Topic: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair - page 6. (Read 19802 times)
August 30, 2015, 01:46:57 AM
If you think it applies here, that term does not mean what you think it means.
HF's high-powered lawyer similarly tried to simply declare victory and award herself Frap.doc's coins.
It didn't work; in fact her borderline-frivolous claim was literally laughed out of court with an abundance of mirth and 'LeBron' wisecracks.
Judge Montali basically said 'Yawn, wake me up when you have some real evidence.'
August 29, 2015, 01:27:37 PM
Who in their right mind would put Dr. Balle on a crypto currency panel given his obvious lack of ethics and morals in judging someone without any evidence, proof, or a verdict?
https://www.digitalcurrencycouncil.com/uncategorized/bitcoin-south-2014-new-zealands-first-cryptocurrency-conference/
https://www.digitalcurrencycouncil.com/uncategorized/bitcoin-south-2014-new-zealands-first-cryptocurrency-conference/
August 29, 2015, 12:47:40 PM
So, marcus_of_augustus is Dr. Gregory J. Balle of New Zealand.
What kind of doctor presumes guilt before innocence especially when there is no evidence let alone a verdict?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie
Quote
Attorney: I put it to you that you did not see my client in an altrecation with Mr. Jones.
Witness: I did not.
Attorney: I put it to you that you did not see my client bite off Mr. Jones' ear.
Witness: I did not.
Attorney: I put it to you that you saw nothing whatsoever.
Witness: I did. I saw the accused spat the ear out!
Witness: I did not.
Attorney: I put it to you that you did not see my client bite off Mr. Jones' ear.
Witness: I did not.
Attorney: I put it to you that you saw nothing whatsoever.
Witness: I did. I saw the accused spat the ear out!
August 29, 2015, 12:24:25 PM
So, marcus_of_augustus is Dr. Gregory J. Balle of New Zealand.
What kind of doctor presumes guilt before innocence especially when there is no evidence let alone a verdict?
How many times are you going to keep trolling me with that same message over on reddit with your /u/shiller1235 account, Dr. Balle?
What kind of doctor presumes guilt before innocence especially when there is no evidence let alone a verdict?
How many times are you going to keep trolling me with that same message over on reddit with your /u/shiller1235 account, Dr. Balle?
July 16, 2015, 02:13:08 PM
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
Why should a judge not rule against a payment? The lawyers only have to proof that the company paying that much funds was clearly not in the best interest of the company. I mean if this behaviour would be safe then you could simply create a scam company, collect funds, pay 10% to a contractor who saves your money and with the rest of the money you fake a wrong going real business. Would be a smart and not avoidable way to earn scammywise.
So i really think judges can go against that.
RoadStress, for once, is correct (*looks out window to check for flying pigs*).
SJ, you have no clue about how this works. Not trying to slam you, but your opinion is flat out wrong.
If you'd listen to the hearing, you would get it.
Sorry if the spoken English is hard to understand. Perhaps a transcript will become available.
If it helps, the part where your arguments are literally laughed at and mocked begins at 2:37.
TL;DR Katten (HF's lawyers) have no solid evidence and don't believe they need any. So, for now, they lose.
July 16, 2015, 07:32:06 AM
iCEBREAKER were you in control of the Hashfast_CL account or not?
Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge!
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge!
The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
Why should a judge not rule against a payment? The lawyers only have to proof that the company paying that much funds was clearly not in the best interest of the company. I mean if this behaviour would be safe then you could simply create a scam company, collect funds, pay 10% to a contractor who saves your money and with the rest of the money you fake a wrong going real business. Would be a smart and not avoidable way to earn scammywise.
So i really think judges can go against that.
July 16, 2015, 07:16:52 AM
Standing up for the truth is its own reward. That you belive I need some kind of external/financial motivation says more about you than me. 
Ah comeon... i stand up for those attacked too when they are attacked unfair and i find out. See dogie. Though this here is not explainable with something.
The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
As far as i read it did not fail, it only should not be part of the first thing going on. That doesnt mean it wont come back on the table later.
It was brought by Katten, one of the most powerful law firms in the world. You aren't going to find a better lawyers.
Then surely they only tried to bring it up early and its unlikely they will drop that point easily.
Of course you blame the lawyer for the Motion failing, because you narrow mind cannot accept that it failed on the plain facts of the matter.
Sigh... so i hoped you can speak normally and with arguments and... you get personal again.
Instead, you flagrantly violate Occam's Razor with paranoid delusions that cypher and I are the same person, etc.
Your behaviour is somewhat unexplainable and... oh wonder... no cypherdoc writing here. Instead you beating around. Though cypherdoc writes on other places in forum.
I guess Judge Montali is, in your mind, a troll and possibly the same person as cypher/myself. 
No, Judge Montali seems to go at it structured... cypherdocs payment will be a topic soon for sure.
July 15, 2015, 04:29:32 PM
The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
If the judge had ruled in your (IE HF's) favor and approved the Motion to Attach, you'd be crowing about it and singing his praises.
But he didn't so, now you resort to attacking the venue (and me, the messenger).
How does it feel to be siding with HF?
Do your puppet masters at Spamdoolies know you've been shilling for another company?
July 15, 2015, 04:08:32 PM
iCEBREAKER were you in control of the Hashfast_CL account or not?
Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge!
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
Let's see you reply to this by invoking the US judge!
The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
A company paid for a service. A judge will never rule against this unless there is a clear and open direct relationship to siphon money. Otherwise a judge can't do shit about a service paid by a company. Stop invoking the judge! It's becoming simply retard at this point and it shows that you simply don't have any other arguments. From my point of view HF could've paid cyphedoc 30k BTC. It would mean shit in front of a judge. There is no law to restrict services payments!
July 15, 2015, 04:03:21 PM
Well, at this point i consider you a being cypherdoc himself or being paid by him. Its unbelieveable how you fight for him and when you miss arguments then you go attack with other means.
I cant believe someone would come in here and fight with that time and aggressivity while having nothing in return for him. Cypherdocs case is clearly not just and surely the payments to cypherdoc will be shed light on at another time. A lawyer not being able to convert this would need to be replaced otherwise.
Well iCEBREAKER, i went through the hassle and clicked through your untrusted negative feed back you piled up, it seems you were a shillboy for hashfast in the past already. Guess that explains why you think cypherdoc deserves the payment. The amount of posts we see is not the real amount of posts he did to shill for hashfast.
Besides that... you are a troll how its defined normally. I guess discussing with you makes no sense since when you dont have arguments you get personally attacking, derailing the topic. I think ill stop now waisting time with you.
I cant believe someone would come in here and fight with that time and aggressivity while having nothing in return for him. Cypherdocs case is clearly not just and surely the payments to cypherdoc will be shed light on at another time. A lawyer not being able to convert this would need to be replaced otherwise.
Well iCEBREAKER, i went through the hassle and clicked through your untrusted negative feed back you piled up, it seems you were a shillboy for hashfast in the past already. Guess that explains why you think cypherdoc deserves the payment. The amount of posts we see is not the real amount of posts he did to shill for hashfast.
Besides that... you are a troll how its defined normally. I guess discussing with you makes no sense since when you dont have arguments you get personally attacking, derailing the topic. I think ill stop now waisting time with you.
Standing up for the truth is its own reward. That you belive I need some kind of external/financial motivation says more about you than me.
The Motion to Attach Frap.doc's coins failed. The judge literally laughed at and ridiculed ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") the lawyers' arguments in favor of it.
It was brought by Katten, one of the most powerful law firms in the world. You aren't going to find better lawyers.
Of course you blame the lawyer for the Motion failing, because your narrow mind cannot accept that it failed on the plain facts of the matter.
Instead, you flagrantly violate Occam's Razor with paranoid delusions that cypher and I are the same person, etc.
I guess Judge Montali is, in your mind, a troll and possibly the same person as cypher/myself.
July 15, 2015, 02:02:18 PM
"Flailing...unbecoming...unskilled...etc."
My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours.
Let's focus on facts, not personalities.
My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours.
Let's focus on facts, not personalities.
Oh well, it seems you can see when things like that happen. Question is why you attack for portraying you as not being able to judge the audio while when you attack its not a problem. Though i guess thats your modus operandi.
July 15, 2015, 01:56:54 PM
SebastianJu,
Your 20/20 hindsight into the proper management of a bankrupt start-up is not relevant (much less interesting).
At this point, what difference does it make?
The judge heard the lawyers make basically the same 'cypher didn't deserve his commission' case you just (awkwardly and inexpertly) did. It was laughed out of court, just as your retroactive micromanagement should be laughed off the forum.
Your 20/20 hindsight into the proper management of a bankrupt start-up is not relevant (much less interesting).
At this point, what difference does it make?
The judge heard the lawyers make basically the same 'cypher didn't deserve his commission' case you just (awkwardly and inexpertly) did. It was laughed out of court, just as your retroactive micromanagement should be laughed off the forum.
Well, at this point i consider you a being cypherdoc himself or being paid by him. Its unbelieveable how you fight for him and when you miss arguments then you go attack with other means.
I cant believe someone would come in here and fight with that time and aggressivity while having nothing in return for him. Cypherdocs case is clearly not just and surely the payments to cypherdoc will be shed light on at another time. A lawyer not being able to convert this would need to be replaced otherwise.
Well iCEBREAKER, i went through the hassle and clicked through your untrusted negative feed back you piled up, it seems you were a shillboy for hashfast in the past already. Guess that explains why you think cypherdoc deserves the payment. The amount of posts we see is not the real amount of posts he did to shill for hashfast.
Besides that... you are a troll how its defined normally. I guess discussing with you makes no sense since when you dont have arguments you get personally attacking, derailing the topic. I think ill stop now waisting time with you.
July 15, 2015, 12:45:23 AM
The judge seemed to nullify your rather stretched 'presumption of innocence' by indicating that bankruptcy court was simply not the venue for adjudicating the question. You seem to be flailing pretty hard here and it is unbecoming of you. I don't think that you should count legal skills among your talents and would advise strongly that you seek qualified legal assistance if you find yourself in legal troubles.
"Flailing...unbecoming...unskilled...etc."
My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours.
Let's focus on facts, not personalities.
The judge certainly did not "nullify" anyone's presumption of innocence.
I could make hay of such a silly, unbounded leap in logic and respond in kind to your invective, but will instead choose to be the better man.
Torrents of ad hominem insults? Silly, unbounded leaps in logic? Invective? All of this right here on trolltalk? Who could have imagined such a thing?
July 14, 2015, 11:28:30 PM
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2.
He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company.
You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target.
People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer.
How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you?
What debate about frap.docs coins? He's clearly a shill and a liar and possesses 3000btc collected from HashFast customers, those facts are beyond debate.
You made yourself a target, I have no idea why you would come here and argue frap.docs innocence when you are obviously sitting on another huge pile of HashFast's coins, how many btw?
So your contention is that by expressing an unpopular opinion I've made myself a "target?"
Should people be afraid to speak up when they see factual errors, for fear of you (and The Village) targeting them?
"Target" for what, exactly? Please, do elaborate. Is this an FBI-concern type "target" or are you just venting frustration at being unable to control the narrative without opposition?
I'm not here to argue frap.doc's innocence (that's for a court to decide), only to correct factual errors.
Why do you so greatly resent being referred to primary sources and correction of factual errors?
Is it because you are so set in and emotionally attached to your preferred narrative?
What a sad state of mind in which to find yourself. No wonder you are so cranky, rabid, and increasingly frothy.
Sorry you are not enjoying your break with consensus reality and ensuing fugue state.
I suggest you take your resentment, and shove it in your "aching rabbit hole."
July 14, 2015, 09:27:16 PM
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2.
He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company.
You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target.
People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer.
How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you?
What debate about frap.docs coins? He's clearly a shill and a liar and possesses 3000btc collected from HashFast customers, those facts are beyond debate.
You made yourself a target, I have no idea why you would come here and argue frap.docs innocence when you are obviously sitting on another huge pile of HashFast's coins, how many btw?
July 14, 2015, 09:22:31 PM
Wow. Nicely played cypherdoc! No wonder you have such a high opinion of your own work; it really does command high price in the 'free market'. And here I was dubious about that. My bad.
Anyway, carry on pumping Hearn's XT project to take over Bitcoin Core and get it's exponential bloat (and likely coin tainting as well) baked into Bitcoin. It would be rude to ask if you are formally shilling for them and if so how much you get paid so I'll just muse about it I guess.
Anyway, carry on pumping Hearn's XT project to take over Bitcoin Core and get it's exponential bloat (and likely coin tainting as well) baked into Bitcoin. It would be rude to ask if you are formally shilling for them and if so how much you get paid so I'll just muse about it I guess.
I recognized cypherdoc was bad news back when I saw his rabid shilling for Hashfast. Bilking them out of 3k BTC ? That's just asinine.
I didn't notice cypherdoc shilling for Hashfast since I don't follow such things at all. I wish I had noticed it since I would have rubbed his nose in it for all it was worth. Better late than never I guess.
Dr. Lowelife follows in a long line of disgraced scammers starting around Bruce Wagner. Remember how Wagner stuck around for a while pitifully thinking that he had a shot at preserving his 'Labron James-esque' legacy which existed in his mind? (Actually, unless you are a pretty old timer, you probably do not.) Anyway, it will be fun to watch of cypherdoc follows the same pattern.
NLC noticed. He hounded him about it for years. I swear that troll is the twisted conscience of this place.
Quote from: cypherdoc on August 08, 2013, 10:54:43 PM
I am pleased to announce that I have been selected as a paid sponsor for HashFast Technologies LLC. [snip!]
Quote
I'm not at all pleased to announce that i have no frickin idea what a "paid sponsor" is. Are you trying to boil my brain?
Since the day i was torn from my mother's breast, i've been duped into believing that sponsors are the ones who do the paying.
Now, in these, my sunset years... You tell me it's the other way around?
Since the day i was torn from my mother's breast, i've been duped into believing that sponsors are the ones who do the paying.
Now, in these, my sunset years... You tell me it's the other way around?
See!
July 14, 2015, 08:32:58 PM
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2.
He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company.
"Aching rabbit hole?"
LOL, you know someone is getting rabid and frothy when they so carelessly mix metaphors.
You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target.
People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer.
How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you?
July 14, 2015, 08:24:29 PM
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2.
He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company.
July 14, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
I notice that none of those other proven scammers (that you yourself have just placed frap.doc in the company of incidentally)
still inhabit the forum, afaik. So he is either very brazen or just as yet unproven, if he is indeed a scammer.
I'm not straining hard, this is all quite easy I can assure you. The mods seem to want to get this off the front page and into meta discussions so I'm happy to oblige with the meta ramifications. Thankfully I was not involved in any way with the ASIC mining boom/bust and are not as intimately aware of the ins and outs and what-have-yous as you seem to be.
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
What nonsense. Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate?
Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread.
Remember when Bargraphics traveled to MO and reported positively on Activemining, which turned out to be a fraud?
No? Good, neither does anyone else.
And Lord knows how many people endorsed ASICMINER ("Friedcat for President").
Ditto for a dozen other ASIC companies. Not to mention pirate@40, etc.
Where is your (apparently highly selective) outrage over them? Don't rush, I'll wait...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.
still inhabit the forum, afaik. So he is either very brazen or just as yet unproven, if he is indeed a scammer.
I'm not straining hard, this is all quite easy I can assure you. The mods seem to want to get this off the front page and into meta discussions so I'm happy to oblige with the meta ramifications. Thankfully I was not involved in any way with the ASIC mining boom/bust and are not as intimately aware of the ins and outs and what-have-yous as you seem to be.
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
cypher.doc has dragged down the whole reputation of bitcointalk.org standing with his shennagins.
What nonsense. Could you possibly strain any harder to exaggerate?
Nobody, except for a few lawyers and windfall-obsessed dead-enders, care about an old endorsement thread.
Remember when Bargraphics traveled to MO and reported positively on Activemining, which turned out to be a fraud?
No? Good, neither does anyone else.
And Lord knows how many people endorsed ASICMINER ("Friedcat for President").
Ditto for a dozen other ASIC companies. Not to mention pirate@40, etc.
Where is your (apparently highly selective) outrage over them? Don't rush, I'll wait...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.
July 14, 2015, 05:33:39 PM
LOL you don't like it when people portray you in a bad light too huh?
He was just trying to "help you improve".
Your actions portray you in a bad light.
I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.
He was just trying to "help you improve".
Your actions portray you in a bad light.
I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.
Do you *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made? No? Then what is the relevance of retreating from on-point specifics into fuzzy generalities?
As an aside, you *do* of course realize that US courts commonly reach contradictory decisions which are resolved by higher courts, and sometimes precedents are overturned. So it is not possible to agree with all of them.
I tried to help you and tvbcof improve by pointing out your factual errors (IE, commission vs equity and presumption of innocence).
What factual errors of mine have you and tvbcof pointed out?
[crickets.png]
[tumbleweeds.gif]
Jump to: