Doesn't this little Limitations of Liability snippet in the HashFast ToS screw anyone trying to get their full BTC refund? As it says that HashFast's liability cannot exceed the Purchase Price "paid" [at the time of payment.]  Ouch... Except, they are offering a settlement check of the purchase price + 5%. So we can only assume they have nullified their own limitations by agreeing to offer a higher settlement. Also, if the purchase price was 50BTC of virtual property...then 50BTC they must return.  (IMO) |
|
|
|
The problem is if you actually do the numbers.
The Monarch will:
--Make you less BTC than what you paid for it.
--If you are using USD then just buy BTC and save yourself the hassle.
--There really is no scenario given their 65nm debacle where you would want anything they have to offer.
There are people selling miners right now off the shelf. Why would you even entertain the notion of buying from BFL?
They can't even justify buying from them at the reduced prices and couple that with no guarantees they will ship 'on time'. [All this] from their moving and amorphous estimates, why would you even bother? If you know the reality there is no reason then to buy from BFL:
--BFL doesn't offer refunds ever.
--BFL is always late.
--BFL has never hit specification they have set.
At this point the only people buying their product either don't know the history or are paid by BFL to promote BFL hardware. The only other alternative is they are misinformed or deluded into believing BFL will deliver as promised.
Oh so it is an attack on our product development.
Let me clarify.
1. We took 0 BTC / USD from the community.
2. We set a development timeline and are admittedly a few weeks late but our members are ok with that as we want to get it right and when I invited you Inaba and Fractal and others to our design meeting you turn me down I wonder why?
3. We pay for all the development in house we don't collect coins or dollars to get our product prototypes completed.
Unlike BFL the Wasp Project Collective is:
--Not setting timelines to scam anyone,
--[Not going] to hype product pre-sales as we are not selling finished modular miners directly to anyone.
--We have an open source hardware project that will be released when it is ready not before as we all agree 52 members strong we do not want to be like BFL or others taking money for an incomplete design.
Hope that helps.
-------
I suppose he didn't address any of the points with regards to:
--BFL being late,
--Under spec
--Obviously a bad choice to buy from given their RMA response time
--The fact that 13 months late is "not a problem" for them.
I have little doubt our Wasp prototypes will be working well before the Monarch and we started designing our PCB after them and have no where near the same budget.
Let us compare where we are now:
--We already have packaged ASIC chips in hand both 55nm and 28nm,
--A completed PCB design and people who have the requisite skills set to achieve a positive result.
BFL?:
--No packaged chips,
--No PCB design except a dummy board with no traces on it,
--A "team" that has failed to deliver every product they have ever made on time, and to spec.
If I were looking at what we have vs BFL and their Monarch then it has to be [a] no contest we are well ahead of them at this point. The biggest difference is you can't pre-order our products and that means no one is going to lose a single satoshi BTC if we fail. Unlike BFL customers who have already lost any chances of a ROI on the Monarch.
Numbers don't lie.
Modified for Readability.You've sold me, tell me more about your product? |
|
|
|
My guess. An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemWas I right? As you know I have him on ignore. You sir, are an....ESPer! |
|
|
|
|
You just know they are going to force their customers to adopt accessories such as custom rigged cases to house these things. (Quick someone quote me for future reference.) Otherwise they won't be held responsible for any damages. (just wait for Inaba to confirm that)
Can you imagine the laughter BFL support will have when their general Monarch users main complaint is that the tubes from the Monarch are too big to leave the case safely?
Whats that? You sliced through a plastic tube due to a sharp edge and water leaked all over your Monarch and the PC hosting it. NOT our problem! (You know, people better buy insurance on these things!)
------------------------
Whats that? Support is receiving a tons of emails from angry customers because a fancy metal tube came in contact with an electronic component and fried a motherboard. (Don't worry, it looks like they are switching to rubberized tubing...we all hope!)
|
|
|
|
Calm down folks, if Heatsink design was any indication of BFL's technical prowess... ...well, the water cooling should be a bag full of laughs.   Holy hell, I bet they (Monarch customers) will be pleased by either the defective (low quality) chinese pumps or an issue with connecting their rigs to a tap water supply. This is after all BFL. The radiator will probably leak or it will be undersized and never cool the water fast enough. I heard it was already supersized once already. [I say that in jest, but you just know it will happen again!] The only solution is to connect the loop to the [water] mains and forgo the radiators. The roaring fans noise will probably be replaced by the low quality pump slowly grinding it's customers into maddness. Not only will it guzzle electricity but also raise your water bill. We shall be having funny discussions on G/Gh (Gallons Per GigaHash) ------------------ Then again, if you are a Monarch customer chances are you are probably already incredibly ill-informed and will connect the pretty red tubes to the matching hot side of your sink. A ROFL RMA follows.... |
|
|
|
I am currently testing (and perfecting) a simple Trailing Stop Loss strategy using butter-bot that should... I say... SHOULD be profitable no matter the market conditions and no matter how many people are using it.
