Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 09, 2015, 10:33:51 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on July 09, 2015, 07:28:47 PM

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 09, 2015, 10:33:51 PM

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).

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.