Topic: Hashkings Lending,Deposit 1.25% INSURED, ALL PPT ACCOUNTS CLOSING ON 8/19 - page 17. (Read 93792 times)
September 19, 2012, 08:31:04 PM
Payments sent out.
September 19, 2012, 04:35:02 PM
It would have been clear if you had read the few posts following the post.
September 19, 2012, 04:24:42 PM
Hashking also claims to be 15, which makes contracts nonbinding on his end, since under-18 year olds don't have agency in the eyes of most courts anyway.
Hint: He was sarcasming all over your face.
Well that I did not know. And it's not like 'teenage financial genius (who is probably running some kind of scam)' is a unique thing on these forums.
September 19, 2012, 04:14:20 PM
Hashking,
Thanks for being there when I needed you
Thanks for being there when I needed you
September 19, 2012, 04:05:58 PM
It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse. I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet. Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer. I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now. My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can.
While I may disagree with:
1) What you did with the deposits
2) The method you use for paying back
3) Your refusal to communicate
I am happy you are going to at least pay me back
The scammer disucssion is total futile as I said before. Who cares whether he has a tag on an online forum? Just drop it (and especially non-account holders, please stop gloating and gtfo).
September 19, 2012, 03:48:43 PM
It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse. I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet. Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer. I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now. My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can.
+1, even if all these blowhards who think they own the forums say otherwise, you have my support hash.
September 19, 2012, 03:32:22 PM
It seems that people here like to keep beating a dead horse. I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. I will continue to send payments out as bitcoins come into my wallet. Not sure what people are trying to accomplish by continuing to call me a scammer. I have already received the scammer tag and most people on this forum would have quit paying by now. My intentions is try and return everyone's bitcoins as fast as I can.
September 19, 2012, 03:15:10 PM
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying
You mean, he has no prosecutable/enforceable obligations, so lenders can't do anything if he doesn't follow his contract and pay his real debt in a pseudonymous currency. I agree though, he will prove that he's a big man if he pays back, and his lies can be forgiven at that point.
Your perspective also seems to conflict with the ethic of reciprocity. I would like to live in a world where promises matter, and so do you.
In addition to that, if you don't have a contractual obligation to me when you publicly promise something, then when is there a contractual obligation ever in the Bitcoin world? The highest extent we "sign" documents is clicking a checkbox, and even that is rare.
September 19, 2012, 03:04:19 PM
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...
First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.
Actually I understand contract law pretty well which is why I doubt that any of hashking's 'contracts' are enforceable. A couple of emails or forum posts back and forth are barely more credible than an unwitnessed oral contract. Hashking also claims to be 15, which makes contracts nonbinding on his end, since under-18 year olds don't have agency in the eyes of most courts anyway.
September 19, 2012, 01:43:22 PM
I signed and agreed to the terms when I signed the bitcoin transaction to him with my private keys.
September 19, 2012, 01:03:46 PM
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. ...
First sentence already shows a fundamental lack of understanding contract law, this is simply not true. Contracts can be of any form, and are there to be kept. Proving it to a judge is another matter, but not impossible.
September 19, 2012, 12:48:37 PM
he has no contractual obligation in paying,
What makes you say that?
September 19, 2012, 12:09:23 PM
First off, I asked first, and to someone else.
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms. Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.
The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank. If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound. If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.
With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.
now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.
Of course not, 'insured' to hashking meant "yeah dude, your money's safe, I'm good for it." Which is probably the same insurance policy that numerous other 'banks' have.
All I'm saying is that to someone who was looking to invest, they probably saw that hashking advertised himself as "insured" and presumed it was just like the FDIC. Ignorance of basic financial terminology is not a valid excuse. Which is why a 15 year old should not be running an investment fund or bank or whatever this is.
In an Ideal economy, the bitcoin SEC would be cleaning hashking out to ensure those 'insured' deposits get paid back, but that's the beauty of an unregulated free market, isn't it? The only thing guaranteed is laughter.
September 19, 2012, 11:51:46 AM
First off, I asked first, and to someone else.
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms. Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.
The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank. If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound. If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.
With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.
now I have to ask you, did you REALLY think he meant insured as insured by the FDIC? I don't think he actually knew what it meant, hence negligence.
September 19, 2012, 11:45:12 AM
First off, I asked first, and to someone else.
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
Technically, I would agree that he's not contractually obligated to pay anyone back, because I'm certain no one actually signed any documents. However, hashking used the term insured in the title of this very thread, which has an actual meaning and carries weight in financial terms. Generally, it means that an investment is safer, because a depositor's money is guaranteed to be returned.
The FDIC does this with dollar deposits in a bank. If my bank were to suddenly fail, my money is safe and sound. If my bank is lying about being insured, or what they're investing in, or any kind of impropriety, the SEC would crush the bank's upper management, and clean out their personal finances in order to pay the bank's depositors.
With hashking, the bank is claiming to be backed by the FDIC, but it turns out that 'insurance' is a pinky swear by the bank manager, and my 'insured' money will only be returned if the bank manager is in the mood for it and every spurned depositor promises to be extra special nice to him, and not call him out for being an enormous fraud.
September 19, 2012, 11:07:49 AM
I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses. This is a business, it has failed. When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything. I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can. If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.
Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".
Your account name should be HashDragQueen.
and you? what's your plans?
First off, I asked first, and to someone else.
Second, I've only had a positive relationship with hashking since I started working with him, hes been responsive and accomodating (to a certain extent) without any critical problems, and I'm a little upset on how smoothie (or whoever he is, I can't be assed to figure out who is an alt of who) is berating him.
Hashking said he is being the bigger man and paying back his virtual debts that he has no contractual obligation in paying, and now you're getting angry at him for not following his non contractual obligation to the letter, its not only childish and somewhat rediculous, but its also making me personally not want to do business on these forums anymore, because if this is the kind of backlash I'd expect from a completely controlled and documented mishap, then theres no reason to be on here.
PS: micron you still haven't added me to skype, I'm starting to feel like you don't like me
September 19, 2012, 05:54:39 AM
I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses. This is a business, it has failed. When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything. I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can. If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.
Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".
Your account name should be HashDragQueen.
and you? what's your plans?
September 19, 2012, 05:45:51 AM
I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses. This is a business, it has failed. When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything. I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can. If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.
Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".
Your account name should be HashDragQueen.
September 19, 2012, 02:39:02 AM
I wouldn't sell any of my personal assets to cover any bitcoin losses. This is a business, it has failed. When businesses fail they shut down and usually nobody gets anything. I will continue to make payments from my bitcoin production and buy coins whenever I can. If people continue at act they way they are acting I will just walk away.
Aww boo hoo. You don't want to own up to your commitments to your customers. What a scumbag. It was so easy to take the money but now that you lost it "oh well i'll just walk away".
Your account name should be HashDragQueen.
September 19, 2012, 01:01:13 AM
Got repaid 10BTC. Deposit number 388.
Jump to: