked to:  https://processgeneral.s3.amazonaws.com/media/case_5/document/Docket%20179.pdf?Signature=i32d6dp5HnD2r0F2ieQApURhpfI%3D&Expires=1410660048&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAINPHWHY7KWKMORRQ

http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/28mzy2tfp/california-northern-bankruptcy-court/hashfast-technologies-llc/

Looking for it now while I take a shit and ponder why Rishi's deleting his tweets with Bitcoin in them: https://twitter.com/itsrishi/statuses/380826364808409089

Meanwhile, enjoy:


WWJD ---> DYODD 

Bruno, did you find any information about how much HF paid to Uniquify? I'm quite sure to have read it somewhere, probably in the examinations, but I don't remember where exactly. It's something that has been bothering me for a while.

Hoped you're stocked up on the above because...

https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=25485471&authType=name&authToken=b6an&trk=prof-sb-browse_map-name






http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/next-generation-asic-mining-can-save-coin/




"...(see bold in red above)therefore I, Paul Chen, with infinite wisdom at my exposal have brought on board the venerable Abram James Kottmeier, know as James CockMeyer on BitconTalk for his teaming up with Long Dong Skropenis in their adult film entities, both of which were instrumental in fleecing millions from HashFast customers, something I'm hoping to repeat several fold with Bliss because the general consensus is that them monumental assholes still have bitcoins to burn, and we here at Bliss Devices want our share before they either become the wiser or go broke, with chances are the latter being the end game, for there's NO chance in hell of the former ever happening in ours or their's lifetime."

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/author/paul-chen/




As shown above, nary a Bitcoiner has taken the time to discuss Bliss Devices in spite of them directly AND indirectly building their IP atop HashFast's IP with the former's investormers' prior funding.

http://blissdevices.com/



https://who.godaddy.com/whoisstd.aspx?domain=blissdevices.com&prog_id=GoDaddy&k=84GEZuvWNRmWoArVvkIg8oxThOC5HoztvKV32SJnbrYV4gIEi8TsIjczlcHBb1DK


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fx7rSijyXkIJ:cecukon.allalla.com/ydyj+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



If you like SH256 shoved up your ass, you're simply goin' love Scrypt shoved even further.



http://bitcoinmagazine.com/13000/new-benchmark-scrypt-mining/


Here's my assessment: If you order from Bliss Devices, YOU WILL BE FUCKED!

~Bruno Kucinskas

UPDATE:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=621361.0;all
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bliss-devices-announces-higher-performance-miners-523896

What a fuckin' idiot this Paul fuck turned out to be. He could've easily amassed millions from the Bitcoin community by simply not affiliating himself with CockMeyer. Worse, he posted about how the affiliation was of no count, further stating that CockBreath was at HashFast only briefly, thus a moot issue in spite of CockDickBreath being instrumental in fleecing $5M+ USD from HF's investormers along with Long Dong Skropenis.

Ironically, the main reason Bliss wasn't picked up by Havelock at the time was due to ALL the information I uncovered pertaining to Skropenis and CockMeyer as it related to HashFast. No wonder HashFast_CL has the red-ass toward me. They can't get a break to fleece once again with the likes of me around. No wonder I, among others, are on Joshua Zipkin's (AMT) hit list.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2894518



"I'm melting! I'm melting away!"

Ice,

I did my owm due diligence.  the 51 btc statement is not just a post on the forum. it comes from an email thread between me and HF with the subj refund policy.  I specifically asked that question and they gave me a specific answer BEFORE i ordered. 4 babyjets

Chip development costs really vary.  Like you said, if they just did a process geometry shrink, then effort is small.  If they are designing a lot of new stuff, the effort is big.

The big difference is the tape out costs.  28nm is sub $2M, where as 16nm is around $8M now.

The other issue with HF seems to be whether they paid their design contractors/vendors.  Other than Simon, I am not sure they had any chip designers on staff.  I had heard that they outsourced much of this.  So maybe the IP is locked with different contractors.

From a business or bank side when a developer asks for x dollars and you pass it then ask for more cash was my thought process.

I was reading Bitfury scraped 16 NM because they ran into problems. 

Its about 80% more to develop 16NM compared to 28 but doesn't include what a developer can import from a previous chip?? It depends on how far along HF got.

I do not know what HF did or didn't do or what they had planned to do.

I can say that test chips are typically used to prove out sections of a new chip/new technology.  It is a small fraction ($100K range vs $Ms) of what a full tape-out costs and is used typically to mitigate risk.  It isn't typically viewed as an overrun, but more as money spent to reduce risk.

The cost overruns in 16 NM come from the test wafers?

I would also like to see the public release of schematics, bill of materials and PCB layout files for the load board (board used to bring up the new chip).  This can also help accelerate working board designs.

Thanks pmorici.  I will reach out and report back.