Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 11, 2014, 05:35:28 AM

Having completely lost the utilitarian debate over objective practical matters such as efficacy of strategy, you predictably retreat to an amorphous subjective moral high ground and try to claim some kind of vague ethical victory For The Common Good^TM.

There is no victory in this. The bankruptcy action was the outcome of a deteriorating situation and irresponsible company behavior. Why do you think the action was approved so quickly? Because the company was being responsible?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 11, 2014, 05:35:28 AM

But there is no "bad actor" here. Even Gallo admits the claims against the CTO/CEO are probably worthless.

Taking peoples assets and not delivering as agreed upon or represented by at the time is bad acting. The reason why the company started playing around with cash flow of their orders is massive undercapitalization. Simply put they bit off more than they could chew for the amount of risk capital which went into the company formation. Customers didn't sign up to become equity holders - they ordered a product.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 11, 2014, 05:35:28 AM

And there is no an "abuser" who needs to be "brought to justice." Otherwise, the District Attorney or FTC would be involved.

The "rule of law" has not been "abandoned" and you are using an inapplicable histrionic paradigm to evaluate these circumstances. Bitcoin involvement notwithstanding, this is a perfectly normal business situation, not any kind of criminal enterprise.

By that logic the absence of a trial or a judgement means there was no crime. The only part I agree with is that the HashFast story has somewhat become the new normal: Reward owners and shareholders for failing businesses and perform a bail-in on customers and business partners when things become sour.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 11, 2014, 05:35:28 AM

Quote from: armyof1ne on November 07, 2014, 08:17:10 AM

people with a whole shitton of money were going to try to buy out the company and get a whole new crew in there

What part of ^that^ did you not understand?

How big does a carrot have to be to keep you going in the face of failure? Apart from the missing indicators for the "shitton of money", what was the guarantee that this money would have been used to make good by the customers?

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on November 11, 2014, 05:35:28 AM

The HF GH1 ASIC is a completely innocent piece of outstanding technology, and the customers who have been forced to lock in their preorder/MPP losses have been done a disservice by the eagerness of a tiny minority to enter endless, expensive, futile litigation.

Ok. Let's hail the HF chip to maximize return on the upcoming auction. But let's just for a moment entertain the notion that the HF chip requires close to the most expensive board design in the industry to keep it operating. If you don't have break-through technology to build a cost-competitive board for the chip, you're toast.

The only thing I don't understand is your role in all of this. The only rational conclusion which lends itself to making sense is that you were "in on the scheme" and the disruption by the bankruptcy deprived you of a source of income. Anything else would suggest that you're suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.