Topic: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair - page 9. (Read 19813 times)

To be fair Cypherdoc made some good calls on the market back a few years.

But to find out that he got 3000 BTC for posting on this forum for a few months/weeks is pretty insane to me.

But then again I am not judge and I don't know the law behind people making stupid contracts where they give away 10% of their company's equity for someone to post on this forum a few hundred (or thousands?) of times.

Only in the Bitcoin world ...

Ok. It's plain and clear. Prove the "best efforts" or at least back them up with your logic. I showed you my logic that there was no "best efforts" since Uniquify didn't deliver anything. Or at least it's how I remember it. What exactly are their "best efforts" that you praise so much?

I don't know what that, or the rest of your word salad, means.

You may learn all about the history from the primary sources:

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/

So their "best effort" lead the company to go bankrupt while leaving thousands of customers with nothing after they paid a premium for non-delivered products. What about funding the company before turning to pre-orders or after that? I haven't heard of anything like that. Doesn't sound like a "best effort" to me, but hey it's ok since cypherdoc looked them into their eyes!!!

What does "teaming with Uniquify" means? I thought Uniquify didn't helped because HF failed to deliver the chips on time. How did this teaming worked? Did HF paid Uniquify anything? If yes how much and what did they deliver? Could they do it somewhere else cheaper? There are many unknowns in this teaming so you shouldn't talk about them doing "best efforts" if you don't also prove it. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Please don't give the Cointerra example which is another US company which used the same strategy of over-marketing their products while failing at technical skills and failing to deliver.

Why don't you give other examples as burnin who managed to deliver damn good products while being a single person without any marketing or AM which again had very little marketing or Avalon, again no marketing or BITMAIN who managed to raise funding and came to the market directly with the product or KnC which even if they had medium marketing at least they had a 10 year experience behind them.

The good examples are out there, but you choose to ignore them because you are a scumbag and you like it rough in the ass just like cypherdoc.

No. If BTC had gone to $10k or even stayed at $1k HF would still fail and go bankrupt or at least they would've went BFL way where everyone was avoiding them. Their utterly fail to deliver on time and on spec has nothing to do with the exchange rate, only with refunds and customers ROI. They gathered $50M and they failed on every aspect that they could fail. Again please correct me if I am wrong.

If HF didn't have "work ethics" they would have not satisfied the 'best effort' standard required to stay out of Chapter 7 and remain in Chapter 11.

HF said they were teaming with Uniquify to build a 28nm 400gh/s ASIC and that's what they did, before going bankrupt due to the same combination of price and difficulty changes that caused Cointerra (and other companies that didn't even manage to build a chip) to fail.

If BTC had gone to $10k or even stayed at $1k, cypherdoc would be a hero for visiting HF in person and reporting back to us.  Don't put all the blame on others when gambles don't pay off.

So if HF was an ambitious high-tech start-up then on what his endorsement based? Nothing but beautiful words. He was promoting HF based on nothing. He had no knowledge to be able to endorse the start-up. Maybe you can clarify this to me.

There will be no charges, unless HF decides that he didn't provide the service that he was paid for. I wasn't accusing cypherdoc of anything except that he took A LOT of money knowing that there are big chances that they will fail being a high-tech start-up. Let me refresh your memory:


This is his endorsement. He even invoked God for the 3000 BTC that he took. He did his job very good, I'm not complaining, but I don't see anything about any risk especially when we are talking about a high-tech start-up that normally is prone to fail. Fuck the statistics. He looked them into their eyes! It's the best endorsement ever! No talking about technical stuff or technical abilities or skills to manage a business.

Yes he mentioned that he can't guarantee the October delivery, but having work ethics compensates for everything.

Yes cypherdoc is a scum bag. A 3000 BTC richer scum bag and he deserves nothing else than shit. Just like you do.

NO MORE NOISE!

That is not the truth, that is defamation.

Where is the proof HF was anything but an ambitious high-tech start-up that, despite their best efforts, went bankrupt due to unfavorable business conditions?

There is no active police or regulatory investigation, there are no charges pending, and every attempt to even put HF into Chapter 7 has failed.

Chapter 11 is not a status which is granted to "scammers."

I realize you lack the basic vocabulary, common knowledge, and rudimentary intelligence required to comprehend all that (hence your Epic Butthurt sig), but I don't wish any lurkers to be fooled by your odious libel so I've explained it one more time.

Please return to your endless shilling for Spamdoolies, but try not to spamdoolie the entire hardware sub next time.  

The truth is that cypherdoc was paid for a service that helped the scammers from HF steal tens of millions of dollars. End of story. Just like you did. There isn't much to talk about.

You talking about a single even which took place 7 months ago makes me giggles.

This isn't about Frappuccino_Doc.  It's defending the truth, and thus helping lurkers understand why reality turned out to be so wildly divergent from the herd-mind consensus of the HF Derangement Society.

In fact we've been in a furious debate about blocksize (and by proxy, the True Meaning of Bitcoin) for months.

Shouldn't you get back to shilling for Spamdoolies?  Maybe they will throw you a bone and give you a belly rub if you help them spam the hardware sub, as they have done over and over again.

I'm touched you devoted your sig to me, so epic is your butthurt about the thrashings I've given you every single time we've tangled.   

Now you are defending cypherdoc too? Thanks for proving that you are just a dog following orders!

What a pleasant excursion into generalities and platitudes.

Does it have anything to do with the specific matter at hand, IE the fact that a 10% sales commission is not unusual, unethical, nor illegal?

I've already explained why the conspiracy theory you call a hypothesis does not comport with the actual timeline of events.

Perhaps you could address how we are supposed to find value in entertaining a theory at odds with already known facts.

Is it purely an exercise in imagination and creativity for the sake of making sure Katten gets paid, or what?

Oh, that's right, I forgot.  You have some grievance with Frap.doc over other matters, but want to bash him with any weapon possibilly available, no matter how far fetched.

No, it was a hypothesis.  I mentioned it in several ways in a fairly compact way.  If you will not entertain and explore a variety of hypotheses it is nearly certain that your view of the world will be highly contained and constrained and you'll be caught flat footed by almost everything of importance.

At least you admit repeating gossip and narrative, rather than primary sources.  

Cypherdoc's involvement as a paid endorser, who took on the role of a proxy for the community by visiting HF in person, started and stopped long before anyone knew business conditions for 3rd gen ASIC companies were about to take a turn for the worse.

I'll actually not argue strenuously with most of your points as most of them contain an element of truth and at the very least are amusing.

I will say that via very simplistic analysis which seems to elude all, and especially 'free marketers', all mining is destined to fail (and may ultimately take Bitcoin down with them.)  That's not to say that one cannot make some money selling pick-axes if one is lucky and/or scammy however.

I'll also observe that outwardly you seem to be displaying classic battered wife syndrome toward cypherdoc who one supposes is sitting on 10% of the BTC that you once controlled.  Of course it's possible that your activities with Hashfast are more complex than average.  Who knows?

From my admittedly tangential read, there is a hypothesis floated in legal circles that cypherdoc's involvement is somewhat more complex than simple shilling.  That is, his wallet acts as a protected buffer and his shilling fees exist as an excuse and to escape future legal 'violence'.  Whether I like or trust the legal system or not, I'd rather see the funds I put in to support it (my taxes) used to tug at this string than to help resolve disputes between other faceless corporate giants which is where most of the money goes.  That's only because I happen to be into Bitcoin though.  Ideally the court system and government generally would studiously ignore Bitcoin, but that ship has already sailed.

You are confused because you are operating in a fact-free world of defamatory gossip and malicious narratives.

Actually it's worse than that.  You are operating on incorrect assumptions which you take to be facts.

Consult the primary sources, such as the audio of the attachment hearing, and you'll be more informed and thus able to usefully contribute to the discussion (instead of, as you did above, further distorting and inflaming the already present misinformation).

So you prefer to believe gmax's gossip rather than consult primary sources and form your own opinion?  Good luck with that!

This isn't the first time we've seen someone hypocritically selectively declare how little they care for courts' and judges' opinions, just because the court/judge in question failed to confirm their preexisting prejudgments.  When you lose on the facts, pound the table and attack the venue, right?   

Plenty of people (including myself and presumably gmax) did their due diligence before ordering from HF.  But that is no guarantee of success when objective business conditions later become unfavorable to an insurmountable degree.

You are certainly not "more of a Libertarian" than I.  A real Libertarian would not ignore court proceedings/findings/rulings simply because, and only after, they failed to reinforced his preferred narrative.  You seem to think that Libertarians are anarchists, who despise courts and judges.  Big mistake, you amateur.

Libertarians don't believe simply doing your own due diligence guarantees you won't lose money on a venture (especially an ultra-high-risk gamble involving a brand new, very ambitious BTC ASIC start-up).  That's another big amateur mistake.

The broad problem of Deep Capture does not necessarily mean everything done by the courts (or police, etc.) is automatically wrong.  EG, in the narrow example of Frap.doc's coins we saw the court reject its Capturer's (Katten Muchen Rosenman) demand to jam their blood funnel into the nearest thing that smells like money. 

That's your third big amateur mistake.  I suggest you read Anarcy, State, and Utopia and get a clue about what "libertarian" actually means.

"very predictably became?"

Please, point out where you (psychically?) predicted HF would become a "smoking crater" or STFU about your asinine 20/20 hindsight and egregious Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  You don't get to say 'I told you so' when you did not, in fact, tell us so.

If the bankruptcy was so very predictable, why did gmax and dozens of others of old time and expert Bitcoiners fail to notice?

I swear to God...you people...with your retroactive, after-the-fact, so-called predictions...   

So the judge only says its now not correct to charge him?

10% from the start. Either the hashfast owners were not the best businessmans, or cypherdoc was one of the bosses from the start. Getting paid his salary a way that its independent from the outcome of the business.

I mean these payments were even hidden from the investors. So investors could claim the money was embezzled. Maybe that happens at a later time.

When this works out for cypherdoc then we have a role model how to successfully create a scam. You only need to impose a ceo who makes everything so that it looks like a legit business failing. Payment to you cant be recovered and your target is reached.

I think even when hashfast would have been successfull, then maybe that payment would have never come to light, but it could still not be justified. Its hard to see what he could have done to create a value of more than 3000 Bitcoins.

My comment about cypherdoc being a lieing piece of shit had nothing to do with the court system.  It had everything to do with him whining and crying to Maxwell about being a loser who lost money in order to get him to retract his negative rating when in reality he was sitting on a cool 3000 BTC which used to be in Hashfast victims wallets.

As for the court, I guess I am more of a Libertarian than you at this point.  I have close to zero confidence in them and by-n-large don't give a shit about what these corrupt asswipes say.

It is the case that I fund the justice system through my taxes and I would not shed a tear if they make cypherdoc squeal.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes.  Same goes for other Libertarian scammers who didn't pay attention to the old adage "If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

I happen to agree with the court that it is inappropriate for what's left of Hashfast to attach cypherdoc's 3000 BTC at the present time.  Again, if they rightly or wrongly do him much greater 'violence' in the future, well, golly gee wilikers...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.


Cypherdoc made no allowance for his being a clueless jackoff when he was shilling hard for Hashfast.  Yes, those who didn't do their own due diligence on the guy (and the company and Bitcoin itself) and lost money (edit: or lost something) and they are primarily to blame, but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears if cypherdoc takes a hit for his own (very optional) role in the smoking crater that the endeavor very predictably became.

Don't believe tvbcof's malicious, defamatory gossip.  His distorted version of events is not supported by the primary source.

It's not about what *I'm* saying, it's about what the Judge is saying.

Clue for clueless tvbcof: the Judge didn't mention "the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin."

We know you hate Ayn Rand with the fiery intolerance of a supervolcano, but please don't flat-out lie to SebastianJu about what was said and decided at the hearing.

All that happened was that cypherdoc got a 10% sales commission for helping HF fund their ASIC.

Unfortunately BTC's price and difficulty shot up faster than HF could build their machines.  But cypherdoc had nothing to do with that.

That's why the judge ruled the lawyers, having destroyed the company itself and now desperately looking for a way to pay themselves, could not take his coins (at this time).

Best I can tell, iCEBREAKER is saying that cypherdoc helped scam people fair and square, and attempts to use 'violence' to clawback the ill-begotten 'nobly achieved' gains from him are improper.

This seems to be the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin (or at least since I've been involved.)  I've actually come around to this viewpoint somewhat relative to my initial stance.  That said, I don't really believe that calling attention to cypherdoc's malfeasance are 'violence' in the standard form (such as use/mis-use of the state sponsored judicial system.)  Cypherdoc made a big thing of all the due dilligence he did before pumping Hashfast (and nothing at all of the money he was making shilling for them which, in fact, he tried to hide to the extent that he would flat-out lie to Maxwell about it.)

Cypherdoc can keep his money as far as I'm concerned (which is easy for me to say as someone who didn't even bother to know what-the-fuck Hashfast was much less send them (and cypherdoc) a bunch of my BTC.)  What comes around goes around.  In the mean time, informing people of his reliability in terms research and suggestions and the like should offend no one.  Not even uber-Libertarians.