In a few day I will post the entire layout of the strategy here so that everyone can pick it apart. Find holes and or help me make improvements to it.
 Keep us all posted on your progress. This is the best I could arrange given your ending date and general settings. (I moved to 1 hour intervals) |
|
|
|
You might be mixing TehFiend up with me. I worked for Intel doing direct development down to 14 nm, and some very speculative process research that is still at least 3 generations out. I retired this spring in no small part due to some excellent investment decisions made because I knew Josh was lying and BFL was incompetent back in 2012.  Heehehe. There are quite a few knowledgeable people who here in these forums that have mentioned all along about those 2 things. Thanks for trying to help people see that. HF seems to be tapping the same vein unfortunately. Damn hes' right. But TheFiend is a genius. So is my friend Entropy-uc. They beat down poor Inaba in every argument with logic, common sense, facts and experience. I am sorry for the mixup of identities. My hats off to you both. (P.S. For those who don't know, Inaba called Entropy-uc (a professional by trade) all sorts of indecent names just for commenting on his silicon packaging and dodgy practices / claims. Inaba agitates easily, so approach with caution.) |
|
|
|
I optimized your settings. Can someone beat my settings? (its a contest right?) I didn't optimize it "in depth" since I was looking at 1) how to scale trades properly given a specific timeframe 2) has mostly green throughout 3) Works extremely well during a long term bear market 4) develop a simpler method for optimizing settings within 2 hours. Which is what I more or less wanted to achieve. I took a pic at 3 months 6 months and 1 year so you can see how it performs without the prominent growth from earlier in the year.  Edit: You got 10677%... I got...13104% |
|
|
|
|
Speaking of Luke,
Did he ever get the HashFast Engineering sample to connect and work again? Or is it still down?
|
|
|
|
What I find ironic about this (and everyone else who's complaining) is the fact that so many people cried for the longest time about BFL and about how "You are required to give refunds if you don't ship in 30 days, the FTC says so!!!!!!1!1!" (which is wrong, by the way, but whatever) - now that it's happening, the same people are crying about receiving "forced refunds."
So which is it, do you want forced refunds according to the commonly held misconception about the FTC or do you want your hardware? You can't have mutually exclusive results happening simultaneously.
inb4 "But this is different." ... It's not all that different than what BFL went through. We had engineering problems, HF is having engineering problems. I have no doubt Hashfast is working as fast as they can to get the product out the door and everyone at HF is having sleepless nights over it. I have no inside knowledge about it, obviously, but I can imagine what they are going through. Could/can they handle things better? Yes, absolutely, just like there are many things about the sequence of events that BFL could have done better about. Unfortunately, neither BFL nor Hashfast are large, multi-billion dollar corporations that have the resources to do that... we are a few people, bitcoin nerds mostly, trying to deliver a high demand product that grows exponentially before ones eyes. Any time you come to these forums spouting your typical BS I feel obligated to refute it for those that might not be aware of all the facts. You can blame the massive BTC loss the majority of BFL customers experienced on "engineering problems" but the fact is that you intentionally misled your customers about the true nature of those engineering problems and their effect and your schedule. Either that or you are completely incompetent as anybody can go through all of your public posts/updates to see that either you were blatantly misleading/lying or just had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. There's no third option involving "engineering problems" as shown by how quickly both Avalon and KNC were able to bring ASIC's to market. HF would have to be another 6+ months late with dozens of "2 more weeks!" to come even close to the level of failure BFL exhibited. You don't have to be a billion dollar company to be honest with your customers... You can "refute" all you want, but until you can bring some proof to your refutations, they are meaningless... just like you. Just because you wish a thing to be so does not make it so... so keep wishing as hard as you want, see how well that serves you. My statements and estimate were 100% honest, just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less true. I don't know what's going on with Hashfast or what they've said, etc... and I'm not speaking for them in any way, just countering your mindless BS that has no basis in reality or fact. Inaba = Josh = BFL's Chief Operations Officer TehFiend = Ex-Intel® Research/Development (if I recalled incorrectly, please correct me) Worked on process nodes for Intel®, as low as 20nm. Another satisfied customer: https://forums.butterflylabs.com/post-sales-customer-service/7588-bfl-you-joking-me-order-100091147-a.htmlDear BFL,
I feel like you are joking with me.
-I've placed my order on 4th Dicember - Order #100091147. The 50 Gh/s Bitcoin Miner was labeled "IN STOCK - IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT". This is the main reason i choose to order from you. The price was 2.499 dollars.
- No news for a month. Order in status "PRODUCTION": according to you FAQ, this means that the order is currently being manufactured. So IN STOCK, was a fake..
- The same item passed from 2,499 at 989
-On 2th Jan I've received the REFUND EMAIL from you: "if you still feel like your order is taking longer than expected, feel free to request a full refund prior to your order having been shipped." My order was still in status production, so I've emailed you the same day requesting the full refund.
-On 7th Jan I've received notification from you that my order was sent! No response to my refund email. I've sent another email, asking what was going on and requesting again a full refund.
- Today, my order is on is way and i've received a reply to my emails: "All sales are final according to our terms".
Now, i see on this forum you have granted a full refund to someone, after the refund email.
I DON'T WANT the item, I WANT MY MONEY BACK:
- over 30 days from my order, despite the item was labeled as "in Stock, immediate shipment". It's now useless.
- I've sent you a request of full refund, according to your email. The request was sent when my order was in status "production", as you requested.
- The same item is now priced $984.00, down from $2,499.00.
It's all your fault, I've followed your instructions and belived to what you have advertised.
Please settle this down or I'll go through other actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, change of topic.
How many of you here have sent in your second wave of letters/emails telling HashFast that you do not accept their buy out/settlement (+5%) offers?
Post pics!
|
|
|
|
poor josh ... let me shed a tear on your poor fate ...
obviously, you can only compare hashfast's logic to your own company, because they are identical in the way to screwed your customers
As close to bingo as you can get. |
|
|
|
What I find ironic about this (and everyone else who's complaining) is the fact that so many people cried for the longest time about BFL and about how "You are required to give refunds if you don't ship in 30 days, the FTC says so!!!!!!1!1!" (which is wrong, by the way, but whatever) - now that it's happening, the same people are crying about receiving "forced refunds."
So which is it, do you want forced refunds according to the commonly held misconception about the FTC or do you want your hardware? You can't have mutually exclusive results happening simultaneously.
inb4 "But this is different." ... It's not all that different than what BFL went through. We had engineering problems, HF is having engineering problems. I have no doubt Hashfast is working as fast as they can to get the product out the door and everyone at HF is having sleepless nights over it. I have no inside knowledge about it, obviously, but I can imagine what they are going through. Could/can they handle things better? Yes, absolutely, just like there are many things about the sequence of events that BFL could have done better about. Unfortunately, neither BFL nor Hashfast are large, multi-billion dollar corporations that have the resources to do that... we are a few people, bitcoin nerds mostly, trying to deliver a high demand product that grows exponentially before ones eyes.
I hate to say it but Josh is the voice of reason here. The thread is completely polluted too. It would be VERY helpful if HF popped in and gave a bit of an update about the units they have shipped and what updates their boards need etc. You need to have your ears checked. BFL's Josh has pretty much done the same as HashFast. --Disregarded emails from customers for (many times) month(s) at a time. A little money can fix that fact. (fact, go read their forums) --Been unreachable through their phone system which often dumped people before reaching anyone. Again, a little money can fix this fact. (fact, go read their forums and this one) --Refused customers their refunds when requested. (fact, look everywhere) --Played games with their order processing status when customers asked for a refund. (fact, err I mean...they always claim..."a mistake") --Generated shipping labels and notifications that had no immediate shipping reality behind them. (fact, go see either forum) --Allegedly, shipped to larger customers first and out of queue in backdoor deals. (debateable, but believable) --Shipped to customers (out of queue) when they complained about not recieving refunds, or requesting one. Then feined/displayed ignorance until they "became aware of the error". (fact, go to either forum.) etc. Don't believe anything said by Josh. His reality distortion field will mess you up inside. |
|
|
|
The silicon wafers are at the packaging planet
at the packaging planet
the packaging planet
Which Planet might that be? Perhaps we now know the mystery behind the long wait times. It is the interstellar travel that takes a while. Bad chips? Solar radiation and poor shielding during space travel. |
|
|
|
With respect, a customer is a customer we are all in the same boat and therefore equally deserve our refunds.
I am joking Ian. Thought it was worth saying the joke that nobody would laugh at...yet amazingly HF would comply with anyway...reguardless of anyones wishes. I am unsure if that is Irony or Cynicism. |
|
|
|
I want my batch 2 refund before the ponzi collapse. Has anyone cashed the check and it cleared yet?
