HashFast - or why the fiat legal system doesn't actually exist and doesn't actually matter

Monday, 08 December, Year 6 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Hashfast was for a brief year one of the less performant, less successful Bitcoin ASIC miner manufacturers. It never delivered huge piles of hardware, like Asicminer. It never defrauded immense piles of cash out of a generally gullible and clueless public, like Butterfly Labs. It wasn't a completely imaginary forum spawn like PrimeAsic and so many others. It just - you know - middled.

It made promises it failed to keep, of course, like all the others. They just weren't that big promises, nor were they believed all that muchi and so... whatever.

A few judgements against it later, the thing filed for bankruptcy, after which the guy who ran it turned out to have massively defrauded it, after which they threatened him with...

What do you threaten someone with, in the SOPS system of "law" ? Suppose someone steals your car. Just like that, from the parking lot. Oh, that's Grand Theft Auto, right ? What is it, 6 by now ? They get sent to this place where they run over cops and pick up whores off the street. Or suppose someone just moves into your house. I mean, exactly : you go off for a vacation or a family funeral or whatever, they break in, show fake rental agreements they printed out on your own printer and signed themselves to anyone who might inquire and then start selling off your furniture and drinking all your VSOP, stuff like that. Then a young cowboy named Bobby Boy is going to show up and... well... ask them to move down the street. While flirting with the sluttier teens among em. Right ? Fucking convincing all of this, seriously.

So, they threatened him with a... hold your breath now... avert your eyes now... click here to certify you're actually ready to read what you're about to read... send pregnant women away lest they abort for this may get bloody... ok, all seated ? Here goes : the ferocious, the unforgiving, the very bane of existence itself. THE CIVIL LAWSUIT!

I need a moment to draw my breath.

Or two.

Yeah, seriously. They threatened him with a civil lawsuit.

To which the guy promptly replied with a resounding "fuck you", also known as a personal bankruptcy threat. Which resulted in a settlement! Here's what the guy's punishment (recently published on qntra) sounds like :

Only one qualified bid, submitted by Simon Barber, was received prior to the bid deadline. All other timely bids were determined to be non-qualifying because they consisted of “lowball” offers that were not of interest to the Debtors or the Committee.

Guy's buying his own company from the creditors. Let's see the terms!

The price offered for the Barber Claims was comprised of the following consideration:

Mr. Barber shall pay to the debtors the sum of $20,000, payable as follows: $10,000 upon entry of an order (the “Sale Order”) approving Mr. Barber’s bid as the winning bid and authorizing the Mutual Release (defined below); and $500 per month over the 20 month period beginning on February 1, 2015 (until such time as the remaining $10,000 has been paid in full).

Check out that deal! You can buy the assets of an ASIC miner company for the eminently NOT lowball offer of 20k, of which 10k in cash and 500 a month for a year or two. I think I have single servers that cost me more than that.

It gets better :

Mr. Barber and the Debtors will enter into a broad mutual release (the “Mutual Release”), which will cover any and all remaining pre- and post-petition claims of Mr. Barber and the Debtors against each other (but shall not release Mr. Barber’s right to receive any unpaid wages)

How's that for punishment! Defraud a middle player in the most important market in the world, get back wages.ii But consider the offered justifications :

Difficulties to Be Encountered in the Matter of Collection.

Mr. Barber has provided a personal financial statement to the Debtors’ CRO (Peter Kravitz) and to counsel for the Committee (Ashley McDow). The financial statement was provided in strict confidence and subject to an agreement not to be shared with anyone other than Ms. McDow and Mr. Kravitz.

Mr. Barber has agreed that limited facts may be shared with the Court and made a part of the public record in connection with the filing of this statement. Mr. Barber has sworn under penalty of perjury to the accurateness and completeness of his financial statement, and any material misstatement or omission would be grounds for the voiding of the sale/settlement with Mr. Barber. Mr. Barber’s financial statement shows that he is currently insolvent on a balance sheet basis. It shows that Mr. Barber would be unable to respond to even a mid-five figure judgment. It also shows that he has no material unencumbered assets, and that his encumbered assets (primary residence and vehicles) have no equity. Mr. Barber does not have the ability to fund a defense of any cause of action and would likely be forced into a chapter 7 if forced to defend against claims brought by the estate. The financial statement suggests that such a chapter 7 filing would be determined to be a “no asset” case. Accordingly, the Debtors and the Committee believe that absent a settlement, it would be very difficult to collect anything at all from Mr. Barber, even if a judgment was already in hand today. This factor weighed heavily in the Debtors’ and Committee’s decision-making.

So, some random schmuck, exactly literally a bumiii, was misrepresented as a CEO and as a businessman by the "investors" and the "creditors" and - by their proper name - all the various retards congregating on retardstalk.org. Because apparently equity is no longer a prerequisite to being in business or to being an officer.iv

Second, the auction of the Debtors’ assets was cancelled. As a result, significant assets remain in the estate. There is a reasonable likelihood that Mr. Barber’s technical expertise will be needed in order to efficiently monetize those remaining assets. Mr. Barber’s bid for the assets includes a provision that requires him to continue to make himself reasonably available for such purposes at a pre-arranged rate once the initial period of support ends. Such a provision will also be important because there will likely be litigation claims pursued by the Committee or the Liquidating Trust. Someone with knowledge and familiarity with the Debtors will be needed to respond to basic factual questions surrounding the operations of the Debtors. Mr. Barber can do those things.

Isn't that sweet. "The home invader is the only guy that knows where he put my slippers, let's feed him and pay him a salary so he'll tell me". Justice is so eminently being served, it's almost allegorical.v

Third, assuming the accurateness of his financial statement, Mr. Barber is paying over a significant portion of his liquidity at closing, and will continue to make payments for the next 20 months.

Yes, because the claims to future payment of the bankrupt are to be taken at face value. Seriously, Jessica... has Mr. Mickelsen stopped beating you yet ? He did right ? Good for you, dumbass.

Finally, other than his claims for unpaid wages, Mr. Barber is also releasing all of his claims against the estate. This includes his timely filed indemnity claim and any claim for delinquent payment of wages under California labor law. Under the circumstances, the Committee supports the sale (and compromise) of the Barber Claims to Mr. Barber.

Right-o. Because the fraudster also has rights and errything.

Let's get back on topic here : GPG Contracts.

So what now ?

Well... I'm glad you asked. There's a spiffy young fellow I'm betting on : the GPG Contract. He's also a. an agreement b. reached by willing participants. But that's all.

What do I mean "that's all" ? I literally mean, that's all. A contract which is entered into by willing participants and won't be enforced. Nonsense ? IKR!

If you think what's being contemplated here is a move from the old, fiat contracts which were enforced to new, gpg contracts that aren't you're living in a dreamworld. Lay off the crack pipe, it's bad for you.

Currently, contracts are not being enforced and everyone is lying about it. An alternative where contracts aren't going to be enforced and everyone is honest and upfront about it is better for everyone. Do your Due Diligence going in, like you should be doing it today anyway. End of story.

There's no point of keeping the old contract and all its ancillary evils (courts, lawyers, the entire political system of the "democratic" state) on respirators anymore. They're dead as Disco, time to move on. Contracts that the parties enter and the parties respect or don't, that's it.

That's all.

  1. This is mostly a matter of circumstance. Consider this exchange :

    danielpbarron is 15% monthly gains considered a conservative estimate or what? are the tardstalkers still so gullible?
    mircea_popescu danielpbarron these numbers are i suspect based in biology. they're not about to change.

    Why do you suspect this is STILL where the forum is, years later ?

    But then again, that's a strange kind of question. A little like asking "why do they have infinite hitpoints" or "why does fraud still exist", isn't it ? Why do teenagers still get pregnant ; why do people still take consumer credit ; why is the cash advance business still in business ; why do in-their-own-mind-businessmen still buy online advertising. The reason is always the same, and not bloody likely to ever change :

    The vizier's daughter cost less to have than she cost the vizier to keep, it was true of Judah and Tamar, it's going to stay true up on the spaceships, it's just how it goes.