Knowing the current mood, a Batch 4 has already publicly stated he is trying to get his refund. I for one do not advocate Batch 2 to 4 saying anything publicly about refunds. Batch 1 is first in line and they must "cash out" first before they go broke. Batch 2 through 4 can have whatever is left of the company after Batch 1 is done with their own refunds. ----------------------------- Mods could we censure Batch 2 through 4? (Yes, I am half-trolling....half serious.) We need an orderly evacuation of funds from the HF accounts. Thankfully, knowing HF, they will ignore everyone beyond Batch 2. |
|
|
|
Edit2: I should state that scenario would only be true if HF really did sell off all of it's customers property (BTC) to USD at some point in the past. They would need 10x to buy it back and put it in the hands of the rightful owners. Screwed~! Since that we purchased miners and they proved to have them working, and possibly metric tons of them working, i think that the majority of us would welcome a fair amount of hashing power at a definite moment in time instead of the deserved refund. I know you probably don't want to say anything publicly about your case. Are you making the case that HF took your funds to develop a product (the BabyJets and Sierras) and then when it came time to deliver they simply returned 10% of your converted BTC property in USD rather than the full amount? Are you trying to say that HF had no intention to deliver on it's end? (MPP and the original hardware?) Edit: Actually, your right, if you didn't go for the 10% USD refund, you might be able to recoup the equivalent of the HF settlement through the use of the machine plus its MPP and then sell it all off to a third party. You'd never be made whole. But you'd be stupid to ultimately take their settlement...which seems to be very little in light of that thinking. It is probably the worst case scenario you could possibly imagine. (Well besides them going bankrupt) Edit2: I have a legal question, does this mean that HF is targeting BTC payors "unfairly"? Even if people didn't request a refund they are still being given a fraction of what they originally gave. Does this mean that HF has no intention to deliver the hardware + MPP if you originally paid with BTC? Say it ain't so! |
|
|
|
Do batch 2 clients get the extra 5% with our refund?
Assuming there are any HF funds left to dispense? If Batch 1 is successful, I am pretty sure Batch 2 through 4 will probably sue Batch 1 folks for the USD recompense. Though we all know in a sane world that is not possible. If they only had 600k from familial investors, and the rest (approx, 15 Million according to businessweek) came from you all....then HF would only have about 600k if all funds were returned to their customers. Minus the costs to date @ 28nm and R&D... 50BTC per Batch 1 order. x 200 orders ~ = 10,000 BTC (obviously some of that was straight forward USD payments...so it is nowhere near that) 10,000 BTC @ Todays rate x 840 USD = 8.4 Million 10,000 BTC @ Yesterdays rate x 100 USD = 840,000 Edit: And if you do the math like HF wants it: 1,000 BTC x 100 840,000 USD (@ ~ -90% deduction) Edit2: I should state that scenario would only be true if HF really did sell off all of it's customers property (BTC) to USD at some point in the past. They would need 10x to buy it back and put it in the hands of the rightful owners. Screwed~! |
|
|
|
Thoughts? Yes, HF's lawyer would be a problem. He has a good reputation. I think the facts of the transactions are the real problems. Even their lawyer can't perform miracles. They can only delay, obfuscate and confuse the issues. As long as you know what was said/promised, this is relatively easy. ======================= They promised (in writing) and (as self represented) a refund in multiple avenues of a specific type and condition. Even if they shake their lawyer in the hopes that he will come up with something....he's probably just gonna go for "persuasion". Those checks in the mail probably aren't HF's ideas. They are probably the lawyers ideas on how to get around the impossible scenario they have gotten themselves into. The silence that followed is probably the extra Advice for HF's employees and representatives to follow. Lest they get themselves even deeper into shitstorms. All speculation of course, no actual reason to say otherwise though. I'm not an expert on US law, but where I'm from you can cash a cheque & still remain able to claim the remainder of what you claim to be owed.
You have to reply to them promptly in writing (make sure to date and photocopy the letter before sending it) saying "I have received your cheque as partial payment against the $xxx/BTCxxx owing to me as a refund from non-delivery of my [product name]. Please promptly pay the remainder outstanding, which is $xxx/BTCxxx." If you want you might also give them a deadline after which you will charge (a reasonable) rate of interest. Obviously, if you're claiming BTC back you will need to show how you have calculated their USD payment against the BTC balance.
Meanwhile, cash the cheque before they realize what you've done & stop payment.
I'm not a lawyer, but i did study fair trade law to 300 level at uni & there was case law supporting this. I'm sure there will be a similar law/precedent in the US but you should probably check to make sure. Again, not 100% positive about the US, but this worked in a case even where the cheque was sent with a note saying it was "final payment". It could be a way to play Hashfast at their own game.
You could do that, but that just adds an immense complication. You'd be better off writing the letter first and giving them notice and wait for their response. (while not cashing the cheque.) Still interested in any reports from the wild of cases where "forced refunds" are issued, either for people who paid in USD or for people who are not Batch 1 (regardless of form of payment).
It's not really my thing, but I think you guys that paid BTC in Batch 1 ought not to fall for their terminology. Don't call those checks "refunds", call them "unsolicited attempted buyouts" ("UABs") or something like that. Winning the terminological battle can be important.
Follow this guys advice. You should probably also stop calling your BTC money and consider calling it "a transfer of property" while you are at it. A property which inherent value is worth XXX,XXX USD. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