    Consider also the discussion of human nature with jurov. Consider that it is exactly, but I do mean exactly what the human female is biologically conditioned to do. There's no direct benefit to being impregnated, but nevertheless being impregnated is an absolute biologic necessity. So then of course, female thinking will fail in exactly the manner it is designed to fail : for "everyone's" benefit. And since there's no such thing as pure examples of gender much like there's no such thing as pure examples of race or of class, obviously you will get fundamentally sexed behaviour in fundamentally asexual fields. Like the she-investors that are still, to this day, favouring the "potential" and the "vast potential" and the "ample potential" of things that have no potential. Women think that way for a reason, and that reason is why you're even here.

    Irrespective of how much chagrin, misery, pain and assorted suffering the female judgement hole brings upon each and every alive female each and every single day, nevertheless statistically the behaviour does work, after a fashion. Which is how we're here.

    Obviously just because the behaviour in question is guaranteed to produce some statistical results in its original field (by the convenient limitation placed by the same biology on the other half of the same group, incidentally - because men aren't fucking aliens but also cuntspawn it follows that if you keep fucking and fucking and fucking you can't get fucked over forever, eventually you'll luck out and score a good one, no matter how too little too late that is for you personally) one can't go about blindly applying it in random, unrelated, statistically independent fields. The same mechanism that guarantees positive if marginal EV for the average female isn't there to guarantee positive if marginal EV for the average female investor. Nevertheless, biology is biology, and discrimination is a rare, expensive and consequently exceptional trait. Most females just get pounded, most female investors equally just get pounded.

    Sure, there's MPEx there, and has been, and has watched scams come and go and come and go and come and go. And it has watched the scammers claim "it could have happened to everyone" except it didn't happen to "everyone", just to them. And it has (through agents hired for the purpose) pointed and laughed at the she-minded investors, which predictably enough hurt their feelings and that's it, because the archetypical female is not capable of learning. And besides, MPEx is "difficult to use" (safety ? wut ?) and the brokers don't exist and you know, "it's all the same".

    On it goes, gotta keep the ovaries churning an' the milk flowing and so who exactly gets laid is more a matter of context and circumstance than anything specific. Obviously, there's a lot of pretense to the contrary, made by women to prop their "self respect", made by men to sell dating classes or whatever. But the fact remains that tonight most women will be fucking their husbands and boyfriends, ie, the accessible. Few will be fucking the best guy they saw that day, and virtually none will be doing it while having a more accessible (ie, cheaper), worse alternative. For which exact reason "Apple isn't even overvalued at all". It's there, right ? How could it be bad if it's available ?

    I'd say something like "stop being such a pussy", but honestly... I kinda like piles and piles of pussy. So... no moral to this story, don't you ever change, you're great as you are. []

  2. For what it's worth, the author of the pets.com meltdown, one Julie Wainwright received 235k in severance on top of a 225k as a "retention payment" to close down the thing she bankrupt. And who paid ? One Ann L. Winblad, who also didn't get hanged for the ineptitude, but instead gets to go about pretending like she has a history of success and everything.

    Definitely, let's have more women in charge of things. Splendid idea. Their native ability to think is so valuable in the world of business you're guaranteed to get fucked with them on board. And what else is an investor ever looking for than getting fucked ? []

  3. What is your definition of "bum" if not "individual without equity" ? []
  4. Can we get more women involved in public affairs yet ? Clearly the female perspective is not only welcome but actually useful! Let's be more tolerant, let's have less of a clue and so get laid more! []
  5. Oglaf has the full story :
    oglaf-morality []
Category: 3 ani experienta
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

One Response

  1. [...] USG has unsealed the "warrant" it issued for the seizure of the Iranian tanker released by Gibraltar yesterday. Far more [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.